Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

augmentedfourth

Member
  • Content Count

    359
  • Joined

Community Reputation

1.9k Excellent
  1. The bank statements the plaintiff provided in the old new case were from May of 2013! I guess they kept this one sitting around just in case they needed a few minutes of filler. I'm finally all caught up. I don't even know what to say about the last new episode I saw, with the plaintiff in the wheelchair who sues everyone who looks at him the wrong way and then some. My personal favorite was him suing the court reporter for one lawsuit for not providing the transcripts on time. (As a court reporter, I've never missed a deadline, but if it's rapidly approaching, we do charge extra fees. Methinks that may have been what was going on there.) Did he really think JJ was going to hear any of his nonsense or did he just want to collect his appearance fee?
  2. In these desperate times, I remembered the CreaClip*, the plastic guide for cutting your hair at home. I'd been planning to go to the salon before everything closed here in NY, but long story short, I didn't get around to it. For $44.99+$5.95 shipping, I got the set with the original, a mini one (which I will totally start using to cut my kids' hair, especially one's bangs), and a pair of scissors. I'll report back if/when I'm brave enough to use it! I usually wear my hair pulled back in a ponytail anyway, so here's hoping I don't screw it up too badly! And as everyone keeps saying, who's going to see me in the next couple months anyway? *I did not remember the actual name, but googling "Shark Tank hair cutter" led me to exactly what I wanted.
  3. The overly-giggly defendant in the music festival case managed to perfectly match her lipstick AND eyeshadow to her shirt. (That may or may not have belonged to the plaintiff? Dunno.) Too bad it didn't make her any less obnoxious or more trustworthy.
  4. "You ate the steak!" "No, it was a vegan kitchen." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *deep breath* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Amazing. A close second in that case was when the defendant said they had a "heated argument" about the air conditioning and the high temperature upstairs. Love it. The trampoline defendant came off as kind of dumb, but the plaintiff was a dick in the hallterview, saying she should get out of his state and go back to the state she came from. Sorry she's sullying your precious Washington? I don't even know. I agree that the second episode was kind of uncomfortable to watch, due to the litigants' serious issues.
  5. I thought she did! If memory serves, the defendant got $500 on the counterclaim to teach the bratty plaintiff (and her mother) a lesson. JJ and Byrd were great together today in the "ex-fiancee needs a place to crash" case. And interesting move, filming the signing of the contract.
  6. Dude, what the hell rolled out of Indiana in that case. I was right there with JJ - we went through a million kids with five million parents and grandparents and who lived where when, all for two jackets and a gumball machine? Not that I had plans to visit Indiana anytime soon, but it's definitely been crossed off the list. Someone backing out of a lease at the last minute is how I found my living situation my senior year of college. We were all lucky it worked out so well. Ah, those were the days. It was a shithole, but it was our shithole.
  7. Considering I just spent over a year dealing with my health insurance company over some bills and it still hasn't been 100% resolved, it was satisfying to hear JJ yell at the life insurance company over the phone. I was pissed off enough that I eventually wrote to my state senator and a staffer even started calling my insurance company on my behalf. Fucking insurance companies, man. (Though I'll add the caveat that the one time I had to file a claim with USAA when a tree fell on my car during Hurricane Sandy, they were easy to work with and I didn't have any problems at all.) I kind of saw both sides in the wedding musician case. On the one hand, no, the guy didn't have to do anything to help them out, since I don't think the defendants disputed that it was their fault the dates got mixed up. On the other hand, he did make $2800 for not actually playing that day. If he himself wasn't available to play that day, I'm guessing it's because he had another gig booked, meaning he actually got paid twice that day. And since there was a month between the two dates, it's also possible he could have booked another gig for the original incorrect date and gotten paid for that as well. Originally, I thought the case was going to be about the defendants not paying the agreed upon price because it was different musicians, but when I heard that the original contract was for $4000 and they paid $4000, I kind of lost sympathy for the plaintiff as well. Again, I get where he was coming from, that he himself didn't actually pocket the full $4000, but it's like they were all sort of throwing the original contract out. Also, it seems like it could have been a great opportunity for him, if the couple told everyone how he came through for them at the last minute, possibly getting him some new customers in the future, but instead, he dragged them to court and now they'll be telling everyone to stay away from him.
  8. Well, don't forget, someone obviously could have stolen the dog because it was worth $1200! The defendants even had a receipt! Yes, I'm sure one of the neighbors took the $1200 dog out of the fenced-in yard, just to let it loose to kill some chickens. Sounds about right.
