CrazyInAlabama

Seattle Space Need. Ashley is moving to Seattle, and buying her first place. $450,000 budget. First condo don't think the camera crew likes her, when she talked about liking the subway tile in the bathroom, she was looking down, and the camera showed a penny tile floor. If she thinks the first one is tight and dark, wait until a nice rainy day in winter. That one doesn't have parking, but you get a parking permit for the area, and hunt for your own space. $350,000 on Capitol Hill and she expects charm for that price in Capitol Hill, 1 bed 1 bath. It comes with covered secured parking. Bedroom is small, and bathroom is nice, but Ashley wants to remodel it eventually. The garden/patio is shared by the building, and Ashley wants to let her dog run around? She doesn't actually have a dog yet. Third Single Family, with space. $435,000. It's in the burbs, 20 minutes South of Capitol Hill. Cute house, with a fenced yard, and under the flight path of the airport. 2 bed 2 bath, 9,000 sq ft lot, 1500 sq ft, really nice house. There is a driveway, and it's very long. Primary bedroom is nice, no door o the closet. Bath is nice, and a good size. downstairs has a finished family room, with an office. Family room would work with a pull out sofa, office downstairs wouldn't have the airplane noise. Lots of windows. If she has to get a fireplace, they make electric freestanding ones that are great. I would buy #3, use the downstairs for an office in the windowless room. . She bought #2.

“Below Dock" New, 4/26/2024 From the show site: Laney decides to honor her parents by using her inheritance to buy a generational vacation home on the Emerald Coast, and David embarks on a journey to find perfection in waterfront showstoppers. Laney and husband Brett are househunting on Florida's Emerald Coast, Destin, Panama City. and a lot of other fantastic panhandle cities. Laney's mom recently passed away, and Laney was left a gift from her parents. They live in Fort Lauderdale/ South Florida, a 9 hour drive to the Emerald Coast. Wishlist- 3 bed, 2 bath, not cookie cutter, and an open water view, with boat access. $1 million to $1.2 million. Realtor Sandy says ocean front is out of reach, but bay front is very possible.

Yes, she stole the trailer, it wasn't a loan by defendant. It boggles the mind that plaintiff claimed defendant was going to be surprised when she moved out, using his trailer as a moving van. It was more like a shock.

