DoctorK

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.

Today's first case: The teeth the teeth! Maybe that should be the teef the teef! They jumped out so strongly that I barely noticed the dark roots. You don't have to be affluent to save up a few years to have those teeth fixed without a complete restoration; I would expect that to be a high priority for most people. If she doesn't do something, I see full dentures in her near future. Meanwhile, the defendant thinks the plaintiff (mother-in-law) hates him because he is uneducated. He says this is because he joined the marines instead of getting educated. The former marines I have known came out of the corps disciplined and goal oriented and pursued education and/or careers while this guy seems to be a complete loser. Sad all around.

Crazy as usual did a good job of covering this case but I need to vent a bit. The judges apparently thought that the defendant "Party Girl" was cute and funny. No she was not. She was ignorant, irresponsible, entitled and trashy as hell. Who invites 100+ drunks into the house they are renting after the bars have closed to drink more and party? Not surprisingly the Party Girl drinks and passes out at her parties, leaving the drunken "guests" to trash the house. When she manages to wake up the next day (probably by the crack of noon), she looks around and all the mess and damage and of course wants the landlord clean up and fix everything because that is the landlord's job (in her dim little mind). She confirmed this stupidity in the hallterview and is indignant because of course the landlord needs to fix up all the damage from her (paying?) guests. Corriero naturally was really charmed by the defendant and was his usual mush-headed jurist. From the pictures, the plaintiff did a great of restoring the house (white walls, beautiful dark woodwork, etc.) which leaves me wondering why he didn't seem to be even a little annoyed at the defendant whose actions caused him a lot of costly damages. I suspect that there is some relationship between in terms of splitting the money the defendant was raking in by charging "guests" and getting on this show was just a way to pick up some additional cash.

I am not familiar with Yidio, but having just watched the case, Yidio doesn't seem to have watched the same case I just watched. The case today ended with JM finding for the defendant (who gets to keep the money already paid by the plaintiff) and nothing for the plaintiff except a major scolding from JM to the plaintiff for being unreasonable, unrealistic and obnoxious. It also matches up with link to our original coverage of the case. Yidio seems to be off the track on this one, maybe having a senior moment? It's OK, many of us have them now and then.

Yeah, this is a classic, almost as much as the selling of a picture of an iphone case. Installing gas heating does not create a CO (carbon monoxide) hazard unless there are leaks which would be checked before finishing the installation, although a CO monitor is not a bad idea especially if you have a fireplace. Also, keeping the windows open two inches would not be enough to take care of CO poisoning and certainly not an acceptable solution to leaks. The only slim chance that these windows have a function would be in areas where naturally occurring Radon gas seeps into basements where the solution is ventilation of the basement areas. I would love to know who supplied these $500 custom Carbon Monoxide safety windows which sound like just windows with a plastic tab that holds the windows open two inches. This was sort of fun because the plaintiffs were such lousy people.

Yeah, he looked as rode hard and put away wet as she did. In this case only, I am not sure that he is really like that. He clearly separated his regular small change over tipping as friendly from his major loan which he treated as business. Also, he said something about being willing to go into chambers and privately explain to the judges why he couldn't be looking for intimate interactions which sounds like some kind of medical or psychological issue. Being in his age bracket as are many of my friends, I am aware of some situations would fit that scenario. I may be wrong, he may be a total creeper, but he didn't come across that way to me, unlike 99% of the similar cases we have seen. As always, YMMV. Yeah, and recently he has stood up for the legally correct verdict instead of his bleeding heart approach, and actually holds his own with the other judges which he hasn't been able to do before. Maybe testosterone replacement therapy? For whatever reason he seems to have developed a spine.

I was just thinking about her earlier this week. She had good concise logical comments and a sense of humor. I miss her contributions to the snark.

I really didn't like either of the litigants. Neither one seemed to be particularly bright and neither one had a clear idea of exactly what they had agreed on or who should have payed what to whom. Good verdict, nothing for either one.

Same here. All were boring and not snark worthy.

