DoctorK

I had to search for the new show, it came on a sub prime channel (UTV44 on Cox) and premiered at 7:30 AM. I did a quick review over on the new thread. I am not impressed.

OK, I found the show on a non prime channel (UTV44 on Cox) premiering at 7:30 AM, not exactly prime viewing time. Also, UTV44 has been the home of many second (or third or fourth) tier court shows. JM seems about the same, but the set looks low budget and the litigants act like the scripted ones on low end court shows. The first case featured a plaintiff who is (or acts the part of) a crazy bitch who rented a room to a college student. She hams it up, makes wild gestures and totally disrespects the judge. She has crazy house rules (must plump up the cushions after sitting on a chair or sofa) and changes the security code for the house alarm and fails to tell the tenant the new codes, then complains when he sets off the alarms, disturbing the neighbors and resulting in city fines; naturally she thinks the tenant should pay for the fines. She babbles incoherently in explaining how changing the codes is somehow wrapped up in her trusting the tenant. Frankly I skimmed by the second case because it was really boring. Honestly, I wish Judge Milian had retired after her long and successful run with Peoples Court. This show feels low rent. The second episode is this afternoon. Maybe it will get better.

Today’s case with the damaged rental car had sort of interesting litigants. The plaintiff was pretty animated but did a decent job of presenting his case with no mudslinging. However, he really needs to pay more attention to details in the rental process. I liked the way that he didn’t treat the car damage as a major catastrophe and didn’t seem to be angry at the defendant, just a bit annoyed. He even provided another car to the defendant after the accident. The defendant intrigued me. He is either really stupid or he was playing that role to weasel out of his responsibilities. I didn’t believe him when he claimed he never got or saw the critical rental documents and conditions. I was watching to see if anyone was going to ask Mr. “I live in New York so I never drive” if he had a valid license at the time; there was a quick reference to him showing his license at one point but I wonder how closely his license was examined. I would like to have heard the defendant explain how the accident happened and why (since it is clear he ran into the back of the other car at a pretty good speed) it wasn’t his fault - that might have been entertaining.

Possibly, but I grew up in a small house with one bathroom and plumbing from 1930 and this problem is easily solved with a plunger, but I suspect that these two, even if they knew what a plunger is, would never bother to use it. They were complete pigs and slobs. You left out the rotting food left out in a pan on the kitchen counter, I felt sorry for the landlord (annoying as she was) for having to go in and clean up the overwhelming nasty mess the pigs left for someone else to clean up. And of course, their kids (apple doesn't fall far from the tree) scrawled all over all of the walls and Mr. Pig said something like "kids and walls, of course they did". I did appreciate it when the plaintiff said she had evidence snaked from the drain by the plumber (who fortunately put what he found in writing) as she held it up, it was in zip lock bags. But I was disappointed that the judges didn't take a close up look at it. "Evidence, evidence, you want evidence! Get a load (so to speak) of this and a sniff!".

JJ comes back with some ancient (2018) cases for us today. Four cases, each with one side of entertainingly annoying litigants versus fairly normal litigants on the other side. For me, these cases were old enough that I could enjoy them again almost as much as the first time around. (I resisted the temptation to look up what I had to say about the cases way back when they first aired because I might get into an argument with myself.) Case 1: Jet Ski damages: Plaintiffs had good clear before and after pics of the jet skis that they rented to the defendants. Defendants were completely in the wrong, denying the before pics and waffling on how many crashes they had with the jet skis. Their defense was based claiming prior damage (ignoring the clear plaintiff before and after pics) and simultaneously that the jet skis had lots of prior damage and the bumpers just fell off and showed that they had been previously repaired with epoxy. They also were willing to take care of the damage by having their friend order replacement parts, but with no installation or body repairs. The defendant woman was particularly annoying with wild statements and her smirking and laughing, so totally convinced that she was going to win the day. Case 2: Squatters got the short end of the stick in their ridiculous claims against the former landlord. Their arguments were stupid (JJ actually called one of the plaintiffs “STUPID!”), and they were clearly familiar with the situation and were planning to squat until the new owner gave up and paid them to finally leave (extortion oh my!). The funniest part was the hallterview in which the defendant (prior landlord) admitted that he was willing to let the back rent go as a wash to avoid the mess that the plaintiffs created by suing him; instead the landlord got one month’s rent from each plaintiff (JJ gave them credit for their security deposits which covered one month for each of them) although JJ wouldn’t consider the defendant’s claim for unpaid utilities. Case 3: Poor dog lost an eye while being boarded in what was clearly negligence by the boarder. The boarder fed his two dogs at the same time in one bowl and they got in a fight, resulting in the loss of an eye. Boarding employee claimed that the dog owner explicitly told them to feed the dogs together in one bowl (sounds unlikely already), but the dog owner brought records from his many previous boardings which showed that he always explicitly tells the boarders to feed them separately. The owner of the boarding place repeatedly talked over JJ and got JJ pretty riled up which was fun to watch, and in the hallterview was still trying to defend herself by asserting that boarding dogs is like letting your kids play soccer, you have to accept risk of injuries. I think the analogy is weak and certainly wouldn’t apply with a dog losing an eye due to clear negligence. Case 4: Trashed car with a golf club. Defendant admits that she was drunk and furious with her “friend” because the friend apparently has hooked up with a former boyfriend of the golf club monster. I don’t know for sure but I somehow doubt that anyone who could get together with the plaintiff (moderately attractive in personality and appearance) would have hooked up with the defendant who is not attractive and sounds like a complete psycho alcoholic. The defendant pretty much acknowledged all the details of golf club attack (drunk, banging on the door late at night at a house with the lights off and waking everybody up) except for actually hitting the car with a golf club. She couldn’t have done it because she doesn’t golf and doesn’t own a club – trust her on this, she really didn’t do it. Yeah, right.

