DoctorK

In the first case, I will accept that the defendant was sort of sketchy as a contractor, but the plaintiff knew this from the beginning. After watching the whole case, I believe the plaintiff is an out and out liar and a hustler. There is no way that all of the things she claimed to be in the estimate could or would be done for $450. I was also dubious about the “veneer” that needed to be reattached to some cupboards which had “fallen off”. I don’t believe they were veneer, they looked like inexpensive plastic laminate in a “woodgrain” finish. Real veneer may lift up at the edges or even bubble a little (due to poor installation) but falling off? No way. When she mentioned that she got a lawyer to give her a plan for getting thousands of dollars from the defendant, I figured it all out. The plaintiff is a hustler who planned to get all new cabinetry and a ton of high grade professional work on the defendant’s dime. I despised her and hope that any contractor or handyman who works for her will see this case and then run for the hills. I was afraid that Corriero was going to go bleeding heart and the other judges were going to feel sorry for the cute little smiling (and lying) plaintiff; fortunately they gave a reasonable result. The second case is about two young ladies who tried to start a web based high end hair product company. Unfortunately, neither of them has any clue about how to start and operate a company. A boring case, which we have seen many times before just with different litigant names.

Yep, he was a barrel of laughs in his hallterview. My favorite quote from him (I replayed it to be sure I got the exact phrasing) he "perpetrate me as a some lack of diligence guy". That is a gem of a statement. Even from the preview yesterday, the guy was creepy. He is of the old school of if he leans forward and juts out his chin while talking firmly, that constitutes evidence. And now he is ready to try another court to continue to "perpetrate" (actual correct usage including inference of shadiness) his futile crusade against the world. I would hate to have to deal with him.

"Teeth Trouble" was sort of entertainingly bizarre to be worth watching again. This time around I am convinced that the plaintiff is an addle-pated (lovely old fashioned term) old bat who has little connection with reality instead of a deliberate lying hustler. I felt sorry for the dentist who had to deal with her and I was very offended that the plaintiff stated that the dentist didn't really graduate from NYU Dental and needs to go back as a student (although the dentist said that he was about to join the NYU faculty). In our earlier round of snark on this case, there was a comment that the dentist's lab coat was inappropriate for court (I agree) and that from the side view the lab coat looked dirty (I looked and didn't see that, to me it looked like brand new, washed once no starch and ironed). In the used car case. the defendant ex-cop was foolish, as was made clear by JM and the plaintiff was just a complete dimwit, and, according to the defendant, a total slob who trashed the car. All's well that ends well, the plaintiff got some of her money back and the defendant kept an appropriate amount to make him whole plus a little for the bad behavior of the plaintiff.

I will probably give it a try but for me I think PC has run its course, everything gets stale eventually. I think JM lately has come across as more arbitrary and less balanced than she usually was before the last couple of years. I will miss the long run of snarking on PC (a target rich environment) here on Primetimer and of course in the wild and woolly days of TWoP.

I really didn’t like the case with the twins. It started out with plaintiff twin coming in with her circus clown hairdo and apparently her oversize pajamas. Other twin at least knew how to dress for court. However, these twins are both showing their age and I don’t think they are behaving much out of the norm for their age. I think everybody (especially JM) is missing a real issue with twins who have spent their life together, doing everything together. They have had 19 years to build up little irritations and resentments at home and a strong leader/follower relationship, now they are going into a crowded room together with all of the other external stresses of leaving home and going to college. These girls should never have roomed together; in fact they should have thought about attending different colleges and let them develop their own individual persons. A big part of going away to college is to dive into the deep end of life, meet new people and make new friends (and enemies) and become a self-confident adult. They would probably get along a lot better with some time apart. I do agree with JM about Dad, he should have been more involved, maybe sitting down with each twin separately before they decided on a college to attend. Based on JM’s counselling and the reconciliation at the end, these sisters are going to continue totally dependent on being with each other until something comes up to force some separation such as marriage, career requirements, etc. Everybody doesn’t live in JM’s world with perfect offspring. Harvey announces this was the last show. Goodbye to the show, I’ll miss most of it but not Harvey the clown.

