DoctorK

Back in TWOP days, this scammer was referred to as EBay of Pigs, Kelly something or the other as I recall. Not only not embarrassed, but in the halterview, she manitained that she had done nothing wrong because the ebay listing was a picture of a phone so sending a picture of the phone was completely legitimate.

I have loaned money to friends a few times. I have almost always been repaid eventually. For the people who didn't pay me back, I wrote it off but never lent them anything after that. It didn't occur to me to sue them. I guess I don't fit into the court show environment.

That idiot plaintiff illustrated something we often see on these shows, that no one can be as indignant as the terminally ignorant and/or stupid.

Maybe we can stretch the topic a little for unusual things said by people during the annoying on the street interviews? A recent one was about a he said/she said fender bender and Curt was asking people who should pay for the damage. One guy responded simply with "the one with the most money". Actually, Harvey, not Curt - Thanks goodogcarl for the correction, maybe I am stretching the topic more than I thought.

This was so blatant, it wasn't even a turbo prop. Maybe I can cut some slack for Ramsey because he is a chef and is totally ignorant of technology but where were the directors and editors? This is just as pathetic as when the History channel thinks that 50 mm is the same as .50 caliber. Reminds me of a situation where a tech editor kept changing "ordnance" to "ordinance" on reports on munitions.

On the dental office brouhaha, JJ had ended it with the defendant losing until she (JJ) walked back in with a Columbo-esque "just one more question" moment in which she called the defendant back and asked her if she was suing the doctor. As soon as the defendant said she was, JJ did a 180 and found for the plaintiff. I can sort of understand this, JJ couldn't see any reason why the defendant would be making this up (and perhaps inflicting her own wounds to make a better case) when she suddenly asked that question as an afterthought. With that piece of information, the defendant had good motives to exaggerate and fabricate key parts of the story to support her (multi-million dollar?) lawsuit against the deep pockets of the doctor. Like I said, I can sort of understand this, but not the way that JJ did it. Personally, I didn't trust either the plaintiff or the defendant.

Am I the only one who noticed that on this week's exciting "new" shows, not only did some of the "most angry" bars overlap with "toughest rescue" bars (not too surprising) but that they actually used some of the exact same footage in both episodes? It was really obvious in the J&A whatever bar, kitchen scene where unidentified shaved head guy in the back is smirking while Taffer chews out the cook. Jeez, they aren't even pretending anymore. Next week, do we get Jake Taffer's 10 most painful toe stubs, followed by Jake Taffer's 10 most jarring color schemes? This could be long running franchise, because we all know that Jake Taffer is the most interesting man in the world.

Wow, that makes a lot of sense. When will we see the prize being a fabulous shopping spree at the Dollar Store?

Oh my, I really don't know what to say about the Mr. Poopy case this afternoon. The plaintiff was sort of funny, when JM [corrected from JJ] said something to the effect that most people would be too embarrassed to come on TV with this story, he said something like It's embarrassing but not $2500 worth! He actually took responsibility for his out of control behavior, but I don't think the defendant (who came across to me as the woman scorned, as well as a hustler or out and out thief) presented a much better picture. Just too many visuals in that case, need the brain bleach.

Waste of time. Ten worst in 30 minutes (less commercials). Each got about 20 seconds of Tapper telling us that they were horrible (we noticed the first time around) and 2 minutes of footage from the original show. If there was any follow up, I must have missed it - maybe I blinked? Same for the other top ten episode.

Great, another To Be Continued for no good reason. Considering how flabby the editing is on this show, there was no reason to cut off the last two minutes just to (they think) to keep us all sitting on the edge of our chairs, holding our breath, just to see next week which one of these losers gets a calendar recipe. By next week I will have forgotten all of their names again, let alone remembering the "cliff hanger" from this week.

