augmentedfourth

This was one of the rare cases where I believed just about everything* both litigants said and agreed with JJ's ruling. I believe the plaintiff when he said the defendant let him babysit her kids (with his kids there, so more like a playdate?) and went to pool parties at his house, etc. (And he probably did pay some of her bills. She didn't deny that, right?) And I absolutely believe the defendant when she said he got creeptastic to the point where he was being a pain in the ass at her job. I think she managed to slip in that corporate told her she had to do something about him before JJ could holler THAT'S HEARSAY! at her. Anyway, I think she said that they only dated from May to July, so that seemed like a reasonable time frame to give it a shot and then decide it wasn't going to be a long-term relationship. And hey! Bonus points awarded for not having another kid together. *The only thing I didn't buy was when the plaintiff said he called corporate and they told him that he could absolutely keep going to the bar and he was such a great customer and they loved him. Yeeeeeeeah, probably not.

Word. I fall into the former category and bra shopping is a total nightmare. I usually wind up having to chance ordering online or making time to go all the way to a specialty store (and let's not talk about the last time I bothered to do that). Pregnancy was awesome because the ratio balanced out, but then I was right back where I started when I no longer had babies in my rib cage. I'll admit I'm a bit of a couch potato, but if they put out a regular (non-sports) bra with that kind of custom fit that isn't too bulky, I will be first in line to buy it. Oh, and bathing suits too, please?

One of my instructors in court reporting school told us that when "Were you wearing your seat belt at the time of the accident?" is asked, the answer is always an emphatic "Yes". He also said a lot of people would even claim they didn't have the radio on while driving. Sure enough, I've had exactly one case over the years where the claimant admitted she hadn't been wearing her seat belt, and that's because she was parked at the time and someone backed into her. (And obviously, she was injured, because she was turned around in the driver's seat so she could talk to her 16-year-old pregnant daughter? step-daughter? son's girlfriend? who was in the backseat. Fun times!)

I was just coming here to say the same exact thing. Eerie. I was unimpressed. My husband liked it. He can have the rest of my bag.

I think I might have liked this one more had it not immediately followed the STEM episode - we're treading a little close to "special issue of the week" territory. I did laugh a couple times, and I liked the part toward the end with Cory, Topanga, and Auggie, but a lot of it was just too heavy-handed and awkward (much like the STEM episode).

I admit I wasn't hanging on every word of the college house case because it wasn't all that interesting, but I think the point JJ was trying to make was that after renting it for 5-6 years to college students, there was obviously going to be some wear and tear, and it was unreasonable to use the most recent renters' security deposit to spruce up the place. For example, she usually tells landlords that painting and replacing carpet is just part of doing business of being a landlord and having a rental property, so I didn't think she was being terribly inconsistent. I think she would have allowed the landlord to keep the amount of the legitimate cleaning bill until she admitted that she told the girls they could split it 50/50.

The second pair of Sock Cardigan socks arrived yesterday. They're red and orange with dark blue toes/heels/cuffs, and there's some sort of a star and pinwheel pattern. To me, they look kind of superhero-ish. My husband thinks he likes the pink elephants better. To each his own? *shrug*

Yeah, this was really awkward and clunky, despite having a reasonable message somewhere in there. Two thoughts: 1) I think the premise might have made a tiiiiny bit more sense if Riley had been paired with Lucas instead of Farkle. Farkle didn't want Riley to drop the marble and him to do the "science" part because he's a boy and she's a girl; he did it because he's the "smart" one and wanted to ensure a good grade. (Not to mention, as others have said, Farkle has always supported Riley in everything she does.) If it had been Lucas, who hasn't been pigeonholed into the "nerdy" role, or shown to be as concerned with getting good grades, the premise of putting the boys and girls into their expected roles might have carried more weight. 2) Even though this was a weak episode, Topanga was pretty good, as I hoped she would be as soon as I learned what it was about. I actually loved the part where she kept nudging that one girl from "I like shoes" to "I want to work in the shoe business" to "I want to OWN the shoe business". I also liked that she was the type of parent who rolled her eyes at everyone getting a trophy. In an episode where everyone else was written sloppily, I think they stayed pretty true to Topanga's character.

Wyld entertained the hell out of me, what can I say. I used to be a teacher before I switched over to the legal field (which is why nothing phases me these days ;) ), and he probably would have fallen into the category of students I labeled "I like them despite my better judgment". I'm sure Dad doesn't supervise him that closely, and he probably does get a little too close to strange dogs, but as soon as I heard the dog was unleashed, I knew how the case was going to go, and it wouldn't have mattered what Wyld said anyway. For this one, I agree, as it didn't seem like they were in a designated dog park, where it was expected dogs would be off-leash, and if the dog HAD been leashed, there wouldn't have been an issue. Man, that witness really thought he'd been brought to give expert testimony on "provocation". It was said softly, but I think I heard at a certain point the defendant telling him to be quiet (after JJ reamed him out a bit)?

