augmentedfourth

Re: the dog case - While I'm sure there's some truth to the claim that Mom lets the son lounge around and do whatever he wants, I also definitely got controlling vibes off the father, to the point where I don't blame either of them for not wanting to live with him anymore. Much like Not-A-Prize Nancie the other day, Dad seemed utterly baffled when JJ wasn't agreeing with him and the case wasn't going his way. I don't think any of them are terrible people, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some shady stuff lurking beneath the surface. Community college sounds like it would be perfect for the son, in between Dad pushing him too much and Mom not pushing him enough. He was perceptive enough to sum it up perfectly in the hallterview - he'd like to have a relationship again with his father, but the guy DID just sue him [over something relatively petty, in my opinion].

Oh man, JJ telling Nancie she wasn't a prize was amazing, because clearly no one had dared suggest that to her before. Yeah, it was rude, but it didn't make me cheer at my TV screen any less.

I'd never heard of David Harbour before this, but damn, this was one of the most consistently funny episodes in a long time. What I really appreciated was that they didn't go back to their most commonly used fallbacks, like the game shows. Everything seemed fresh and original. I initially didn't love the Italian sauce sketch, but I loved Cecily's "We can go out and come back so we can have a different time, something unlike what we're having now."

Man, the hallterview in the broken up engaged couple really brought it today. Not that the plaintiff was that much of a prize herself, but the defendant (who wasn't too bad looking) really downgraded with that toothless maid of honor. Oof. I agree that Ms. "Legally Blind" knows exaaaaactly how to game the system and what magic words to say. I'm glad JJ was onto her and only gave her the $300.

Re: insurance and lawsuits - sometimes they do incredibly stupid things. (Or at least things that look incredibly stupid to people not employed by the insurance companies.) I had a case at work once where a mother and her teenage daughter were out running errands, and the mother got into an accident while driving the car. The daughter injured her knee (I think?) in the accident, and to get her medical bills covered, her father had to sue her mother on her behalf since she was a minor at the time of the accident. No, they weren't divorced with split custody or anything; everyone happily lived under the same roof, aside from this fuckery.

No judge, no courtroom, it was just a hearing, much like a deposition. This probably varies wildly depending on location, but around here, if you're filing a claim against a municipality (like your town, your village, your county, whatever), there's a hearing first before it gets into a full-blown lawsuit. Honestly, I don't know exactly what the distinction is or what happens between the two, as that's above my pay grade. I just need to know what to stick on the title page of the transcript. 😄

I just looked, and I have the same titles for today's episodes. (I have Optimum/Altice/whatever they're calling themselves these days.) Story time! So there's this attorney in the area that I'd just kind of known by sight, maybe enough to nod a greeting too from across a room, until I worked an incredibly stupid slip 'n' fall case with her where she was working for the local municipality where this happened and she was questioning the claimant in a hearing. She asked the claimant to do something basic, like draw an X on a photograph to indicate where she slipped and fell, and the claimant's attorney flipped the fuck out for no discernible reason. He objected, and then launched into this huge tirade about how inappropriate her request was. She responded to his objection, and he kept on screaming at her, just going on and on and on. When he stopped to take a breath, she simply asked, "Are you done?" Nope! He went on for another several minutes. Again, when he paused, she asked, "Are you done?" Nope! Still going! I forget what the final "Are you done?" count was, but he finally ran out of steam and she just continued on with her questions. At the end, after everyone else left, she turned to me and said, "What the FUCK was that all about?" Ever since then, we've been like BFFs whenever we've worked together. Anyway. That job came to mind today when I was watching JJ just let that idiot defendant keep ranting and raving and going on and on and on and on and on and on. It's like a toddler throwing a tantrum (and believe me, I'm familiar with those) - sometimes there's nothing else you can do until they wear themselves out.

The only person in both episodes today who wasn't a total dumpster fire was the landlord defendant in the first case. (Who, yes, gave an amazing hallterview.) The two shacking up litigants in the second case of the first episode might not be terrible people, just misguided in their belief that JJ was going to sort out their shit, but everyone else today -- EVERYONE ELSE -- was absolutely horrifying. And I am SO glad JJ called out the current trend of getting a doctor's note for getting any randomass animal declared a service animal, or therapy pet, or whatever. I'm not discounting legitimate needs, but waaaaaay too many people are gaming the system and getting their pets into places where they otherwise wouldn't be allowed. Considering how quick that plaintiff was to cite the ADA, he knows exactly what he's doing. I wish there were a better system in place.

