DoctorK

I think they are trying to find new ways to balkanize the contestants into artificial groupings; they have gone through men vs women, young vs old, and I expect to see some time soon tall vs short and left handed vs right handed.

Hey Baby, I may be broke but I sure look good! And looking that good costs money!

Thanks, you saved me some time. Plaintiff was a complete arrogant asshole and a fool on top of that. I don't think anyone could be stupid enough (especially a self-proclaimed lawyer!) to bring in only copies of key documents unless he had doctored them and thought that JM wouldn't notice. Plus he did a ridiculously bad job of faking them. The defendant's junk yard looks sort of sketchy but I enjoyed the guy's laid back approach to being in court. As a side note, I always listen to litigants claiming that a wheel came completely off without any warning due to loose lug nuts. If the lug nuts are working loose, it takes a while for them to unthread all the way off, and the wheel will wobble badly. For the wheel to come completely off and fly away without a lot of tire noise and wobbling all or most of the nuts have to come off at the same time. Us ancient drivers learned decades ago that if you are changing a tire on the road and you drop all the lug nuts and can't find them, you can temporarily take one nut off each of the other three wheels and spread them around the nut-less wheel. Losing one or two nuts will not lose the wheel. I see several scenarios in which the wheel could have come off as described: 1. If an axle breaks, the wheel and part of the axle will come out suddenly, in seconds or less. 2 If the wheel is damaged, defective or has stress cracks (possibly from gross over tightening) the wheel can come apart especially if it is a cast wheel like most fancy ones. 3. If the wrong lug nuts (or lug bolts) were used, they can damage or strip the threads since an impact hammer used to tighten the lugs has enough torque to strip either the lug or the nut or both if the threads are mismatched, leaving the wheel not secured. 4. You run over an anti-personnel mine. (If it is an anti-tank mine instead, most of your car will be gone and you will notice that immediately.) If you really want to put oversize tires with fancy rims on you ancient big old hooptie, go to a shop that does this for a living; don't go to a junk yard.

Okay, I am having deja vu again on the fake dreadlocks case. The case and the plaintiff are very memorable. The plaintiff is a blue eyed white woman with Native American themed jewelry and middle names of "Willow Wind" (nothing wrong with any of this, it is just unusual enough to be memorable, like a man who is seven feet tall is more memorable than a man who is 5' 9"). Maybe it was a case on a different court show or maybe just a coincidence. If I see a third case someday with so many similarities, I might think I am living in The Matrix world. eta: I watched through the whole one hour case which seemed to go on for longer than that. Now I really dislike the plaintiff. She was going in for a BONANZA! award, $4000 for a redo by a stylist who charges about four times as much as the defendant. Plaintiff made a lot of claims that she did a piss poor job supporting, with pictures that don't seem to show anything, and an expert's statement, except that the "expert" statement is very shaky, says that the defendant did a lousy job but nothing about the plaintiff's major claims, and also the "expert (absolutely no documentation presented to verify her expertise) throws in some pop psychology about hair with no indication of training or expertise. The final nail in the coffin for the plaintiff was when JM finally dragged out of the plaintiff that the "expert" who wrote the statement did it without seeing the hair! She just consulted with the plaintiff via texting. Defendant counter suit dismissed because it didn't really have any basis. Plaintiff's case also dismissed. I think JM was getting ready to give the plaintiff back all of the money she spent with the defendant, but then JM found out that the "expert" didn't actually see the hair and I think that pissed her off so nothing for the plaintiff.

Today's first case, just a couple of low rent hustlers and chiselers, neither interesting nor entertaining. Second case, it was amusing to try to count how many times the defendant referred to "the back of my head" as the source of his defense. Unfortunately, the only things in the "back of his head" were ignorance, entitlement and a complete lack of ability to reason. Also, he was unable to read and understand the clear words of the release that he freely signed, thinking that he could then leave the plaintiff on the hook for his unpaid water bill.

