DebbieW

I want to know what the hell is wrong with the girl's mother. If anyone did that or even anything leading up to that to my daughter I'd be like fuck the medical bills, I'm definitely pressing charges and your ass is going to jail. He might've only gotten a wrist slap, but at least it would be on his record for the next time (and there most certainly will be a next time) he does this shit. After the wrist slapping was over I would have taken a baseball bat to his face and his asshole mother's, and I'd gladly do the time for it. Or I could promise to pay their medical bills.

The roof case plaintiff pissed me off, too. Every time the judges mentioned that he simply needed to let the roofers onto his property to clean up, he whined "I have children." I guess he thought the big, bad roofers would hurt them in some way, but all he needed to do was lock the door for the half hour they would have been in his yard. I'm sure they would have sprung to powerwash his unstained fence too, if he hadn't been such a horse's ass.

The stepson was a real piece of work. I enjoyed the case that came after it, though (not sure if it was the same episode or the next one because I was catching up on the DVR) with the Cake Baking Sisters. For once we had litigants on both sides who were bright, articulate, and who really just had a difference of opinion of how to interpret an agreement. They were classy and wished each other the best afterward. I know that doesn't make for "good court TV", but it was refreshing for once.

I'm completely devastated that Netflix had dropped Doctor Who because BBCAmerica seems to flat out refuse to acknowledge the Ninth Doctor so his episodes never get shown. I really loved all of his episodes, but The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances are the ones that I rewatch the most. I started watching with no idea of the concept of regeneration, so I was completely thrown when it happened. I looked at my son and yelled "Why is my Doctor now Barty Crouch, Jr.?!?!". I've since grown to love Tennant, Smith, and Capaldi, all for different reasons, but Eccleston will always be MY Doctor.

My daughter is in college in NC and she and her boyfriend live in an apartment that developed a leak and, subsequently, mold. I talked them through how to handle it based on everything I've heard JJ and MM say over the years. The management ended up moving them to a different (better) more expensive apartment at the same rent for the duration of the lease, waived a month's rent, paid for all fees associated with transferring utilities, and paid for both of them and the cat to get check ups to be sure they were not having any adverse reactions to the mold exposure. The system works, but it has to be done the right way. I always refer to JJ and TPC as my educational TV.

I agree that it would have been nice if MM had offered help with obtaining services, but I completely disagree with how she ruled on the case. While the furniture guy should be made to replace the furniture when the drawers wouldn't close properly and the twin beds that were not what the plaintiff ordered, I felt it was wrong for her to have admonished the defendant for allowing the plaintiff to purchase exactly what she wanted and, in fact, produced a picture of. How is it his problem that she's illiterate? Is he supposed to administer a standardized test before making the sale? If this becomes a valid reason for suing (He took advantage of the fact that I'm illiterate) business owners are really screwed. I don't understand the first thing about cars making me, in my opinion, car illiterate. Does that mean that I can undo an "as is" sale because I didn't understand that the transmission needed replacing?

They were both dumbasses, but she was definitely batshit crazy and her statement in the hallterview made me want to throw up.

Especially because the lame ass excuse he used was that his wife took their car and they didn't know anyone to ask for a ride. Call a cab or use Uber, dumbass. I also loved that he didn't explain to the coordinator why his daughter was unable to make it because it was nobody's business what happened in his personal life, but he had no trouble putting in on full blast on JJ.

Yes, but then she also says to grab a crayon and toilet paper to get a receipt if you're giving someone cash, so it basically (heh) depends on what kind of mood JJ or MM seem to be in. Sorry, just saw that Rick Kitchen made the same observation. I found the plaintiff really annoying in the dog death case. Not that I don't totally sympathize with the loss of a pet under such circumstances. She was just so smug and superior. Claimed she needed a better class of neighbors who don't let their dogs jump fences. Maybe they need a better class of neighbor who doesn't let their dog get out of the yard and come onto their property.

That's how I took it, as well. The Bartlet girls were probably going to inherit lots of bits of family history, but Charlie had become like a son to him separate of his relationship with Zoey. Edited to clarify because two of us were posting at the same time that I was picking up on Kohola3's assessment.

Given the record of honesty by plaintiffs in their job descriptions, she probably gives pedicures.

The ahole mother who said she would just keep her animal killing son away from other people also added "so they can't complain about him." She just doesn't want to hear it.

It's actually a pretty good strategy to help these idiot women keep track of which bundle of joy belongs to which baby daddy.

One of the things I really like about MM is that she isn't automatically dismissive of people who are receiving public assistance or disability the way JJ is. She listens to the circumstances and backgrounds concerning the case and the litigants. If she gets the sense that they are dirtbags playing the system she doesn't hesitate to bitchslap them, but it's based on what is presented before her and not a prejudgement.

Loved the rerun with the really flighty woman who caused an accident with a tow truck and then claimed it was his fault and that he tried to intimidate her. MM got her on jacking up the estimate, lying to the insurance company, perjury, etc. Her daughter blamed it on her mom getting nervous easily, but it sure seemed like there were other issues there.

And that's why seeing JJ get her hands on him would be oh so entertaining.

Unable to play because my user name gives it away. Am I the only one who wished the boyfriend/employer of the custody paper serving "babysitter" had been in the courtroom a so that JJ could get her teeth into him?

It doesn't bother me in the slightest the Byrd is less than pleasant to the plethora of dirt bag litigants we see. I just watched a case (sorry, I don't know from when because there were 10 episodes stacked up on my DVR) where the defendant wrecked the plaintiff's car and wouldn't pay to have it repaired (I know, that doesn't narrow it down much). Anyway, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had assured her that he had a license. JJ had a cow over this because girlfriends don't ask boyfriends that question. But then she ruled against the plaintiff because she should have known he didn't have a license. So, in JJ's America everyone is responsible for their own actions, unless someone without a license wrecks your car in which case you are responsible for their actions. JJ awarded the plaintiff nothing. I get that some of these idiots need to be taught a lesson about being more discerning with relationships, but the asshole who actually wrecked the car and drove without a license gets away without any penalty. This isn't how MY America works.

Sometimes Netflix releases that statement to get an upper hand in negotiating rights to certain shows because the fans (myself included) go ape shit and they use that info during talks. It happened last year with Doctor Who and a few other BBC shows.

I thought she should've been reimbursed, too. If the lowlife defendant had taken the cow back when he should have, the plaintiff wouldn't have been out all that extra money. I didn't see it as any different from reimbursing people the fees they pay to clear up someone's tickets or late car payments.

I'm sure they did "insist" but that doesn't mean that someone was held down against their will for the dentist to begin work. If she had such a problem with it she was free to walk away and he could have told her just that. He stated that they never had a serious relationship. Maybe her "insistence" should have been a clue that she was crazy, as he claims. If my significant other "insisted" that I do something that I couldn't afford or didn't want done, he'd be shown the door. If they were just roommates who "mistakenly" slept together twice, it shouldn't matter what she's unwilling to see.

I absolutely LOVE when a litigant keeps saying "exactly" as the judge berates them because they think the judge is agreeing with them. JM (paraphrasing): You can't do this! You have a child to consider! Plaintiff who gave $1500 to the defendant to get a car: Exactly.

I bet if you keep insisting he will ;-)

This "defense" always cracks me the hell up. My mother-in-law kept insisting that I have another piece of pie at Thanksgiving, but I still managed not to. Unless they held a gun to your head, you could have managed to resist. Man the fuck up.

The thing I really like about The People's Court as opposed to JJ is that MM knows what she doesn't know and will put the court in recess to research or call someone who does know. I can't imagine JJ ever doing that.