I think I vaguely remembered the first case with the car loan to the two giggling irresponsible parents who stiffed the guy who loaned them money for a car. I am surprised that I didn't comment back when it ran because those two smirking deadbeats would have riled me up a bit when I first saw it. I hated the way that the two dim bulbs smiled at each other and laughed while claiming that they never knew this was always a loan in spite of the check given to them clearly stated on the memo line (right next to where the dim guy filled in his name on the check) that this was a loan. But neither one of them noticed this (giggle, laugh, smile at each other and giggle more) on the check. Maybe I shouldn't use the word "dim", maybe they both have the maturity level of ten year olds. JM was right that these two should not be raising a child. Second case was boring because it was just another case of someone who thought that her party didn’t go as well as she was entitled to and wants a big pile of money back. We have seen this many times before. Personally, I think plaintiff and her indignant witness were at least exaggerating (if not making up) the issues so they could cut their costs for the party. Third case was also lacking in excitement, a bunch of unlikable people. The female defendant was annoying, frequently talking and arguing directly with the plaintiff (and JM let her keep doing it) and came across to me as an aggressive argumentative person whose indignation outweighed her credibility. The male defendant was awfully self-righteous too. All three cases looked like people trying to avoid paying what they owed.

This was a horrible verdict in this case. I despise Corriero even more than before (if that is possible) for the way he argued this case, but the other judges weren't much better. The massive damage to the house (including but not limited to replacing and rehanging three doors, redoing the totally destroyed back yard, replacing windows) will take way over the measly $1150 (just the damage deposit) that the judges so generously allowed the plaintiff to keep, but nothing more. The defendants were lying trash people who have no respect for other people's property. I believe that they did receive the itemized damage list that the plaintiff sent to them, they just flat out lied about not getting it. I also believe that defendants either were doing donuts in front of the house or friends or relatives were doing them.

The flooring defendant was simply a completely full bag of crap. I just don't believe that in the entire four years (wow, four whole years?) he has done this type of work everybody has been happy. Five or six months? Give me break. The way that he laid the flooring without spacing the butt joints shows he has no idea what he is doing and absolutely has never read the manufacturer's instruction; even as the plaintiff is reading directly from the manufacturer's instructions that it cannot be laid over an existing floating or foam backed floor he just refused to accept that. I loved the way that he explained he could not call the plaintiff because his phone was cracked - one of the judges told him that cracked phones still work and held up her own phone. What a jerk, I hope anyone in his area considering flooring sees this show.

Actually, I don't think the plaintiff was too bad, a little histrionic but not too bad in some social environments. The defendant on the other hand was a flat out bald faced unabashed liar about almost everything. I did enjoy watching the plaintiff looking really sour and pissed and had the hand o hips posture as the judges started explaining that she had actually won, admittedly the first part of this sounded bad for her. Hey, every stylish smart woman wants a Kardashian buttr don't they? Corriero is fast and loose with the law whenever he has feelz about something. I still remember a case when he made his verdict based on a litigant not proving his claim "beyond a reasonable doubt". He doesn't recognize civil versus criminal proceedings when it gets in the way of his bleeding heart. I might be able to feel a little sorry for him as a pathetic beta person completely walked over (and I think not respected by) the alpha other judges, but he is such a jerk that no sympathy from me.

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.