I usually knit while watching JJ (and often miss the entertaining shenanigans going on in the gallery that you guys talk about!), but I kept looking up today because I apparently hate myself and was infuriated by the stupid smirk on the pitbull defendant's face. What a terrible person. I know it's unlikely, but it would be awesome if the police department did follow up on her claim that she lied to them. I was also glad the police officer wearing the body cam called her out on her bullshit as nicely as he could.

I rewound just to be sure - the plaintiff in the dead mother's ancient car case was introduced as being 21 years old, and then later says her three kids are ages 7, 6, and 5. Either some of those kids are biologically the wife's, or damn, she got started early. Guess there really isn't much else to do in certain parts of Indiana.

I'm still catching up on my huge backlog, but yes, this was my interpretation of the case, that the mother who won custody was a different person from the ex-wife witness (and wasn't present).

It was a crazy week over here, so I just caught up with all the new episodes on my DVR. My verdict: I hate everyone, except for the kid who got bitten by the dog (and his mother) and the guy whose dog was attacked in the dog part. Maaaaybe I don't hate the car accident plaintiff, though there was a little bit of "He hit me and forced me off the road! ...Okay, maybe his car didn't actually come into contact with mine." The chart definitely indicated a collision. Some of these episodes look like they were cobbled together from whatever was at the bottom of the bin and Monday's all reruns, I believe. Does anyone know, are we done with the season?

I think the issue might have been it wasn't really clearly stated one way or the other whether the defendant wanted to leave or if the plaintiff told her she no longer wanted to watch her kids. Based on the other stuff about the plaintiff not wanting to get involved with the babydaddy picking up the kids for whatever reason, I'm inclined to think it was the latter. So yes, she likely did have a contract, but if she tells them to go, I don't think it's fair for her to expect to be paid for those days.

A few years ago, my aunt tripped and fell in the parking lot of her church and hurt her...arm? elbow? I think? We half-joked that she should have sued, and you know some people would have, but she's been going to that church for 30 years and that might have been burning a bridge. On the opposite side of that coin is a case I had at work where a mother was suing on behalf of her young child who got seriously injured after services at a synagogue. The head of the synagogue? Her father-in-law/the kid's grandfather. She wasn't present when he got hurt, but the kid's father was, so he had to come in and testify. The attorney made VERY, VERY CLEAR that the kid's father was NOT a party to the lawsuit and was there to testify as a non-party witness. I'm sure it was all for insurance purposes, but damn, I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the next family gathering.

My father, who is an extremely generous person, gives away his old cars when he upgrades. I think the most recent recipient was daughter of a former coworker who was going through a rough patch or something like that. Years ago, when my grandfather decided it was time to stop driving, my father offered my brilliant but lazy friend his car for free (old, but few miles on it, since my grandfather didn't go too far), hoping he would use it to get a better job or something. My friend didn't even have his license at the time, didn't want to get it, and turned it down. (I told you, brilliant but lazy.) A mutual friend whacked him upside the head, saying, "FREE CAR. What is WRONG with you?" He's helped bail out a few of my less fortunate friends at times over the years (help with rent, car repairs, etc.). But you'll never see him on JJ because he's smart enough not to expect to be repaid, regardless of whatever people might promise.

I don't think the plaintiff in the dance business place got anything because of the discrepancy of how much rent she was supposed to be collecting. The written lease said $1000/month, and clearly the plaintiff has never watched the show, because we all know by now that you can't verbally change something that's in writing. The plaintiff did. not. get. it. (or was being deliberately obtuse), and that's when JJ kicked her out. I believe the math worked out so that even if the defendant had missed paying some rent before moving out, since she had technically overpaid for a while before that, the landlord still came out ahead. I don't even want to talk about the two deadbeat dads. I don't know who was worse, the one who fathered five children but only supports one of them, or the one who had a unicorn shit on his head and may or may not have a drug problem. I am glad the latter had to give the dog back, though.

Going back to Friday - How much of a complete idiot does someone have to be to appear on national television to testify about being "fully disabled" and receiving over $1300 a month in benefits, and then sue for wages owed for a job that's nothing but physical labor? JJ often claims she'll send tapes to the IRS; I wonder if whoever is issuing the disability payments would like a copy of this one. Today - "Well, she should have just filed bankruptcy, too!" was also stupid. As the plaintiff said, though it was drowned out by the defendant's pompous bleating, why should she tank her credit for X number of years by filing for bankruptcy when the only thing dragging her down is this old car? Ugh. He was one of the more irritating people who's been on lately, and that's saying a lot. Not that I condone cheating, but I felt zero sympathy for him there, and can kind of understand where the ex-wife was coming from. And then.... Both parents in the 4:30 case gave off creepy vibes. The new husband wasn't that much better, but for whatever reason, he didn't make my hair stand on end like the other two. Hopefully that'll be enough for those poor girls who are stuck in the middle.