  9. Yep, I also caught the "again" on the lost dog post. So you know how we sometimes criticize JJ for jumping to conclusions and making determinations before she hears the actual cases, etc.? Well, today was one of those days where the second I saw the defendant in the dog/chicken case and the bitchy look on her face, I just knew she was guilty of whatever she was being accused of. And she did not disappoint. I'm not a big fan of guns, but I'm also not a fan of loose potentially dangerous dogs, so I had no problem with the Adele-lookalike daughter doing what she needed to do to save the rest of her chickens and ducks. (And she seemed appropriately remorseful.) I live in a residential neighborhood in the suburbs, and one of our neighbor's pit bulls kept getting out, and after the third time, my next-door neighbor dragged it back and cheerfully informed the owners that if the dog showed up on his property again, he'd shoot it. Magically, the pit bull never got out again. (Bonus points to my next-door neighbor because I can count on the fingers of zero hands the number of times his well-behaved goldens have gotten out. Looks like his kids are equally well-trained to make sure the gate is locked.) Incidentally, just the other day, Facebook Memories reminded me of how entertained I was by a similar case a number of years ago, where the plaintiffs' dead pet chickens had names like Leia, Katniss, and Buffy. Still awesome. Like all the other two-parters we've had, this one really didn't need to be dragged out over two days. Everyone came off poorly here, and while I would have been satisfied by everyone leaving with nothing, the $400 for the TV was fair. I think the recording of the plaintiff, who had appeared so mild-mannered and reasonable, did change JJ's mind a bit. See, it can be done.
  10. My mom's been staying with us a few nights this week while I recover from a tonsillectomy, so I have my JJ watching buddy back for a little while. At the beginning of the vacation rental case, I said to her, "This isn't going to go well for the plaintiff, he ate the steak," and we were highly amused at how accurate I was. 😄 The KISS costume case was amazing, and way more fun than all the loan/rent/car sale/babydaddy drama/whatever cases. More of those, please. The plaintiff in the last case was actually a woman. At least "Colleen" was displayed on the screen and the announcer used "her" in the introduction. Meh, whatever she/they/Colleen is doing, they seem to have it more together than the step-brother. Going back to the Burning Man case (which was also more fun than the standard fare), I too was trying to figure out why the plaintiff got all worked up about the defendant's girlfriend's fees not being paid, and I also came to the same conclusion that she might have thought she was going to be, um, rocking out in the RV with the defendant and seeing the girlfriend there spoiled her plans.
  11. How did the girlfriend/daughter witness wind up on the wrong side? Did she get lost?
  12. Yeah, the wording in the contract was very precise, and that's what ultimately did her in. If memory serves, it said she would be there unless she was with another laboring client. I think even JJ felt bad for ruling the way she did, but with all the noise she makes about contracts and what's in writing, she was kind of forced to. I'm sure the midwife changed the language in the contract the moment she got home, though. (And I have to admit, as a "I am absolutely giving birth in a hospital where they have all the good drugs and life-saving measures" kind of mother, I am a little morbidly curious about whether the first client might have had a happier ending had she not been laboring at home all day with the midwife.)
  13. After the way that crazy-ass landlord kicked that door down, hell, I'd be jumping out the window if I saw her coming after me. She was definitely one of the more repulsive litigants we've had in a while, and that's saying a lot. Bonus points for her being the plaintiff, losing, AND having to pay on the counter-claim. I love those cases, truly. And while JJ often doesn't award money for assault cases if there were no medical bills, she did today to prove a point, and I am 100% okay with that. On the flip side, yeah, I think she was off base in the tattoo case. I get that there's a lower bar re: evidence in small claims, but I still think it should have been more "prove your leg got infected from his shop" vs. "prove her leg DIDN'T get infected from your shop," because how can you really prove a negative? I do not have many nice things to say about the dumbass dogsitter who left pitbulls she didn't own alone with two little dogs she didn't own (okay, the slow-moving witness was there, but does she really count?), so I'll just stop here.
  14. Yeah, I think JJ missed the mark with the shopping cart case. Sometimes I DO park right next to a loose shopping cart in the lot...so I can take that cart and not worry about having to track down another one. That said, I also believe that the defendant had "taken ownership" of the cart and it did get away from her, based on her chasing it across the parking lot. She had a bit of a nasty attitude that really came out in the hallterview, so even though I don't agree with JJ's logic here, I also didn't lose any sleep over the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
  15. Bobcat defendant guy totally was the one driving. I thought he slipped once in the hallterview (but didn't care enough to rewind and check), and then after that one instance, there was a lot of "we" in there, like "we drove this way" and "we got stuck" and so on. I feel like if it had been the other guy driving, the defendant definitely would have used "he" and not "we". That said, the plaintiff's witness was working as his employee (or his agent, as JJ likes to say), and while he probably didn't give the defendant express permission to drive it, he certainly didn't try to stop him in any way, and initially was fine in joining him on that joy ride. I don't blame JJ for not wanting to untangle that one further and thought the ruling was fair.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size