Florinaldo

It's the same production company as JJ's show, which was also not COVID-safe today.

That threw me off too. No masks and no distancing. Either JJ thinks her powerful personal aura will envelop the whole courtroom and protect the audience from infection or these are old cases that had been kept in a standby bin, as possible emergency fill-ups. I did not find any of them truy memorable; the usual parade of morons who put just anybody on their phone plans or neurotic landlords who have no idea of their obligationsn towards tenants, and let's not forget the two irresponsible young "adults".

I think this is very likely a set designed to give the impression they are in their living room; if the camera ever pulls back, we will know for sure. I was asking myself the same thing about the big-ass scales; it may be a set dresser choice as a visual cue to remind us "they are judges, don't you know?". Or it may be a joke gift that they received at some point and that they trotted out for the show. Unelss they really are making such tacky decorating choices in their home. She really was suffering from quite a case of the stubborns. Not listening to questions or counter-arguments and constantly returning to her conviction, without any facts to support it. She even tried to interject while JM was rendering her decision, no doubt to repeat her exact same story all over again. The piece of burned plywood in the defendant's yard could be seen as suspicious, especially in light of her flimsy explanation ("I never go back there in my yard"), but certainly not enough to prove a case on the preponderance of evidence. Is it standard practice in the US for roofers to still use hot tar melted on burning coals? I have never seen that here in Canada when a roof is being redone (which does not mean it never happens).

Thanks for that info. After reading your post I was more vigilant when the promo clip came up and there is indeed a hint of the scenario I was musing about, i.e. a litigant cutting off the connection. We may learn of the consequence with regards to the verdict, but as for what would happen to the monetary compensations and other considerations litigants receive, the show will probably never tell. It must be spelled out in the agreement they sign before appearing (and quickly forget all about it considering the number of them who say they will appeal the verdict). Today we got a swearing-in of a witness in mid-case, ending with the inevitable (in the US at least) "so help me god". Would the show offer a secular version for litigants who are non-believers? Yes, the set dresser and camera operator must be commended for framing the shots so perfectly that the props in the courtroom (essentially the two flags) seamlessly match the screen image, which is set up thousands of kilometers away. The movers were indeed rather handsome and that had no influence on my conclusion that JM was overly generous towards the two money-grubbing plaintiffs, who clearly overestimate the value of their property and of the damage inflicted to it (a common trait for litigants).

I did not listen to the opening spiel from the announcer yesterday, but I did today and I noticed some differences from previous years. The main one is that it does not say that the litigants have a case in small claims court and have agreed to drop it in order to have it settled on TPC. It says "they have a legitimate dispute" and are on TPC to have it settled. I suppose that the level of business has dropped in real-life small claims courts as operations slowed down or were outright suspended. Since these are feeder tribunals from which TV court shows get most of their business, I conclude that TPC has chosen to now take up much more direct applications to flll up their programming. I wonder how long it will be before an angry or disappointed litigant decides to cut off the connection in a huff before JM has rendered her decision? Would such an action result in a simple dismissal of their claim or would they also lose whatever compensations the show offers litigants? I usually do not listen to Judge Mathis since I find his paternal folksiness to be annoying, but I took a look today to see how their new set-up looks. I think I prefer the empty courtroom of TPC because we know it is truly safe; the efficacy of visors on their own (without a face covering) is considered to be very limited and it also makes the audience look like a gathering of kindergarten welders.

Absolutely. Even if it was only to tell the grinning idiot of a neglectful dog owner that he must pay for not taking better care to protect people who have a legitimate reason to come onto his property, instead of keeping adding dangerous animals to his herd. And who really thinks he has complied significantly with the order to confine his animals in some sort of secure pen? Plaintiff was on official business, so JJ was full of shit in saying he was in effect trespassing as an uninvited visitor.

I chuckled when she said that and not a second later we got a shot of JM showing her disbelief at that ridiculous statement, which was contradicted by everything else they said about each other. It probably was a MasterCard which got caught in an illicit rendez-vous with an Amex in some sleazy rundown ATM. I think some of the legal info HLprovides in his answers might actually be useful to some viewers, providing they actually listen and are able to understand it.