The guy broke the fourth wall a little bit (and Rohan picked up on it) when he kind of quietly mentioned that entrepreneurs don't get to choose when they appear on the show. That led me to believe that maybe his situation wasn't as dismal when he first applied. Rohan was right, you shouldn't count on an appearance on the show as part of your business plan, but at the same time, you also have to wonder who just got lucky with the timing. But hey, no one ever said anything about this show was fair. I can't put my finger on why, but to me, it always feels wrong when a shark asks for more than 49%. Just let the entrepreneur keep the majority of his/her company. If you believe in the product, you'll still make money. The soda guy had an uphill battle coming in. If I saw something like that at one of the fancier grocery stores around here, I'd check it out and give it a try, but like he said, I can't imagine repeatedly ordering a beverage online. I agree that Rohan is one of the better guest sharks.

In the Fourth household, we were all expecting Davis to win, of course, but about halfway through, I said, "You know, Paige is getting the winner's edit." I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but they say if you watch enough reality shows/competitions, you can tell what's going to happen based on the editing. It still could have gone either way by the end (I was pretty sure Meadow wasn't going to win), but I wasn't surprised that Paige won. Based on all the challenges this season, I wouldn't necessarily say she's always been a better baker than Davis, but he wasn't flawless tonight, so I'm not disappointed in the result.

Over here in the Fourth household, we were dying of laughter at the bumper falling off with the license plate attached and the girl fleeing the scene anyway. Most victims scramble to get a glimpse of a license plate and jot it down quickly, but this guy had the actual, physical plate. Plus a piece of the car. Fantastic!

I agree that it's Davis's to lose at this point. (Honestly, it's been that way all season.) I thought Jaxon might be a dark horse and could swoop in at the end, especially after Madison left, but he really whiffed this week. Generally, I think Jaxon has great baking skills, but sometimes lacks in creativity, whereas Meadow has had great ideas, but sometimes just doesn't have what it takes for the execution. I don't dislike Paige, but I think she's gotten lucky a number of times - the weeks where she really didn't do well, she benefited from someone else doing noticeably worse.

I didn't hate the defendant in the $4000 vacation case, though I didn't really love him either, and I think JJ was a little tough on him. I HATE doing estate cases at work, and most of the lawyers I've worked with will say that as soon as someone dies, be prepared for everyone to show up out of nowhere and claim they're owed something. I can't really blame the defendant for wanting more documentation, especially if he's responsible as the executor of the estate. The figure of $1200 was thrown around somewhere in text messages, and then someone mentioned $3900, and then there was that "vacation, etc." in the memo of the $4K check. I won't argue that he might have been partially motivated by greed to get out of paying the woman back, but I agree with him that the amount of the debt wasn't as clear-cut as JJ thought, and who knows who else he's dealing with in regard to his mother's estate.

I maybe -- maybe -- would have believed that she wasn't living there if it weren't for the fact that she just so happened to be around (with her dog, according to the defendant?) at the exact time code enforcement swung by. Her story about the neighbor behind the building or whatever sounded made up. And, of course, once you lie about one thing, it's hard to believe anything else, though I do agree that people move around a lot and where they're currently residing doesn't necessarily match their driver's license, and so on. I believe it was briefly mentioned that part of her lawsuit was expenses she incurred to get her stuff out of the condemned building and maybe a new rental fee. Which, even if she had been truthful the entire time: NOPE. No one ever gets moving expenses from JJ. Because they ate the steak and/or if you don't like it, ah-MOVE!

My favorite part of the dog case was how the whole first half was about how much time the plaintiff let elapse between giving the dog to the defendant and trying to get it back, and JJ based everything on her giving the dog to him in August of 2017. As she said, that would be bad enough, to show up in early 2019 to get the dog back. But then the defendants, who were well-behaved and didn't call out the entire time, mentioned something about having the dog in January of 2017 (and had vet bills to back them up), making JJ put on the brakes for a second. When she questioned them about the August/January discrepancy, the way the brother defendant simply said, "She lied" made me laugh. And based on the plaintiff's performance, I don't think a single person in that room doubted him. That's how you do it, folks - if you know you're in the right, just keep your mouth shut and it'll work out.

Whenever someone mentions Donald Trump, Jr. AND I'M ERIC, my mind automatically goes to their SNL portrayals. In fact, I'm not even 100% positive I could pick the real Eric Trump out of a lineup.