DoctorK

Today's first rerun case, little Miss No License, No insurance with nothing but a scarily big smile and equally scary eyelashes, still entertaining after the years go by. I think we hashed it over pretty thoroughly first time around but the defendant was so outstanding (not in a good way) that I want to add some comments. Firstly, did she learn to do her eye makeup before or after her lobotomy? Secondly, has she really gone through her life using her smile and cuteness to avoid having to ever use her brain? She is going to hit a hard wall when she eventually learns that having a big smile, cute looks (and monstrous eye lashes) doesn't last very long.

This case intrigued me. I know very little bout crypto-currency as a business, but understand it is data and analysis intensive and requires a lot of computer skill and capability (and also apparently a lot of luck). When I saw his machine i caught my breath. If anyone recognized that equipment please let us know what it was. It didn't look like any computer equipment I have seen in real life (I have been involved in building out a few data centers and server farms. To me, it looked more like an early 20th century time machine or perpetual motion machine. I wonder how much of his crypto income is from his mining and how much from people he advises and teaches about it. I am more than ready to learn more if someone can identify that gear and its functionality. Come to think of it, I remember seeing some magnetic core memory units on computers from back in the ENIAC (1940s) era that looked vaguely like his, and they were energy pigs.

Today's first case irked me. To me it was obvious that the one big problem in this situation was the defendant. He is a fast talking, late paying liar and a big jerk. He first tried to say that he didn't believe that his kid did the damage, then the plaintiff showed a text admitting that the daughter damaged the car. He insisted that the damage could be buffed out cheaply but didn't have any support for that (and the scratch looked to me to be beyond the "buff it out" level of damage. The two women were working at smoothing things out and may have succeeded if the loud mouth defendant hadn't prevented it (in spite of protestations to the contrary). It didn't help my opinion of him the way he testified, sour angry look, turning his head to one side or the other and talking and looking sideways at the judge, that is some pretty clear body language for anger and aggression. He also tried to convince everybody that he is the real victim here and he is so sad at how things developed even though he was the biggest cause. I think I will skip the second case, I am tired of pit bulls running wild and owners who deny any responsibility, we've seen that too many times.

Absolutely no apologies needed, I have been a bit loose on a few quotes, but we all have fun here and enjoy each others posts, snark and social interactions.

Sorry, I was using another person's quote, I should always go to primary sources. The level of English abuse we see can be numbing and snark worthy but in this case I erred.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but a lot of her testimony seemed iffy, especially when compared to the text messages that the defendant showed to the court. As a side issue, I was bothered by the ASL interpreter acting out and emoting like a bad actor while translating the plaintiff's statements. Whenever I have seen interpreters (ASL, other languages for litigants not comfortable in English, etc.) in courtrooms they have always used controlled neutral tones while interpreting, not emoting strongly, presumably trying to provide the emotional content that she thinks she sees. As always, YMMV.

And his dubious skill with the English language. Really, "could have went"?

Pot hole guy. That guy was completely full of crap. First, if he was driving at five miles an hour as he claimed, there is no way that he wouldn't see the big pothole (aside from his claim that he goes there all of the time so he has been seeing that hole many times before), but even then, at 5 mph his tire should not have been damaged unless it is an extremely low profile high performance tire on a 20" or bigger rim which seems unlikely for the plaintiff. He also claimed that he saw a large bulge in the tire sidewall (for which we have to take his word for this) which sounds more like a tire defect which would be under warranty if he was telling the truth about how new it was, the way that he said that it was only "three months old, or maybe four months old" (which again we have to take his word for it). Add in his taking weeks to contact the car wash owner, I just don't believe anything he said. No evidence of how new the tire was, no proof of the tire bulge right after the car wash (he was driving around for two days (at least) before he got it fixed), his inability to get a phone number to call the car wash, it all adds up to "flapping gums", a phrase JM uses frequently, not sure why she didn't use it here. Maybe I am underestimating the plaintiff. Maybe he was clever enough to see a tire bulge and remembered the monstrous hole (honestly, it wasn't that big a deal for 5 mph hit) he had seen in all of the many, many times he went to the car wash and got a bright idea. Nah, he was just an idiot.

Are you sure that you didn't mean to say "tottering" or "stumbling"?😄

I agree, but the Minnesota ordinance was clear that the tenant claiming coverage under it has no obligation to do this or any cleaning. Apparently they are also immune to claims for substantial damage done during the course of the tenancy whether it was related to the domestic violence or not. I understand the verdict and I think it was legally correct. I feel bad for the situation the defendant was in, but I can't help noticing the condition of the apartment (ignoring the garbage and stuff resulting from the rapid departure), it looks like she was living like a complete slob.