A case involving unjustly redeemed travel points did not sound promising to start the new season, but the defendant quickly made it quite the spectacle. Screeching and interrupting, with the most grating voice I have heard in a very long time. JM even told at one point her to stop her "barking"! I wonder who would ever hire her as a lawyer; she does not inspire confidence and is certain to irritate any presiding judge. Or perhaps that is the winning strategy she uses as a selling point: "the judge will tire of listening to me so quickly that they will decide in your favour just to get rid of me". She certainly came across as a bargain-basement attorney. The show will probably be tweaking their new formula in the next few weeks, for example by instructing litigants not to lean into the camera, a request many will probaby ignore (as repeatedly happens in a number of Web conferences these days). The segments with JM and her husband are interesting, but they might think of eventually having them only every other episode or so, lest they become repetitive or trivial. So now litigants do not get a free trip and hotel stay as an incentive to come air their dirty laundry on national TV, just the prospect of not paying whatever judgement goes against them and a guarantee to collect on a favourable decision. I wonder if the show has added other incentives or considerations to compensate for the change. Perhaps they increased the award kitty. Poor Douglas, he must feel so lonely in that courtroom with little or no crew present, since the hardware can be remotely operated, and only Doug in the hallway to shout to as a form of human presence.

I entirely agree. But then JJ would have missed an opportunity to once again screw over a small business owner who had to scramble and do extra work to fill up the period the asshole customer abruptly left vacant with more than one new guest, which means she had to offer each of them a discount if the total came to the same discounted rate she had given him for a prospective long-term rental. I also think that him complaining to the realtor's association and her boss was beyond the pale, but by that time JJ had lost interest. It's acceptable for him to file a complaint with the rental Web site, even though they made their arrangements directly, but going outside of that is unacceptable in my view.

In which bedroom? (Wildly looking around for signs of a clandestine roommate without a written lease and probably with squatter's rights) 😉 I think that in the first few weeks of lockdown, stores wanted to appear to be very strict but I wised up when I saw an annoying old biddy (kin and kith to so many TV court shows litigants) paying cash at a SAQ liquor store. The clerk meekly fessed up to me that they do allow cash if the customer insists or gets argumentative. I guess losing one sale is not worth the hassle of enforcing the policy. Also, farmer's market stalls are not all equipped for electronic payment. Which means I can pay electronically for my tea at the teastore in Ottawa but I have to get out cash for fresh produce just a stone's throw away. These crafty creatures always do. As a consequence, raw material for TV court shows is a renewable resource indeed.

Around here some places are strictly credit/debit card only these days, but most like grocery stores still take cash although they do prefer electronic payment. But I have never seen a customer being refused paying cash, for example in the provincial liquor stores which prominently display signs saying that cash is discouraged. If the amount is very small (less than 5 $ for example) I still whip out the cash. If litigants have a money order that covers more than the amount of their purchase, they could get back change in those places.

These court shows do get repeat customers once in while. When they have tasted once the benefits of a free trip and of their share of the award kitty (if there is money left in it after the judges' decision), the temptation must be great for some to have another go at it, instead of relying on the crap shoot that real small claims courts can be, where there is no guarantee you will be able to collect even on a favourable verdict.

I think that in the clip we see him briefly bringing some document to the bench so JM can peruse it through some strategically placed camera; I do not know if it is simply the summary slip for the hearing or some piece of evidence. They appear to be trying to keep up some pretense of normalcy. We will see soon enough.

I saw the promo clip this morning and it looked like they set up a big TV screen behind the bench and JM is also appearing remotely, with a fake background imitating the regular one. The only person physically in the courtroom appears to be Douglas the bailiff.

A case during which JJ says "you do not have an expert as a witness, and I certainly am no expert". And then she proceeds to act as an expert on cleaning egging residues, completely misunderstanding the behaviour of such substances, especially when hosed down. Contrary to her statement, I bet that that if her house ever got pranked, it certainly never was with eggs. I guess this was a "let's screw over the homeowner litigants" day for her.

Sick days are NOT made for attending trials or filing recurring lawsuits. She claimed them under false pretenses and quite knowingly, so she should incur the consequences. She should have taken personal leave days for that. A reimbursement for sick days is possible in some jurisdictions and in some circumstances. For example in our parts if a worker injures themselves at work and have to go on leave for a short period while their claim is still being processed, they take sick days. When their claim of short term work injury disability is granted, the employer is reimbursed by the relevant authority and the sick days in question are credited back to the employee for future use, who does not receive a dime for them because they did not have any out-of pocket expenses and they got their regular paycheck all along. Things are a bit more complex for disability leave of longer duration and are quite off-topic here.

