Florinaldo

I kept wondering about possible fetal damage due to substance abuse by the mother. Maybe that is the reason she lost custody shortly after he was born. She looked fierce; if she were belligerent with me, I think I would grab something too. I laughed at the way the defendant sort of deflated when his witness gave up the name of the person he sold the bike to; it took all the wind out of the story he had concocted.

Mama's boy plaintiff seemed a little off mentally and not quite there there. Too bad defendants were not awarded anything for the plaintiff's "crappy" behaviour, which means he gets half of the award kitty for acting like an immature idiot.

Perhaps he will sue the show because he thinks he should have received all of the award kitty instead of having to share it. He must really live a sad and empty life if he finds pleasure mainly in suing people left and right for no valid reason.

I have a feeling the show may have jumped the shark a few weeks ago when JM asked Douglas to swear in a ventriloquist's dummy!

The defendant's witness in the car case was the roughest-looking "little girl" I have ever seen. She must have led a haaaaaard life for an alleged pre-teen. 😉 That being said, I am a big boy but I might have felt a bit intimidated by the burly plaintiff showing up at my workplace; i don't think however that my reaction woud have been to cut him a check without checking with the boss, knowing full well that action might have legal implications. I agree with JM that she did not come across as qualified for her job. As for the house repair case, I would not have given the plaintiff anything, not only for being an unpleasant loudmouth impervious to rational arguments, but mostly for trying to get a big bonanza from this dispute, a problem which she herself created by firing the guy.

Two equally unpleasant litigants. I am sure that the underhanded plaintiff did tell the defendant that under Florida law he had no right to see his child; that lie would be quite in keeping with the character she displayed during the hearing. On the other hand, I am also convinced that the defendant was only too happy to have an apparently legal reason not to pursue judicial avenues to see his daughter because he then would have been liable for child support. I felt sorry for the plaintiff – even though he was a bit of a nitpicking whiner – having to live next door to the defendant's constantly growing brood. And the granddad's dog as a bonus. Defendant obviously does not care about any mayhem caused by the various people and animals in his house, while plaintiff may be oversensitive after having to cope with them for a long time.

This case did not need to get to court, even a real one. All the defendants had to do was to provide the plaintiff with their contact info for the previous owner and the dispute would have been resolved in a minute. But either no one thought about it, or plaintiff was stubborn and would not hear about it or was too lazy to go after the now far-away seller. I bet she still will not sue him and will be content with her share of the award kitty.

It's something that happens often enough. Something awful has happened to them: they need to blame someone, anyone, for it; they have somehow fixated on the idea that their neighbour deliberately poisoned their dog as the only possible explanation; he must pay for it; they will not listen to any other possible explanation for the event in question. Facts and arguments do not matter; only their personal conviction does. Which means they do not need concrete evidence, because they know. They will keep on believing their little scenario and it will probably get even more deeply entrenched over time.

JM seemed to inexplicably enjoy finding herself in the middle of what looked like a drive-in movie born from an unlikely collaboration between John Waters and Tod Browning. I am under the impression that recent cases have sunk closer to a "Jerry Springer" level of sordid lives. Perhaps it's just me, but it may be due to how cases come to them in this unusual period or because litigants act with even less decorum now that they testify from home. On the other hand, my initial reservations regarding the "After the Verdict" segments have evaporated. The two judges have found their groove, he is more relaxed and they make good down-to-earth points. As long as they keep the family anecdotes to the necessary minimum, the discussions are interesting. Also, now that he is free from the peanut gallery HL can respond to specific legal questions with more time than previously; his answers are usually useful and practical, assuming the people who asked the questions actually follow through on what he says.

The argument that the mother was not at ease in English because it is her second language was obviously a ploy to gain sympathy and make it look like she had been taken advantage of. She understood perfectly JJ'S questions and replied cogently, all in English. Furthermore as JJ said, "numbers are her first language" and she should have been the one to spot the mistake much earlier, without shifting that responsibility to her tenant. As for the daughter, is she a practicing lawyer? She seemed unsure of the law, was not able to develop a solid argument and kept acting like a schoolgirl. I think she may have got a trophy diploma which just hangs on the wall without any other real use. Also, I do not believe I would trust the judgment and professionalism of an attorney sporting such long sharp nails and having that big ugly tattoo on the back of one hand. Perhaps she moonlights as a biker chick...

Two typical litigants yesterday. First a car owner who does not understand how car repairs work and knows even less about automobile mechanics (she somehow thinks that the steering wheel repairs relate to every other problem in her very old car). I would have given her nothing; sometimes on these old beaters nothing can solve the problem because they are way past what can be considered as a reasonable length of useful service. I agree she may have been playing dumb to generate some sympathy in her case. As for the other plaintiff, of course he greatly underestimated the size of his move and refused to purchase the extra insurance, but then he has the gall to sue and ask the judge to ignore his signature on the contract and for the added charges due to the excess material to move. Thankfully that moving company is well-organised and keeps excellent paperwork, which proved how much of a whiny asshole he is, incapable of accepting the consequences of the choices he himself made.

Is there a patron saint for pieces of furniture negligently left on the sidewalk? He looked uncomprehending throughout, but she was beyond annoying with her open-mouth shocked reaction to every statement she heard from JM and the plaintiff.

The older Cronenberg gets, the more he looks like the Amazing Kreskin. To the point where for a minute or two I wondered if the show had enticed the old mentalist from retirement. But the speech cadences and the characteristic small intakes of breath finally convinced me it was DC instead.