With all due respect, The facts of the case are very clear. The defendant and the oncoming SUV were stopped at the stop sign. The plaintiff was already in the intersection starting his left turn in front of the SUV and the e-biker. The SUV driver caught his error immediately and stopped, the e-biker did not and hit the plaintiff's car on the right front fender meaning that the plaintiff was in front of the defendant and the defendant ran into him while failing to yield, The defendant is factually incorrect, the defendant hit the side of the plaintiff's car. The police report was correct that the defendant was at fault. No matter how much the plaintiff was a total self centered jerk, he had the right of way was well into his turn when the defendant hit him in the side. Getting thrown over the handlebars of a bicycle, e-bike or motorcycle can cause really major injuries to a particularly important of the rider's anatomy. He was lucky. Same here, I think it is only the second time I remember agreeing with Corriero. All three judges tried their best to twist and warp the law to the benefit of the defendant but not even Corriero could do it. I am sorry the defendant was seriously injured , but the plaintiff was not at fault. However, if the plaintiff was a better person I think he could have taken an insurance payment and let anything else fall by the wayside.

I may be being unkind but this plaintiff had me laughing out loud. Her picture of the holes in the brick wall not only didn't show holes, it showed repairs (not fresh) so someone is maintaining the exterior. She didn't do any better with the wall to ceiling gap; when JM said that she couldn't see a gap, the plaintiff helpfully added that this was a picture of where she knew the gap was. Funny but also pathetic. The defendant was a bit peevish with the plaintiff, but after this impressive pile of non-evidence from the plaintiff, I understand his annoyance.

Today’s case was a little messy. Defendant should have been able to see the car doors open. However, the plaintiff was breaking the law by having her car doors open out into the traffic lane which is explicitly illegal in California. The plaintiff annoyed me on several things. She apparently doesn’t know the word “yes” but “uh huh” is her standard answer. She thinks it is perfectly OK for her to have her car doors open into traffic while she cleans her car, but at one point she claims the doors weren’t open all the way, which I don’t believe is true while she was cleaning out her car, while cleaning out your car you usually have to have the doors wide open. She claimed that the street is wide and showed a picture that (as one judge pointed out) showed that it wasn’t very wide and with her doors open a full sized car would have to cross over the yellow line to avoid her doors. She also came across as sort of snotty and entitled to me. In this situation I think both parties have some level of fault and I would have split the fault 70/30 against the plaintiff. Corriero continues to be an ass. The final verdict is to dismiss the plaintiff’s case because of her having her doors open into a traffic lane. They noted that the defendant didn’t counter sue to conclude that if they hit the defendant with 30% liability on the plaintiff’s claims while he gets nothing would be unfair. The plaintiff in her hallterview confirmed her snootiness (head back and talking down her nose) and sense of entitlement to my mind. As always, YMMV. Any bets on whether or not the plaintiff will continue to open her car doors wide into the traffic lane whenever convenient for her? I will say that even though I disliked the plaintiff, both litigants were polite and no one got nasty.

Yeah, I despised her also. I hated her theatrical wiping of non existent tears, and I don't believe she is clean. Her eye rolling and grotesque gesturing looked odd to me and her twitching looked like tweaking to me. JM was way too kind to her. I can do that routine sometimes myself, but not on national TV. I completely understood his argument, but he was just totally wrong and too foolish to understand that.

I enjoyed today’s cases because I didn’t remember any of them from before. First case was sort of funny, the plaintiff was slightly nutty but I did get a kick out of the nerdy defendant who decided to wear his best Star Trek uniform shirt for the case. The second case started out seeming like the poor little girl plaintiff was scammed by the evil male used car salesman. However, as the case progressed, it was clear that the plaintiff was either totally confused about the time line and her actions or lust a flat out liar. Once the judge unraveled the details, the defendant was actually quite reasonable and behaved appropriately and legally. It was a nice reversal. Third case had a plaintiff (who honestly looked like an arm breaking loan shark straight from Central Casting) suing the defendant for repayment of a loan. Turns out the defendant is a nut case and a liar, caught in blatant perjury in her statement which was clearly contradicted by her own sworn statement. The hallterview confirmed the defendant’s nuttiness and dishonesty.It was fun to watch JM really yell at the defendant. As long as they keep showing reruns that I don't remember, this show will stay on my viewing list, perhaps for quite a while.