First case was boring. The plaintiff was annoying and kept trying to interrupt the judge when it wasn’t her turn. The defendant was, I think, a sacrificial lamb sent in to take the fall, but JM was correct to find for the plaintiff. The defendant and his company need to reorganize the way they do business and maintain proper paper trails. Second case was the magic fuse box. The plaintiff had a lot of trouble stating his case. He backtracked several times on his story, maybe he is just disorganized. This can be a messy situation where repairs are needed, but fixing one thing (that may need to be done) leaves other problems unfixed. If things happened the way the defendant claimed, that the plaintiff bought a fuse box and supplied it and wanted it installed, then I am not sure that the defendant is on the hook to keep searching to find some other problem. It is a good idea to provide the prospective repair people with all of the symptoms that have occurred but not try to give them a diagnosis that may send them in the wrong direction. Anyway, whatever else may have been going wrong with this auction car, at least one more problem (a broken battery post) is acknowledged by everybody which suggests to me that the plaintiff bought a lemon. Later, we find out that the car had a broken ground wire on the starter and something broken on the throttle body. Yep, a piece of junk. I almost (bit not quite) felt sorry for the plaintiff as he got all tangled up in his story, garbled his dates and what he said about the multitude of places he took his piece of junk to, and what each of them said. JM was trying to work with him from the beginning, but it was clear after a while that she was frustrated about being unable to get a coherent story line from the plaintiff without multiple internal inconsistencies. Surprise, it turns out that the defendant’s daughter as manager paid the plaintiff $200 to settle and the plaintiff took it. This makes the whole case moot and a complete waste of time. On a side note, from the Cox program guide it looks like PC goes to reruns starting next week but the week after we get new Hot Benches (but since this is from COX I take it with a large grain of salt).

First case was another dog injured by another dog case. The plaintiff was a liar from the very beginning but when JM walked down to pet the plaintiff’s dog I was expecting her to go all mushy over the poor little injured dog. The defendant’s witness (and sister) was a lousy witness but I don’t think she was lying, just did a poor job of presenting her evidence. The outcome was OK, the defendant had already paid more than half of the amount the plaintiff wanted so JM ended it all as already paid so nothing more for the plaintiff. Plaintiff continued to make an ass of herself in the hallterview, she was angry that she didn’t get the BONANZA she deserved. The second case was sort of gripping, in the same way that a car crash can be. Neither of the litigants seems to be able to answer questions with anything resembling logic or coherence. The plaintiff is a pathetic clown, wearing his most formal go-to-court hoodie, and with drooping eyelids which I suspect was because he was high as a kite and nodding off. He kept talking out of turn in spite of several warnings from JM, but he kept doing it to the point that JM chewed him out royally, telling him that the way he was behaving in a court wasn’t helping his case (not that he listened or understood what JM was saying). The defendant plaintiff kept running his mouth even while JM is giving her verdict. I am not even mentioning him giving the defendant a black eye, although I think the defendant could have beat the crap out of the plaintiff if she decided to. Hallterviews – defendant came across pretty well, the plaintiff (not surprisingly) flew the coop without a hallterview, not surprising from a pathetic punk-ass woman beater. P.S. Asking the judges what they would buy with a billion dollars was sort of dumb but after JM wanted a private jet then JJ said he wanted the full 64 color (with sharpener) crayon box that he never got as a kid, I laughed at that (and I can remember only having the 8 or 12(?) color box as a kid.

Hmmm, I have gone to a lot of friends' weddings, and there may have been a couple where I might ...... never mind.

I was bored by the first case, another one about wedding pictures and plaintiffs who want to get their pictures for free by complaining about the quality of proofs from the photographer. Second case was only notable (as far as I am concerned) due to the defendant’s eyelashes. I think they were the biggest I have seen on the show. I can’t understand how these eyelash people can look in a mirror and think this looks good. I think it looks trashy and ugly. I liked watching the defendant on camera with her step-father (?) next to her. She was either nodding off the whole time the guy was talking or the eyelashes were really too heavy for her to keep her eyes open.

After reading more posts, I think I was wrong about this in my post. I blame it on the glaring black and white checkered patterns I still see whenever I look at a white wall.

That is really the only thing I can remember from this unmemorable episode. At least granular sugar and salt look pretty much the same but unless you are sprinkling, either one should be dissolved in the mixing step. I suspect that he didn't taste his stuff or did but just tried to bluff. However, this seems like such an obvious mistake to make, I don't know of any packaging short of sacks where salt and sugar are in similar containers. I also remember in previous seasons some contestants complained of sabotage (e.g., someone changing the oven temperature after the contestant set it); this may have happened here, and in previous episodes the show displayed no interest in reviewing the video footage for shenanigans, or at least showing the viewers. If they caught a contestant doing this, it would be such great drama that I would expect they would have used it. If it actually happened, that suggests that the show is screwing with contestants. I wouldn't put this past the show. After all, the way that they do the final five second count down, no matter what stage of finishing the contestants are at, they all miraculously finish up at exactly the same time on the final second. I remind myself that this is entertainment, not documentary and Reality TV is a misnomer.