His kind are imaginative enough that he will come up with different trumped-up reasons to sue or otherwise harrass his relatives. If it reaches a certain level of excess, they could ask that he be declared a vexatious litigant, which would limit his freedom to bring just any lawsuit at the drop of a hat. But he would certainly find other avenues.

When one of the judges, Acker I think, called him "paranoid", I thought that was a euphemism! He also adds a strong dollop of delusion to the mix, seeing himself as his nephew's "best friend" and the one who should teach him how to drive and guide him through other rites of passage. It did not seem to register with him that the nephew and niece came across as having made on their own the quite mature and rational choice of not wanting to have anything to do with him, with no need of brainwashing by the father. I also thought that the judges could have done better in their examination. For example asking for proof that the lawyer cashed a check or gave a receipt for payment, just to counter one his many wild accusations. They could also have counseled the father to give a better regular formal accounting of expenses made by the trust, something any trustee should do (legal requirements may vary from state to state and depend on the terms of the trust). I am quite willing to accept that the mother earned the money she received, but a detailed report of every financial operation would have helped refute the plaintiff's crazy theories (although he would never accept any concrete proof that goes against his fantasies). Also, at the end he called his brother a killer and DiMango said "therein lies the problem", to which he responded "exactly", obviously thinking she agreed with him; she should have corrected him on the spot but I suppose that at that point the judges were all eager to move on from this family's grotesque drama. I am certain defendants have not heard the last from their loony uncle and brother.

I quickly grew annoyed with the defendant's artificially cherry and bubbly attitude as she droned on and on with her rehearsed story; JJ let her do it because, well it was all about small dogs. I felt pleased when her true character showed up as it was revealed that she initially asked for 10 k$! The usual breed of greedy litigants. And she tried to play the oh-so-innocent naive girly-girl, ignorant about such things, when questioned about the amount. I am ready to believe she turned nasty when talking to the vet. On the other hand, the defendant's argument of shared liability was absolutely full of shit. At least her son was honest and readily admitted he was the one who let the dog get away. I was glad that JJ did not let her love of puppies and dogs cloud her judicial judgment, or what is left of it, and awarded the plaintiff nothing above what she truly deserved.

I thought it was very plausible that the old biddy did indeed keep the defendant's mail and lied about it. There's somehting about her demeanor and the character she projected that leaves me with that impression. Even more so than the PO clerk's statement to the police. Smarmy defendant either knows nothing about how social media promotion works (and the restrictions one has to work with) or he simply was frustrated with not getting a booty call. His product looked like cheap and unimaginative soft porn stuff with very low production values. Plaintiff brought her hands up once or twice and she seemed to display one of the most extreme and ugly cases of nails grown into claws we have ever seen from litigants on these shows.

I am certain that the cast and writers are grateful that the election announcement being made in the morning meant that they had a whole day to readjust their sketches for tonight (although they may have prepared variant versions, just in case).

Overeager plaintiff tried flattery on JJ , only to be smacked down. He should have known she does not tolerate being upstaged, in this case as the ultimate Self-Brown-Noser-in-Chief. I am glad this did not lead to his case being dismissed as defendant and her witness were either obviously lying or totally incoherent. Daughter is well on her way to give her mother serious competition for the Big Scary Eyes hall of fame.

Another airhead who thinks she is going to make a financial killing by becoming an instant Internet celebrity, with not much to offer as far as marketable appeal (unless ugly tattoos count). These defendants gave slime a bad name.

The new season started airing her 2 weeks ago and in the first episode they mention that piri-piri is not easy to come by in US grocery store. Is that really the case? Here in Canada there is a national chain (Loblaws/Provigo) that has both a piri-piri sauce and a dry mix version of that Portuguese classic under its house brand, which would mean it is available all across the country. They also carry 2 or 3 other brands of the sauce, some under the accepted variant spelling "peri-peri" (which had nohing to do whith bottling one of the Sixth Doctor's companions). 😉

I think JM should have been a little harder on Plantiff when she kept on yapping after it had become clear that the ruling was going her way; I guess she wanted to show the world she had really done her research. Perhaps Defendant can sue the lawyer for such a poorly worded contract. I can't believe there are still professional contractors who engage on such projects without at least a confirmation of the basic parameters of the agreement; no need for an extensive contract in a case like this, just an exchange of e-mails or even texts would suffice. They leave themselves vulnerable to lying weasels like the two defendants; thankfully they are clusmy liars and JM quickly caught them being untruthful. That is what we generally assumed (and what the small print in the credits say I believe), but of course many of these litigants do not even bother reading what they sign, and would not be able to understand it even if they did.

Predictably, the judges treated the cancelled sweet 16 party case as if that was the saddest tragedy in recent human memory. All that as a prelude to playing sollicitous grandpa and empathetic aunties to lift up the girl's spirits (although she did not seem that much affected by events, except when required to call up the appearance of incipient tears). Defendant lost a few sympathy points when she used the SSM card to justify her not being open to alternative means of providing services for the deposit. Their new bench looks as if it could house the whole SCOTUS (pre-COVID).

It seemed clear early on that this was going the way of "assumption or risk/shared liability". During the hallterview, both litigants showed they did not learn a single thing from the case and will probably continue to be as negligent and careless when they take their dogs out for a walk. Plaintiff's proof was iffy at best, but defendant's demeanor did make him look guilty, a type of behavioural circumstancial evidence if you will.

I think both litigants would be equally nightmarish to have as neighbours.