DoctorK

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.

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.