I could be wrong, and someone correct me if I am, but I though the plaintiff kept the non-pregnant cow after the defendant refused to take it back, and might even still have it? Was anything said about the cow having to go back? If that's the case, I can see JJ thinking, "It's your cow now, you would have had to feed it anyway, too bad." From the little the plaintiff was able to get out about that part, I thought her issue was that she'd been feeding the not-pregnant cow special pregnant cow food (either quality or quantity, I don't know, city girl over here), and that's what she wanted to be reimbursed for. Which doesn't sound unreasonable.

The whole time the plaintiff was talking about how the bull wouldn't have tried to mate with the cow if she was already pregnant, I found myself thinking, "BUT WAS IT COW RAPE?!?!?" I'm going to hell.

My husband's first Sock Cardigan package, as gifted to him by my mother arrived today. (A week before his birthday, but oh well!) He was really excited about it before he even opened the package. Also, my mother said her procrastination paid off, and since she waited to order during the Black Friday-Cyber Monday, she got two months free, so he'll be getting eight months of socks. Okay, okay, the part you've all been waiting for: The first pair of socks is...*drumroll*...dark gray with pink elephants. My husband thinks they're awesome and is totally planning on wearing them. I also like them and think they're fun, but I can see how they wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. He's even considering gifting a subscription to his brother, but I don't really think my BIL is the type to wear and enjoy pink elephant socks. I could be wrong, though.

Same here - I used to crochet dolls on commission (usually based on video game characters or other nerdy things ;) ), and my base rate was $50. A lot of fiddly details upped the price, but I'd sometimes throw in discounts if you were a recurring customer/ordering multiple ones, or if you're a personal friend. No way was I making even close to minimum wage, but I actually enjoyed figuring out how to replicate stuff in yarn. And it gave me something to do while watching TV, anyway. But if someone had come to me with an established pattern and said "Make this for a piddly sum of money so I can turn around and sell it for hundreds"...yeeeeeeeeeah, no. Lolololno, even.

I am too, and I hated the segment. I was surprised that some of the Sharks were actually interested in it. I assumed we'd hear a lot of the "this isn't scale-able" criticism, and they'd be exactly right, and I also made the same comments others have about the labor. Also, the presenter had one of the most annoying voices I've heard on the show. Overall, I thought this episode was a little lackluster.

Obviously the terrier that growled at Byrd when he came too close was going to be removed from the courtroom. If something happens to Byrd, who is going to pay for everybody's bail, child support, Section 8 housing, student loans, and rims?

Oh, I was totally willing to believe she was drunk when the accident happened, proof or no proof. (And during the taping as well.) Those must have been some pretty damning pictures Squatter Babymama had since JJ didn't even make them pay rent after seeing them, which surprised me.

I thought he looked like Solas from Dragon Age: Inquisition, but with glasses. You have your porn, I have my video games, and they're probably at the same level of "socially acceptable" in JJ's world. :D

I knew exactly how the dog case was going to go down as soon as the plaintiff uttered the magic words ("off leash") - no matter how much of a shit the defendant made himself out to be, legally, JJ couldn't do anything about it. Had the plaintiff not said the magic words so early, he might just have talked himself into one of those situations where JJ decides she just can't deal with a litigant anymore and rules against him/her, law be damned. However, as the case went on, the plaintiff got more and more annoying anyway. Glad I don't live on that "private drive". (I do kind of have to admire the guy for bringing legal representation to a court TV show - is that a Judge Judy first?) The 19-year-old whose car got dinged by the falling broken door gave me a little hope for the future. She came prepared and presented herself better than the majority of people we see on this show.

The newlyweds were obnoxious in this case, but I have to admit, sometimes I'm torn on the wedding cases. (Definitely not this one, but in general.) For a lot of people, it *is* supposed to be one of the most special days in their lives, and it must suck to have hired a crappy vendor. It seems JJ won't do anything unless there's a blatant violation of a written contract, but there seems to have been a couple of wedding planners, photographers, DJs, etc. over the years who maybe technically didn't do anything wrong, but still half-assed their duties for the event. I know JJ rarely awards for pain and suffering, and it probably isn't legally warranted, but on occasion, I do feel bad. Especially with the crappy photographers, since that's something that's supposed to last beyond the day itself. Meh, I must be getting soft in my old age. The poodle owner did come across as kind of sketchy. I think it was the way he said "treats" and "popsicles". Ew.