We have heard this type of nonsense before. This is hilarious. Phony receipts? I am shocked! Wow, I am sorry I missed this one due to severe weather about 100 miles away from me. I will have to watch out for this to come by again on reruns. What a crap fest.

JJ can be a total fool sometimes and this happened here. The daughter broke her agreement on several issues and father was completely within his rights. JJ goes off the rails when the case involves a son or daughter who completely screws over a parent; just because she is a multimillionaire and offspring who negligently cost their parents thousands of dollars, she thinks that every parent is as rich as she is so they should just roll over when their kids screw them. I remember this case because of the daughter's unbelievable ignorance/stupidity and sense of entitlement and JJ gave her what she wanted. JJ screwed the pooch again because of her perspective as a multimillionaire. I suspect that she wasn't that softhearted with her children.

I really enjoyed today's Great Cat Piss Case. No one was evil, no one was stupid, nobody slashed any tires or smashed car windows, nobody got in a fight with a baby daddy's new girlfriend, nobody was attacked by a pit bull. Both litigants were fairly polite and reasonable (except maybe for the defendant's emotional attachment claim for his one and only sofa 😁). Just a not very important but fun case to watch, and neither litigant walked out angry. I am not sure I would like a steady diet of cases like this one, but it was a refreshing change of pace.

I think it is too late for that, he has a set lifestyle of ineptness and immaturity.

Me too! He schooled Tewolde on something that the judge should know. I also recall Juarez on the fish pimping aquarium flood case misrepresenting a judge's directions to a jury about one lie by a litigant ("if a litigant is lying on one issue, they should be considered to be lying on all of their statements" [paraphrased as I recall]). I liked these two for a while but am now having reservations about both of them and not just in these two cases. I have even found myself agreeing with Corriero a few times.

I actually enjoyed one of the cases on today's show. I don't even remember the first case but the second was a doozy. Not that the litigants were not the run of the mill dullards and chiselers as usual but the defendant was so awful that JM was genuinely really angry with her by the end. The defendant was lying in almost everything she said, and directly contradicted things she had just said to the judge minutes before. My first thought was maybe she is a pathological liar but I now think she is really stupid and her mouth is not connected to her brain so she just prattles on about whatever stray thoughts rattle around in her empty head. Incidentally, I absolutely believe JM was right that the defendant had to move her junk in a hurry because she had been evicted and was squatting until the landlord managed to get her tossed out, no matter how many times the defendant clumsily denied it..

I think that the "quality" of the ads that are presented during these shows indicates the type of audience the producers aim for. I could happily go through the rest of my life without hearing the phrase "pee proof AND leak proof" .Maybe it reflects on me badly that I watch the shows, but I'm old and don't really care. However my watching has fallen off the last several years. More entertainment in less time here at primetimer.

I think that "everything else" is going to be a short list.

Today’s first case was pretty messy. To start off, the plaintiff was very naïve about getting married and setting up a household, and I suspect that her mother may be a difficult to live with mother-in-law. However, the defendant really bugged me. To me, she was clearly a manipulator and fast talking hustler. This showed clearly on the whole “yes I agreed that I would pay my share of the rent but because of blah, blah, blah I didn’t”. Then she did the same thing on utilities, in both cases blaming her own non-payment on mother-in-law’s attitude and lack of respect. And boy was she fast talking through this bit of dialog. JM let her slide on several dubious things like that, but finally got back to them for her verdict which I think was well done. I hope the plaintiff has learned something and grows up some more before she marries again. For the defendant, I hope her future potential spouses see this show before they commit. Second case was a little strange. Showing the litigants before case started showed the plaintiff with his bet go-to-court t-shirt, but the defendant apparently sucked on a large lemon just before the camera started. She kept that sour and disdainful look throughout. As the case progressed (since it’s a court show should I say proceeded?) the defendant started looking really sketchy about shipping the wire and not responding to the multiple messages from the plaintiff. She guesses that the wire was stolen from his front door but has no tracking info (I use UPS often and they provide good tracking details (actually now also USPS does on most packages)). If she actually sent it, and it was delivered to the plaintiff all she had to do was go to UPS.com, enter the tracking number and get a copy of the delivery details. Plus, she sure kept that nasty disdainful sneer through the whole case, what a miserable person. How dare someone sue her! Unless she changes the way she does business, she should expect to spend a lot of time in court.