OK, a new one tonight, new episode, same old script. Maybe I missed it but how did this family of people with no restaurant knowledge or experience open a restaurant with any hope of success? I am not going to analyze this show in detail, just make some comments. The first son we met was working his butt off but without any training or pizza making knowledge. Later we met the other two sons. I sincerely hope that in real life they are not the complete lazy worthless Jersey Shore punk-asses they played on the show. Really, social media influencers/owners? I did notice that after GR pulls off the miracle turn around to success, these two were not noticeably doing anything useful except making videos of themselves while everybody else (including a couple of people I don’t remember seeing before the miracle) were hustling. Dad shows up for the first time after the miracle restaurant make over is done. I don’t have any idea what his role (if any) in opening the restaurant and leaving it in the hands of his incompetent wife and the one hard-working but unskilled son. The follow up was lame, it just told us that in the two months after the show the restaurant is now very busy. I don’t know how long that will last before the GR aura fades away. Also, being busy doesn’t say anything about profitability and/or addressing the half million debt (which is undoubtedly running up interest charges. Oh well, GR was happy, people were smiling at the end and all is well. I give them six months before selling or closing. The number of followers doesn't necessarily mean success or a career or anything more than a short flash in the pan notoriety. There was no indication that they have built a brand with any utility, and the videoing there were shown doing on the show looked mindless, but how much of this impression was scripted by the show I don't know. I hope they are better based than what we saw.

These ignorant fools say this a lot on these shows. I just wish that one time Doug would look them right in the eye and tell them they signed a contract for binding arbitration and they can't go any damn place to appeal it. If one of these dim bulbs had their head explode, I would laugh, but they are too ignorant and stupid to understand this simple statement.

To me this was another uncomfortable case to watch. I understand that the defendant had major injuries from the accident that totaled the car, but some of her testimony sounded sort of off. She claimed that the car she bought was a salvage title but she wasn't told, but I don't see that that has anything to do with the case. The plaintiff found out the defendant's insurance paid off the car to the defendant for $5500 but the defendant "doesn't remember" getting it. I understand that she had a lot on her mind after the accident but $5500 is pretty memorable. Her story about losing her nursing license by not getting a $50 renewal fee in on time so she has to go back to college and start training all over doesn't sound right. I don't disbelieve her but she mentioned several other things gone wrong in her life (such as no medical payment from the insurance company because the accident was caused by weather conditions (?), and nurse with no medical insurance (not even subsidized ACA coverage (since she sound like she is living hand to mouth)) is surprising for a medical professional. I would have liked to know more about her professional status because "nurse" can mean many different things, and the income can range from fairly well paid for RNs (which comes along with high stress and horrible hours) to nursing assistants who tend to get meager pay and few or no benefits. Actually, the judges came up with exactly the verdict I would have given, plaintiff is due the unpaid balance on the car sale (based on sale price, not the $5500 the insurance and taking into account the $1200 already paid): Sorry for all the bad things that the defendant suffered (through no fault of the plaintiff) but that doesn't wipe out the debt she owed on the car. The plaintiff gets what she was owed and the defendant keeps the $5500 from the insurance company.

I noticed that, but it looked to me like he had a lot of makeup applied over the left side of his dace and around the eye. I think it looks like he has a major black eye that has been sort of covered up. He could have fallen or walked into a door. However, I would like to think that one of the other judges got so sick of his bleeding heart babbling that she let him have it with a good right hook.

Likewise, she should not do accident recreations when she obviously knows nothing about the subject and is woefully ignorant of inertia, momentum, angular momentum, basic intro geometry, etc. She really believes that she is so smart that she can reach conclusions based on her (ignorant) "common sense".

Oh well, good bye Tad, you seem like a nice enough kid but you aren't up to this level of competition. I noticed that when GR sent him home he didn't give him any of the "don't give up" pep talk he often gives. Both teams sucked badly and both teams got sent out of the kitchen before finishing, so I wonder if the diners went home without getting complete dinners. I recorded this show and forgot to turn on closed captioning so I still have no idea what Ryan was saying, but he seems competent. The promo for next week shows GR having his life "put in danger" apparently because somebody's pan flared up. GR saves everybody's life by carrying the flaming pan across the kitchen then dumping it (still flaming) into a sink. I thought that correct procedure to deal with this is to immediately slap a cover on the pan to suffocate the fire, not go walking or running with a pan of flaming oil. I am also concerned about the sink. Flaming oil and water are a very bad combination. Whether there was water in the sink or he planned to run water into the pan, this is really dangerous; even if his plan was to let the oil burn off in the sink, there is not a hood over the sink to pull out the smoke and CO2 from the fire. Actually, if people were really in danger, shouldn't he have pulled the fire suppression over the fire belching pan? Okay, I am being unreasonable, expecting reasonable and appropriate measures (which every chef should know) to control a fire in a pan. Silly me.

Actually, I thought I coined the eyeball part of this a couple of years ago. Psycho, I apologize for plagiarizing your rule without a proper citation.

Well, to be honest on this show GR is a complete asshole, but the pathetic Mr. Baskinger is a spineless wuss. I expect Bask46 is going down the drain in the near future, which happens often with restaurants "saved" by GR.