I am pretty sure it was her son. At least his checks were fairly small, even though it looked like he was wearing pajamas.

Actually, I have but it was back in the early 1960's when I was 12 or 13 years old. I was doing lots of hobby electronics using mail order suppliers. My mother got tired of writing checks for me so she took me to the bank and opened a checking account in my name (of course she had to sign for it) so I could write and sign my own checks. I don't recall the details but there was a limit on the number of checks I could write each month. I learned how to balance my own check book and watch my balance, sort of a head start on adult life. I am pretty sure that monthly limits went away decades ago.

Okay, another day, more unlikeable litigants. First case was about a young girl and a cheerleading club or school or something. Defendant (cheerleading organization owner) was sort of scatter brained and not at all good at doing business. However, I hated the plaintiff mother with all of her terrible presentation of her complaints. More striking to me was the way the plaintiff hurt her daughter by yanking her out of the cheerleading (which the daughter really liked) because of her spat with the defendant, over a few hundred bucks. As JM pointed out to the plaintiff (who paid no attention at all) that the right thing for her daughter would have been to let daughter finish the cheerleading season and just find her another organization for the following year. Plaintiff got most of her money back (correctly by law even if I didn’t like it) because of the defendant’s lack of business knowledge and skill. The second case was about dog grooming and a bounced check. Plaintiff does a mobile dog grooming service and groomed two dogs for the Defendant. The defendant was a piece of work, loud, entitled, and completely unable to keep her story straight. She testified that she saw her dog had a problem in its ear after the grooming on the same day, then she changed to the next day, but her complaint said that it was a week later. From her description it sounds like the dog had excess wax build up in the ear (it this something groomers take care of or is it a vet job?) or ear mites which she never took to a vet to check out. Incidentally, the plaintiff’s head to toe (including purse) intense black and white checkered costume gave me a headache. Defendant’s story about the payments she made wandered all over the landscape, even at one point claiming that she sent $100 through a cash app but it turns out that she sent it to the wrong app (if she actually did send anything) but got it returned. Her son was just as bad a witness as his mother. Plaintiff got the money he was owed including the $12 bounced check fee (boy did the defendant hate that). The defendant continued to make a fool of herself in the hallterview.

That letter was pathetic. It wouldn't have flown even in a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. The defendants were awful people, manipulating a mentally unsound elder relative to swipe $3M (which we know they would piss away in a year and be totally broke-ass money-less again). I hope the Aunt's relatives are looking out for her, and I hope they will contact state social services to investigate elder abuse that I think the defendants clearly engaged in. As an aside, the "ask the judges" segment after the first case was about suing politicians for lying (really?). They put the question text up on the screen with the phrase "slander, (something bad I don't remember) or liable". Shouldn't a court show know the difference between "libel" and "liable"? Or do they just not know how to use the notation [sic] in a quote?

First case today involved two foolish people who were friends in high school and got back together decades later and got engaged two weeks later. The only notable part was the defendant’s blatant bald faced lying and it was proved by her own evidence texts! I think she is the most shameless liar I have seen on any of the court shows (and we have seen many world class liars). She waffled all over her lies in the hallterview and Doug called her out on it, but he could have hit her a lot harder. What a lousy liar and despicable piece of trash. I missed the second case due to breaking news that for once was actually important, useful and timely. Of course the station news guy had to get face time so after the real news conference he had to recap everything the real news said, thereby extending his five minutes of fame.

Same here. The only bright in the case was when defendant claimed that the photographer wanted to make pictures more sexual than she wanted to do. Connect that with the photographer telling her to cover up more of her ample boobage. I laughed at that, it reminded me of being in a strip club (decades ago) when customers started chanting "put it back on" instead of "take it off".