What a mess with the feuding neighbors and the fence battles. I was leaning towards both sides are equally annoying jerks for most of the case. Then we got two items to consider. First is the guy who did all of the fence work (for both litigants) who completely undercut the plaintiff’s claim about what happened on the fence relocating day. Even better was the great camera spying on the plaintiff’s bedroom window. She bragged about getting the police who (so she says) made the defendant take the camera down. Then the plaintiff proudly sent the proof of the camera spying on her with an actual picture and boy did she look smug about that. Then JM looked at the picture and pointed out to the plaintiff that what she was complaining about was not a camera, it was a yellow plastic sunflower in the daughter’s bedroom window. The plaintiff wasn’t fazed by this revelation at all, she was still wearing her self-satisfied smirk about the great proof she had provided of her evil neighbor’s nosy plastic flower in the window spying on her. Plaintiff has no self-awareness, but loads self-confidence and bile. I don’t know about the defendant, but at least he didn’t seem as nutty and memory challenged as the plaintiff. Also, the plaintiff clearly thought she should win because she is old (70, actually younger than me) and disabled and her husband died years ago.

Another day, another litigant I despise. The transmission plaintiff is entitled, overbearing, dishonest, chiseling and in spite of all of her fast talking indignation I am not sure that she could tell a transmission from a spare tire. She got caught by JM in multiple lies. The defendant was better prepared and in a better position than most litigants in car disputes and was overall credible. The plaintiff talked over JM repeatedly and JM was a lot more patient than I would be. Of course, defendant wants a bunch for pain and suffering. The only thing she was correct on was that she did not get the $2000 back from Zell (although I absolutely believe she got the payment to the defendant reversed by claiming “fraud”). I have helped remove and rebuild a clutch (many years ago) and I agree with the defendant that if the pilot bearing had been broken when they looked at it, they would have seen the fragments and told her it needed replacement (more work, more money). I will ding the defendants for not recommending replacing the pilot bearing and maybe the pressure plate while the clutch was open because it is fast and cheap to do while the clutch is exposed. For once, I am glad that they used the whole hour for this episode, there were enough details to fill the time.

I'm watching it now (on demand) and frankly it is boring. They are running through so many contestants in such short times that we don't know anything about them and can't really care which ones get in and which ones don't. The food doesn't look or sound interesting to me, and as mentioned above, I believe they are going for high visibility "characters", and lots of "background color and stories". A lot of the judges' comments remind me of the old fashioned "magic eight ball" which predicted the future by randomly showing trivial and inane "futures", just a set of boiler plate cliches. Maybe the show will get better when they shrink the field down to a manageable number?

It surprises me that apparently they don't. They have to be aware that many of their viewers also watch the other court shows so that we can pick up on these scams. At least I am reassured thanks to all of you who followed up on my initial post that I am not having delusions (at least not yet) and I can put the tin foil hat back in the closet.

I hate to sound like a broken record but today's case with Mr. Completely tattooed head with hipster glasses versus little miss innocent private school school girl (with net tats - huh?) really brings back memories. They were so memorable and striking in appearance, plus little miss using money borrowed from Mr. Tats to sneak off to Florida with another guy is just so familiar that I have trouble believing that I haven't seen this case before. One last thought before I put on my tin foil hat: on nominally new shows sometimes one of the cases has the litigants on remote as they did during covid. Maybe they are slipping in occasional repeat cases along with one actual new case as they are winding down the show?