Yeah, overbearing dad was really annoying but interesting. His breathless indignation really called for tearing out hair and rending garments, and I wish JM had asked a little more why a fully grown daughter couldn't represent herself, it seemed like she barely said anything even though she was the plaintiff. Of course, dad had enough anger and disdain for the defendants for both of them (and the audience too).

I live in the Florida Panhandle and the standard joke is "fresh gulf shrimp", yeah Gulf of Tonkin.

Exactly, it is the classic lie of telling part of the truth but implying something different. I take medication for hypertension, but JJ's verbal maneuver would leave the impression that I am on psychoactive medication for mental issues so she would score a touche! moment. ETA: nice JJ stuff on Lileks blog today: http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/14/0614/061314.html

Or if you are a Garrison Keillor fan, maybe "Senator".

How is quoting butchered pronounciation different from quoting butchered grammar? Just asking.

I am not totally convinced that he was in the right and his inability to deal with dates concerned me but at a minimum JJ should have let him try to explain. If he was indeed a skilled machinist and worked at it for twenty years (which didn't seem to match with his age) he could have saved a fair amount of money. He also tried to tell her that he had cashed out or borrowed against his 401k; if this is true he may be financially knowledgeable and he may have had enough money to pay a $900/month mortgage payment when the plaintiff didn't pay her agreed upon share. I think JJ stumbled over some issues here: 1) she doesn't feel at a gut level that $900 may have been a huge amount of money when she was younger but not any more; 2) you don't have to have a law degree to make good money, a skilled machinist can easily out earn a run of the mill lawyer 3) she seems constitutionally unable to admit she is wrong Like I said, I am not automatically buying the defendant's case but he sure didn't get an opportunity to state his case. Maybe it really is retirement time for JJ - sit back, enjoy your granchildren and money.

Jeez, I really wish Byrd was allowed to hit people. Never underestimate a grizzled old guy.

For Miss Heart Tattoo, I watched closely (after seeing the issue raised here) and I don't think it was tape. It was not shiny black electrical tape, and it showed some surface texture with a light mottling (like the solid black of a tattoo under pale skin) and seemed to move like it was skin. My guess is that she got the tattoo during one of her romances that will never end and got the tattoo with his name in it. Weeks later when he moved out of the trailer park to live with his baby momma, she got mad, couldn't afford to get the tattoo removed or covered by a real tattoo artist, so just had a friend tattoo a black ink rectangle with a needle and ball point ink, to cover the name while she sat in the kitchen drinking a beer. Or maybe it was just magic marker?

She said something like that at the beginning but I didn't catch it, but later when JJ sat her down, JJ said something about she had no standing in the case, she didn't have any power of attorney, and a couple of other things. Sounded to me like daughter sees herself as mom's caretaker and heard "power of attorney" somewhere and decided that was what she had.

Oh my, from today's case with the missing car title and the large defendant with blonde and blue hair: apparently meaning ahead of time? P.S. Milz - the car was treated for minor injuries and released.

(copying over from anothet thread since they fit better over here) I replayed these several times to make sure I got the quotes correct from the motocross/dog attack case: No, you SAW a lady (or perhaps for these shows you SEEN a lady). (hat tip to designing1 who posted this one first) and No, they were apparently parked BEHIND that car. And I didn't watch closed captioning so I am giving the woman the benefit of a doubt about "their" versus "there" or "they're".

Hello Patti! Yep, I think teensy Mom has challenges. That may be why her daughter is so domineering about her. It can be difficult to find the line between not providing needed assistance and totally dominating a person who just needs some help.

Just as good was "their campers were subsequent to that car". I don't think that someone who uses fancy sounding words when they don't know what they mean is necessarily intelligent or educated, my experience has been the opposite. Plus I was surprised that JJ let her get away several times with responding to direct questions with completely non responsive answers consisting of totally irrelevant statements. Finally, she sure sounded to me like she was reciting a memorised script, which would explain the non responsive answers.

Dealing with the people on these shows, I wonder how long before smiling Judge Milian turns into cranky old Judge Judy.