Today’s case was boring and trivial. I think the plaintiff photographer was a bit of a jerk and really overreaching in his damage claim. However, I hated the defendant. She is a babbling, chattering air head. JM jumped down the plaintiff’s throat when he talked while she was talking to the defendant but let the defendant run on, talk over the judge, talk to the plaintiff, and just run her mouth in extended babbling making no real sense. This case should have rated a fifteen minute segment at the most, not a whole hour. I tend to believe what someone suggested above that the show is going off the air and they are just slapping together left over junk to make “new” episodes.

Another day and we have more litigants to despise. On the first case, it took me a while to figure out what was going on. I think the bottom line is that the defendant was planning to chisel the plaintiff from the beginning by agreeing to $50 per bedazzled Croc (getting pretty ritzy here) then trying to argue it down to $25. Meanwhile the defendant gives the plaintiff an incorrect address to ship to so the Post Office couldn’t deliver and held the package for pick up. Then the defendant (allegedly) went to the PO and showed her ID but if I heard correctly, it had a completely different address, not just two digits transposed, so she claims that she couldn’t get the package. Meanwhile texts go back and forth and plaintiff reiterates that the shoes are $50 each pair. Then I think the defendant did manage to get the package (according to the Post Office documentation) and decided to just stiff the plaintiff and expected that the young and inexperienced plaintiff would just let it go. I am glad the defendant didn’t get away with her scam. The second case was a change of pace from litigants arguing over $500 cars that they bought from a guy in a parking lot. The plaintiff was foolish about almost everything and the defendant was dishonest about everything. I agree with JM who raised a concern about an 18 year old kid “needing” a $50,000 car (a used Audi). The whole deal is a mess. The plaintiff listed the car for $60K but agreed to sell to the kid for $48K (or maybe $50K), the kid needed to get his parents’ permission to take the money out of his investment account (I am unclear on this, was this maybe a trust fund?) so he lies to his father about the price. Then the defendant and daddy instead of just buying the car, go to a dealer of some kind (who turns out to be sleazy) who will buy the car (with a bouncing check) then sell it to the defendant with a loan (at 15% interest) but with a bunch of “required” extra charges like a warranty and other garbage for another $4000. The kid gets the car and drives the plaintiff home and begs her to give back the $1500 deposit he had given to the plaintiff originally so he could conceal the cost of the car from his father, which the plaintiff foolishly does. I think the case was actually more confused than my description. The plaintiff was foolish but the defendant was a jerk. Apparently his family is very well off while he is an idiot and a liar and a cheap chiseler no matter how much money he may or may not have. I also take note of his “witness” who never spoke, a bedraggled Emo punk-ass jerk, just like the defendant except taller.

First case wasn’t entertaining, it was sad to watch. The plaintiff clearly has serious memory issues and sounded a lot like my mother did in her last few years when she had trouble handling anything. The plaintiff was completely lost and in denial even about documents she had actually signed. The defendant lawyer seemed to have issues of his own though not as severe; at the least he is really disorganized. They were friends for 30 or 40 years and it is sad to see them lose the friendship but I don’t see any chance of the plaintiff giving up her unfounded grudge. The second case started as a standard complaint against a car repair shop but got strange as soon as the plaintiff started to talk. She sounded off her rocker from the beginning. When she claimed that the mechanic took off the new alternator and put the old one back in I knew that she was wrong or just making stuff up. A lot of what she said made no sense at all. The problems she described could well be caused by the alternator or some other part of the charging system but the car shaking is a different problem unless there is an electrical problem where the shaking shorts out some part of the wiring. The dealer info was worthless since they just listed the basic periodic maintenance items. I was getting fed up with the plaintiff pretty quickly, but JM finally caught up with me and flat out told the plaintiff that she was lying in a loud clear voice. For a final note, the plaintiff violated my rule that your eyelashes should not weigh more that your eyeball.

AngelaHunter is more patient than I am. First case is just another babydaddy vs. babymama conflict that includes (not that we haven't seen this many times before) a broke-ass unemployed litigant conniving to buy a BMW. This is OK because it is a "used" BMW and more importantly he is buying it in someone else's name. We have seen so many of these dysfunctional trashy litigants that it has become boring and unmemorable. Next case was also boring, an apparently normal home owner suing a hapless, irresponsible contractor who when he failed to do the work, probably (I agree with AngelaHunter above) just sat on the sofa and lit a big joint and mellowed out (and ghosted the plaintiff). Neither case inspired me enough to snark, just a few mild insults tossed at them.