JJ started the case by saying she was not revisiting a decision made by another judge, but she managed to find a way to do it anyway, citing "moral" reasons and the "court of equity" principle, which she applies rather infrequently and arbitrarily. The guy was whiny and a penny-pincher, but he had the law and court decisions behind him.

As I said when it first aired, she trotted the frequent routine of "my wimmen brains cannot grasp those complicated things" as she tried to get reimbursed for sick days she had already been paid for by her employer. Her excuse was that she is not sure how that works. And she is a teacher, supposed to impart knowledge and life skills to high school students?! Unless she is just the detention room monitor. And JM inexplicably did not call her on that argument and barely chided her for being a vexatious, habitual litigant who keeps going after the guy; if she can't have him in her life, she certainly found a sure way to regularly see him in court. In the hallterview she tried again her cutesy ditzy "young thang" shtick, for which she is 2 decades too old I would say, but Doug would have none of it.

Ending the episodes with the shot of Captain Parker smirking as he watches the lovers come back from their trip and then quietly walks away would have been a much better cliffhanger, even if a second season had been ordered; it would have been full of menace and foreboding. Instead we got this mess where a child gets abducted, people get killed or wounded, there's blood all over, but then no one in the house knows what really happened. It feels like cheating the viewer to include such a big dramatic last scene when the renewal of the show was far from certain. I dislike having many major plot threads to be left hanging even at the end of a season when a show has been renewed, but some writers and producers like to end with big grand gestures and flourishes. The French general was really stupid to walk into the cell alone, knowing how treacherous and determined Parker is, especially since he was about to throw a big spanner in his plans. Also, he should fire all of his staff since they can't find a fugitive who still openly walks the streets and wears the same silly little hat he has from the first time we saw him and which is very easily recognisable. John and Margaret managed to make the Taj Mahal boring.

Mother tried to come off as the calm peacemaker but the video showed she is as much of a savage harridan as her daughter. And both of them are dumb as bricks since they do not understand, even after explanations, how a car sale, a warranty and a repaying a loan work. Defendant should have gotten more in damages. I have a feeling they are not finished with him. Defendant is a deadbeat and her sister's affair was just a convenient pretext for not repaying the debt in full. I wonder if the show is proactive in such cases and forwards a recording of the episode to the relevant authorities. The plaintiff would certainly deserve a thorough investigation. As I recall, when JJ asked her how many times she had been incarcerated for identity theft she replied 2 (or 3) very matter-of-factly, as if it's something every parent does. I wonder how many other times she did it without getting caught.

I am also puzzled by athletes, performers or other people whose concept of a Supreme Being – allegedly engaged in overseeing an entire universe – envisions said being as finding time to get involved in the outcome of a game, in who gets an award or in this case whether the visiting team gets a van or not. Or how a TV court case turns out; we often hear litigants exclaim "Praise Jesus!" or some other similar reaction. I guess their alleged divinity relaxes by finding time for relatively trivial interests (much like we do). I agree that the promoter washed his hands of the whole affair rather expeditiously. He most probably felt he was in over his head and wanted to extricate himself quickly from the situation; he knew how difficult it would be to go after his French colleagues. However, she bears some of the blame for making such a stupid choice and I would have been satisfied with a judgment that assigned a 50-50 responsibilty on the litigants, meaning her getting back half her money.

Today was a repeat, but new to me. In the visiting French soccer team case, when the plaintiff said she paid for the van because she felt at the time that God had put her there for a reason, my thought was that she was not suing the right party; she should have brought the action against her Supreme Being for false representation or detrimental reliance. 😉

Strange double post deleted.

I heard on the news that she is the 9th person to drown in that lake in the recent past. That man-made body of water is full of debris since apparently the basin was not cleaned up before being filled. They showed signs which say swimming is forbidden, but it may not be enforced strictly, especially when people are out on a boat far from shore.

During the little montage when John was going over past events pointing to Samuel's treachery you could picture the gears slowly turning in his mind, and hear them loudly creaking because they have not been used for so long. It made him look very slow-witted; especially at the point where he realises that his so-called friend was the only other person who knew how the precious cargo of the automaton was being escorted by Gopal, something that was staring him in the face from the start. I am not familiar enough with the history of the Moghul Empire's last monarchs to know if the wife of the real-life blind Emperor was accused of infidelity at one point. They are making her look very treacherous, betraying her husband, John and eventually her son probably. I think the actor playing the French General is coming across as an animated cartoon villain.