I was thinking the same, and was ready to dump on the plaintiff but you have already covered most of my points, even including the : It is possible that the plaintiff really is as emotionally unstable and foolish as she acted for the case, but I doubt it. At first I assumed that the $10K clothes were her father's nicest suit (which she could keep and maybe have it altered for a grandson in memory of her father?) but in the picture she provided it looked like a KMart shirt with a pair of jeans (the fabulous belt was not visible in the photo). Even then I might have bought her story, until the underwear entered the discussion. I wonder if she filed this case after the undertaker asked to have his bill paid.

I agree, Corriero caused a fair amount of eye rolling by the other judges. Both of them are alpha personalities, Corriero is definitely not. Almost every time he tried to bow up and browbeat them, he came across as a runty little rooster trying to fight out of his league.

I've got one of them also, I just went out to the kitchen to flip through it and all of the notes I have pasted into for favorite recipes. However, OMG, mine isn't the real Betty Crocker cookbook, it is the a Better Homes & Gardens knock off, complete with the red gingham cover, It is in in a large five ring binder and 400 pages, and I suspect that it is the same, H&G probably paid to do their own cover and sold it through their magazine. The newest copyright on is 1962 and I figure I got it from Mom around the time I moved out in 1975. It is still a great source of recipes.

I picked up on that also, a little surprising from someone with extensive international travel. Throughout I was distracted by his tie. What the heck was that all about? He was actually wearing a fairly nice suit that actually fit him well (a big change from most litigants) but that tie! Was that a fashion statement? It looked like crap, and unless he sends it out to be dry cleaned regularly, it is going to be an icky skin oil soaked mess. At least this case was a change of pace (except for a naive plaintiff, scrambled and confused relationship, and EBT card abuse).

JM blew it on the engine fire case. She listened to the defendant but understood nothing of what he said and just jumped to her assumed idea of what happened. (Still made the correct decision though, see below) 1. She missed the point that was explained about the defective alternator not bleeding off the charge in the capacitor; it is normal to consider the electrical system cold after the battery is disconnected but here there was an unknown fault in the alternator. 2. The fuel rail clearly showed where the spark jumped to the rail and did not penetrate the rail, and there was a separate place where there was indeed a small hole in the fuel rail that was not from the spark. This would leak fuel and vapor out around the fuel rail and and provide vapor that could (and apparently did) ignite from the spark, The idea that a wrench unintentionally touching other parts while working in the engine compartment is a negligent error could only come from someone who has not spent any time working under a car hood. However, this doesn't change the fact that this happened as a (non negligent in my opinion) accident resulting from several unlikely defects for which the shop is absolutely liable and that is what insurance is for. Oh well, JJ reruns are coming on so I can get annoyed with her also. Hope she doesn't do one of her addlepated (a wonderful adjective that seems to have faded away) accident recreations.

Don't forget the swinging Pyramid Power thing swinging around over the contestants. The whole thing was a bunch of 1980ish new age claptrap. I give the contestants credit for their acting skills in enthusiastically reading their scripted love for this wonderful experience.

I used to find people like them to be amusing but now I find them depressing. Both of them were pathetic. Neither one could do the most basic arithmetic of adding and subtracting (good thing they didn't have to try long division), and neither understood the concept of receipts and evidence. Neither one could make a coherent case and logic is another area of complete inability, although the plaintiff's extravagant use of grand hand gestures and facial expressions would make any third grader in a school play proud. Just sad.

I also wanted to hear more about the high speed chase and to what extent that may have damaged the engine (and if he managed to escape). Personally, I was interested in the valve issue (a much more interesting issue than the standard despicable, illiterate and trashy problems most litigants bring in) and wish the plaintiff had let the defendant take him and the bike to the shop that said they could adjust the valve to spec and if they could, the defendant would pay for the adjustment - either the defendant would pat himself on the back or find out he wasn't quite the mechanical genius he thinks he is. Oh by the way, Corriero's arguing about this case once again reminded me that he is loudmouth idiot.