First (actually second?) case: the Great Parking Lot Disaster. Plaintiff starts off explaining that she was there because her daughter had a session scheduled with therapist (psychologist or psychiatrist or something). She claimed that the session was only 7 minutes instead of an entire hour which has absolutely nothing to do with the parking lot fender bender. She “proves” that the session was only 7 minutes because her daughter’s phone can only record seven minutes (therapist had recommended that the daughter record the sessions). The therapist stated that the session was really 45 minutes (which I understand is the standard for a nominal hour session). After vehemently insisting that the session was only seven minutes, plaintiff now backs off and admits it may have been longer (I think she said 20 or 30 minutes). Ask her a couple more times and I am sure she will go to 40 and then 45 minutes. For me, this has already shot her credibility. Then JM grills her about the miniscule damage to her car and notes that the repair estimate states 2.5 hours to complete but she still needed to rent a car (naturally an SUV) for three days, and also threw in some Lyft rides and two days of lost wages. The lost wages issue is iffy because she doesn’t work on a schedule, just when she gets called in. On a superficial note (because I am a superficial person), what the plaintiff probably thinks is an endearing smile comes across as more of a smirk and sneer (you may notice that I really don’t like her). Come to think of it, I really don’t like the therapist very much either and the accident was at fault. The whole case was a waste of my time, especially as an entire show for this. Hallterview showed the plaintiff in even a worse light, throwing out insults. Somehow I suspect that the plaintiff was pissed off about seven minute (not) session and has a grudge against the therapist. Actually, having only one case per show may be a good thing. It gives me less to complain about. ETA: From following posters it looks like this case only seemed like a full hour show, I now remember the house contract/inspection costs case before it. Oops.

Don't forget your dishwasher.

PsychoKlown, your wish is my command. I turned on closed captioning and recorded the show because anything worth doing is worth overdoing. First case. The mush mouth was annoying but we have heard worse. The closed captioning really helped and it actually cleaned up a lot of the grammar murder ("dis" and "dat" and singular/plural misusage, to say nothing of present/past tenses), but I honestly would have FF'd most of this case. The plaintiff can’t control his temper even on camera; I don’t want to guess what he is like off camera. He handles his relationship like someone in middle school. The defendant uses the silly little girl persona to just blow off everything, and the whole “I pretended that I was going out with someone else but I was just taking myself out, all to make him mad" is also middle school at best. I despised both of them. Second case. The CC really helped with the defendant, his accent was pretty strong (I do the same thing for some British shows when the accents are really thick). The plaintiff looked spiffy and started off well spoken; unfortunately he is a complete liar about just about everything. A specific example was the damaged cabinet above the refrigerator which the plaintiff claimed was that way when he moved but he didn’t see until later. He is a big guy, probably 6’ or over like I am, that damaged cabinet would jump out at him every time he opened the refrigerator. The defendant’s picturs nailed the plaintiff as a complete slob and pig. The place was filthy (rotten food left in the dishwasher? Really?), multiple dirty foot prints on the walls, etc. If I heard correctly (I can’t bring myself to watch this again) he wanted $8900 back for security deposit and something else, and then another $8900 for harassment and mental anguish. Wow. Another day, two more cases, lots of people to despise. ETA: Maybe it was $8900 total, not $8900 + $8900. Either way, it spells BONANZA!

Another full hour case and I am glad they did, there was a lot going on in this case. The plaintiff confused me about whether she is a congenital liar or so air headed that she gives answers that just pop out of her head randomly. She really didn’t know any of the important dates, she was fuzzy on the eviction details, and doesn’t understand the concept of “month to month”. She also believes that rent is due on the first but it is perfectly OK to pay on the tenth or the twentieth or the thirtieth whenever she was short. She claimed that there really was only one broken window shade until JM pointed out the claim for three, and then she ad-libbed to “well maybe the kitchen one was broken too”. I was also flabbergasted when the plaintiff defended against the oil on the driveway complaint was that she didn’t dump the oil on the driveway – she dumped it on the grass (???). JM did not come across particularly well either. She can claim that contracting is in her heritage but doesn’t know that oil degrades asphalt (I used to see this often back in the old days when almost every car dripped oil when parked). More importantly, JM completely misunderstood the mediation result and only figured it out after the defendant finally found a key document (I was relieved when the document showed because the defendant was not good at presenting her case). Plaintiff ends up getting $114 (instead of $2800) and the landlord gets nothing, I am OK with that, although I would have given the plaintiff nothing because she is a fast talking airhead and liar while the defendant was just inept.