Well, the candle fiasco was slightly interesting. I really disliked the defendant, he reminded of people I knew in the neighborhood where I grew up. It soon became clear to me that the defendant is a fast talking hustler with delusions of grandeur (internationally well known in the music industry? claiming a lot of internet followers is meaningless given the ease of faking those followers). Growing up we would recognize him as a run of the mill punk-ass hustler. As soon as JM found out that Mr. Big Musical Celebrity had all of the needed info for his case (amount he has paid, number of candles received, number of candles sold) except he couldn't be bothered to look them up before coming to court, she should have paid the plaintiff the cost of the candles and sent the defendant out to walk home; that was an insult to the judge. In the end, the plaintiff (who was looking for a Bonanza!) got some of the money and the defendant is supposed to send back the remaining candles and pay for the ones not returned (JM gave detailed instructions for shipping them back and when the plaintiff receives them to prevent either side from cheating). Added trivial note for the defendant: putting on a wide eyed blank look and sticking your tongue out of the side of your mouth doesn't work for anyone older than 6 years old.

Neither did I. I think Mr. Freakizoid is one of the classics. Throughout he was twitching but much to my surprise not sweating gallons. He obviously has serious problems that may be medical/psychological but my bet is on hard core drug abuse. Naturally Big Mamma has excuses for her screwed up son. The defense from tweaking son that the plaintiff went out and found a filthy mattress, used syringes and needles and even needle caps just to make him look bad is, shall we say, a bit hard to swallow. The son is a lost cause piece of garbage and Mamma the enabler isn't much better. I wonder if Mamma keeps Narcan within reach. I despised both of them. One is garbage, the other an enabler.

I have some problems with this case. While the defendant seemed a little flaky, I am hung up on the issue of whether the contract was supposed to extend to January or July. I would be very surprised if the defendant (who wanted to sell the car) would take a deposit to hold the car from October into the following July, especially for a classic corvette. Did the verbal agreement specify January as the defendant claimed? Did the written agreement have the month as "1" or "7"? I don't know and we didn't see the contract close enough to see this number well. I do know that (especially when I have been in Europe) a lot of people draw the number one with a prominent up slant to the top then down, looking more like a seven to us and that it is common to draw the number seven the same way but with an added horizontal line through the middle of the vertical line. I am OK with the result since the defendants sold the car and are not out any money. Personally, I think the plaintiff may have had buyer's remorse and the defendant was careless about with written document so the verdict was reasonably fair to both sides.

I was getting a little interested in the Great T-Shirt Case. Then Mr. Local Weatherman took over and provided about three minutes of actually important tornado warnings (although happening a couple of hundred miles away). However, he apparently wanted a lot of face time so he kept repeating the same info (with gestures of course) again and again and again ... . he ran over 22 minutes with his 3 minutes of info so I missed the conclusion of the Great T-Shirt Case. My life is therefore left painfully unfulfilled, woe is me. Think I can take Mr. Local Weatherman to Peoples Court to sue for mental anguish? If I get on the show I'll wave to you'all.

I really hated that guy. He was a lying blowhard who just keeps spouting words and non sequiturs and just running his mouth. He claims he never got any estimates (plaintiff showed proof that he did), then using a few pictures that his lady friend took at the scene he got his own estimates (BS, no way you can get a good estimate from just a couple of pictures) but it didn't matter because he threw them away so we just have to take his unsupported words for what they said. If you told him that the sky was blue, he would argue otherwise and support his argument with a bunch of hot air and BS and babble. I hated having to deal with people like that before I retired.

Am I the only one having a lot of deja vu from today's sheep killing case? It wasn't just the general outlines of the case, the details of the testimony, the evidence and especially the defendant's totally lame defense all seemed very familiar. I don't know, maybe all of the dog-killing -sheep cases with a totally irresponsible dog owners all turn out the same?