For years, I've been waiting to see a food product on this show that obviously tasted like crap. There have been some where the Sharks politely said it wasn't quite to their tastes, or maybe even a couple plain "I didn't like it"s, but the camera showing Mark and Robert's reaction to trying the "ice cream" made my day. No way that was scripted!

Hee hee, I thought the same exact thing! Good for him for just giving JJ the facts of what he saw/did in a coherent way, and good for her for taking pictures of the plaintiff's dog continuing to run around off-leash after the incident. But! Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that in past cases, where the plaintiff is suing for X amount of money and the defendant offers to pay a portion, even if JJ finds that legally, the plaintiff isn't entitled to anything, because the defendant *said* they'd pay some money, she holds them to that. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad today's dog owners didn't have to pay that woman anything (because she's one of the many litigants who Just. Didn't. Get. It.), but it just seemed inconsistent to me. I had no idea what was going on in the Ishee case, and thought all of them had something shady going on. Though maybe Mrs. Ishee would have gotten her server back (or its value) if she hadn't added in all those nonsense claims to come up with the maximum $5000. I did go to the trouble of pausing my DVR so I could read the lengthy email. It wasn't too exciting. Best I could gather, Mr. Ishee got all worked up because the plaintiff made some nasty comments about his wife being a woman and/or Latina. Wah wah I thought we were faaaaaamily wah. The loan stuff wasn't even on that page. For the hit-and-run car case, I assumed that despite not having witness statements attached, the police report contained information on how they connected the dots and figured out it was the defendant's SUV that caused the damage. I thought something wasn't hearsay if it's in the official police report, but meh. Either way, that was a snoozefest.

Definitely. And you know what, I'll even buy that the daughter told Mom and NotStepDad that she was afraid of the father, because if she's skipping school and getting $800 phones, she knows exaaaactly how to play them. And they'll eat up whatever she tells them. I've never been in a divorce/stepparent/custody situation, so I could be talking out of my ass here, but based on stories I've heard and cases I've seen on JJ, theoretically, I think it's not a bad idea for kids going back and forth between houses to have their own phone in order to have a way to contact the other parent just in case there is something hinky going on. HOWEVER. When I say "phone", I mean just that. A cheap little thing that calls people. Maybe texts. Not an $800 device that's more powerful than the computers used in the first moon landings. For what it's worth, I think the father did probably smash the phone. While it may not have been "morally" right, I can buy JJ's legal explanation of why NotStepDad wasn't getting anything back. And if memory serves, I think she did call out NotStepDad for not being a parent and having no legal standing in any of those relationships.

Lori has said some stupid shit in the past, but overall, I don't mind her and think she can be an excellent partner for some people/products. The mattress guy...ehhh, okay, she could probably find a way to make it work. STEM girls, I'm not seeing it. I feel like they didn't think far beyond "Another woman, yay!" Mattress Guy drove me nuts, and I guess that valve must be really something since he got the offers he did. I half-expected someone (Mark, maybe) to offer to just buy him out completely, patent and all, but he probably wouldn't have taken it. Good luck, Lori. I think you're going to need it. I also thought the STEM girls would get an offer from Mark, since that building kit thing whose name escapes me (that just got an update recently) seems to be doing well. Okay. I do love my morning coffee, but it *really* doesn't take that long to make a cup in a Keurig. Especially if you're like my boss who leaves it on 24/7. (I know, I know, true coffee snobs don't love the Keurig, but you'll pry mine out of my cold, dead hands. And I doubt the coffee snobs would find coffee in a can much better.) I'll even say that part of my enjoyment of a cup of coffee is how it smells as I'm making it, so while I thought the coffee in a can was an interesting concept, I doubt I'd be a customer.

I couldn't decide if watching the brilliant legal scholars Janae and Helena try to school JJ in what was or wasn't admissible evidence was hilarious or painful. Maybe a little of both. I enjoyed JJ's explanation of daughter vs. tenant in the second case, even though the plaintiff didn't seem to get it. I thought I caught a slight whiff of "go on TV with a bogus case to get the free trip and a little money" with those two, but maybe the plaintiff really was that dim. Or stubborn. Maybe a little of both. ;)

I spent the majority of the Pekingese case yelling "Maybe the dog just DIDN'T LIKE YOU!" By the end, I can't say I blamed it. I loved how the plaintiff insisted that the dog "went crazy", and for the entire case, it was perfectly fine just chillin' on the table. I thought they were bleeping out "piss", not "poop".