That was one of the many things from the idiot plaintiff that irritated me. The statement makes no sense at all. No wire or cable that comes out of the case is attached directly to the motherboard in either laptops or desk tops. Cables plug in to connectors on the case for either type and on a laptop, any of the cables would just pull out of the connector on the case or yank the whole computer off the desk. Maybe I should cut him some slack because of his complete ignorance about anything related to computers but I was more bothered by his flippant discussion of the dead pedestrian and his clear threats of violence. He had a really disassociated attitude and reminded me of the ID-TV series that documents the early signs of psychopathy. I hope he is just an annoying ignoramus and jerk, but if I was in the defendant's position, I would look into increased security for his business and his home. Yeah, refurb or pawn shop orphan laptop. My current 2011 laptop came with win8 which was OK, but the so-called free upgrade to win10 was needed when win8 support stopped. I say so-called because the "free" one is not a full win10 and doesn't allow full admin control; apparently for an extra $100 to microsoft I can get full win10. Thanks microsoft. P.S. I also laughed when one of the experts he took the computer to was known as "Mr. Apple" (repeated several times to impress us) presumably based on his expertise with Apple devices none of which use any version of windows.

I wasn't watching too closely but I heard the judges talking about 36% interest which would be illegal. However, the interest rate for any determination of legality is Annual Percentage Rate (APR) which would be 216% interest (without even considering compound interest). Not even Gotti would pull that off. For the judges to just leave 36% hanging in the air as the interest rate is sloppy and misleading to anyone listening.

Okay, today new cases. First, an argument about whether or not a condo owner doing remodeling work damaged the freight elevator. Plaintiff wants $1000 back of his security deposit plus another $2000 for something about how he has been harassed. Defendant HOA president(?) was so clueless that it was painful to watch. He didn't bring in any witnesses or evidence and had no recognizable defense. I guess the HOA figured it was easiest to just play dumb and let the show pay the plaintiff. Second, a really annoying old fart (takes one to know one so I know) plaintiff who claims that a tow driver ruined the engine of his 140,000+ mile car (which needed to be towed because the engine wouldn't start instantly). Plaintiff is an obnoxious loudmouth who really believes that saying something loudly makes it correct. He hasn't the faintest idea of anything under the hood of a car, shows a picture of a valve cover with a dent and a crack in it which proves(?) that the engine is destroyed. He also has a picture of a rocker arm (which looks brand new) and the cylinder head. He has a hand written note from his friend mechanic (not certified, neither mechanic nor document) that says the engine is kaput but nothing that connects to the towing. Plaintiff signs off after JM explains simply and completely why he lost with a parting "that's a crock".

I noticed something this time around for this case. The defendant sent a text to the plaintiffs saying that he was cancelling the boat sale deal because of (as read by the judge) "due to so many deaths and extenuating circumstances". I happened to be looking at the screen when they put the text up on the screen and said wait a minute. I backed the video up and freeze framed the text image - it actually said "deaths and exterminating circumstances" which puts things in a different light. Its sort of blurry but it is clear that there is no "n" in the middle of the word but there is clearly an "m". Sounds like they actually used a better word than "extenuating".

I despised that punk. He has wrecked 3 or 4 cars driving recklessly, was hit with reckless endangerment of a minor for one of the times he wrecked a car (didn't hear any more about that, but he claimed he had only been in a court once before when he was 14 years old and driving around so what happened to the reckless endangerment charge?). He used both "shit" and "pissed" in court and mumbled answers with "yeh","yep" and "uh huh" repeatedly (JJ would have skinned him alive). He has the maturity and responsibility of a spoiled ten year old. He thinks it would be "cool" to make a living as a pro fighter (cue up a five year old saying "I wanna be a fireman when I grow up"). I am surprised that the judges didn't let him off because the plaintiff should have known that the deadbeat parasite would never pay her back as they have so often in the past. Nothing that the judges said to him made many impact on him at all. The plaintiff is going to be bailing him out forever, until he finally kills himself (and maybe other people) with his continuous reckless driving, or picks the wrong person to use his surly whiny act on.

I was having the same problem, at first I was wondering if the video was coming out on fast forward (lots of odd things happen with Cox Cable). By the end I was sure that she was totally wired up on something, so much so that I am surprised that JJ didn't call her out on it. In the hallterview, the defendant said that she was on speed. Usually a comment like that comes across as mud slinging but in this case I think it was an obvious and correct observation.

Which $2750, when the defendant files an amended return with the corrected W2, will get back from IRS, putting him $2750 ahead of the game. These three judges are absolutely clueless about IRS, taxes and just about everything in this case (Corriero was at his despicable worst here, bloviating self righteously on something he knows nothing about). The only amount the defendant should have gotten was the cost of refiling, not $2750. Maybe I am too cynical but I suspect that the defendant figured that if he dragged this out, he could end up keeping the $4000 (less the tax bite). What the judges wanted the plaintiff to do, i.e., revise the W2s before the money was returned, would have been tax fraud; as long as the recipient has the money, it is legally income and must be reported.