26 April 4 p.m. episodes- p. 500, 30 September 2021 Pedestrian Teen Hit by Truck! ; College Payback Gone Wrong! Adult Assaults Disrespectful Tweener?! -Plaintiff mother Latasha Crenshaw suing defendant/ volunteer class monitor Devetta Jackson for pinching her 12-year-old daughter, Amia Sneed, and telling to stop sitting with her legs wide apart. Plaintiff mother thinks her daughter is a wonderful child, and wasn't a problem at school. Defendant says daughter was disrespectful, talked in class constantly, eye-rolling, and other disruptive behavior. JJ reprimands the defendant for pinching the 12-year-old. The defendant also told girl not to sit with her legs wide open in front of the male teacher, and then complain about teacher looking up her dress. Mother of plaintiff claims no one at school ever said her daughter was a behavior problem. There were no medical bills for the daughter, and mother put Neosporin on it. Mother's excuse is all of the kids at school are equally bad. The plaintiff mother's expression throught the entire case is total rage at JJ. Officer Byrd put down his crossword puzzle, so you know Ms. Crenshaw is making him go on high alert.. Plaintiff gets $10 (yes, ten dollars). (The look on plaintiff's face when JJ announces the verdict is total rage). 5 p.m. episodes- America Not So Great Again! – Plaintiff Elizabeth O’Farrell is suing defendant /(prisoner regular in Missouri) Christopher Clokey for a false restraining order, travel costs (she gave him the bus tickets, and expense money), a wardrobe (she sent him in prison for release to her home), and six months back rent. Defendant worked as their nanny for their special needs child. Defendant is an ex-convict who receives disability for PTSD from being shot in prison, moves in with plaintiff, and her family. Even though he's considered mentally fragile, and disabled the woman hires him as nanny for her special needs little girl, and I found that super creepy. He also was trying to potty train the six-year-old child. Defendant has four biological kids with ex-wife, Angel Clokey, and maybe more kids are out there. Plaintiff says four of his kids are actually adopted by other people. Christopher Clokey was arrested for parole violation, by going from Missouri to California (where Ms. O'Farrell lives), so he went back to prison for another year or so. He lived with O'Farrell in 2016, then 2017, and then back again between prison incarcerations in 2018. (I may be wrong on this, because I'm totally confused). Defendant was released to plaintiff's address, in California from Missouri, where he was in prison, again. His ex-wife, who he calls his wife, was not eligible to have him move in. No, I don't know why. (His ex-wife who he calls his wife is his witness in court) Defendant never repaid plaintiff for anything over the years, so she had no expectation of repayment. Ms. O'Farrell was his payee for his Social Security Disability, and cashed one check, and keeps it. Defendant drives, and does everything else, but still gets disability, and has a payee? As JJ says, he can do everything else other people do, drive, cook, tend children, make babies, etc, except he can't work. (Nothing is mentioned about what his convictions are for, but he can't live with his ex either?) Case dismissed (no expectation of repayment, and plaintiff received money from his one SSDI check). I Won't Rat out a Friend!; Plaintiff / car owner Renne Knutsen suing defendant/neighbor Patrick Clifton for car damages after defendant’s huge party, when one of his drunk guests did a hit-and-run on plaintiff’s car. Defendant who had huge party at his place won't tell which of his friends hit, and left after smashing the plaintiff's parked car. This is the young man who does nothing, and just has big parties. Defendant and fiance, both 20, have a 1 year old kid, he inherited from his father, and does nothing useful. 20-year-olld defendant was also serving liquor, and drinking. Plaintiff car was hit at 2 a.m. or so, when defendant's friends were leaving party. When fiance of plaintiff walked out into the parking lot a bunch of people were standing around the damaged car, laughing and taking cell phone pictures. Fiance of plaintiff knocked on 80 doors in the condo to find out who had the party, and who hit plaintiff's car. A neighbor's door bell camera taped the accident, and the hilarity from the party guests, and defendant is on video looking at the crashed car. There are texts between litigants, and defendant says that he knows who hit the car, and now denies it. Plaintiff's witness is a neighbor, who saw the damages to the car, and took photos. There is another neighbor with a ring-type doorbell who has a video of the car hit-and-run. JJ points out that he's under the legal drinking age too. According to the Oregon statutes, he's responsible for the damages of his drunken guests. Plaintiff gets $ 2,555. Bartender Blackmail-Plaintiff Michelle Lyon gave defendant Timothy Armstrong $1500 cash, and says it was a loan. Defendant claims it wasn't a loan, because he claims she was stealing from the bar he was going to purchase. Plaintiff claims money was a loan to defendant for his car replacement. $1200 to plaintiff.

26 April “This is Bull Shih Tzu” New, Season 10, Episode (Ramona Jones vs. Lily Yoon) From the show site: An earless dog is allegedly the result of a tragic grooming mishap. Her owner had her hair dyed purple, and an allergic reaction led to severe chemical burns. The groomer claims she advised against the coloring, but the owner was insistent. Should she have stood firm in her professional judgment instead of giving in to keep a client happy? (I’m confused, I thought the coloring they use on animals is food coloring, not some chemical process that could cause burns? Or am I wrong? I remember watching a dog grooming competition quite a few years ago, and they did use a non-toxic food coloring on the dogs. ) Plaintiff suing defendant/dog groomer for $5,000, court maximum, because groomer agreed to dye dog purple at owner's insistance, and due to an allergic reaction the dog suffered severe chemical burns, and is now earless. I agree with Judge Tewolde, groomer claims she didn't want to do the dye, told plaintiff not to do it, but still groomer dyed the ears and tail purple, which is bizarre. After the dye job, a week later dog was uncomfortable, and vet said allergic reaction and Plaintiff's dog Pebbles had a litter well before she was one year old, and after puppies are weaned, the dye job happened. Defendant claims the color is safe on animals, and she's never had an issue with a reaction on the dog. Defendant has been using the same brand of dye for eight years. Plaintiff originally wanted the dogs ears and tail dyed when dog was 2 months old, and groomer refused until dog was over 1 year old. The dye job was two months after her first litter was weaned, and I'm guessing sold. I can't believe that plaintiff bred the dog very young. I bet it was only for money, because Pebbles cost $5,000. Plaintiff claims dog had chemical burns, and all for a trendy dye job. Plaintiff cliams she only trimmed the dog's hair, and still delayed going to the vet until over a week after the dye job. Corriero mentions that four states don't allow dying dog's hair. Defendant did refuse several times to do the dye job, but claims plaintiff kept demanding the dye, so she finally did the color job. Original request by plaintiff was for groomer to pay the vet bills. Now she wants vet bills and pain and suffering. (Plaintiff says she'll never dye the dog's hair again or her own, so I guess that awful wig is the result of that?) Plaintiff has no vet report about the situation. Defendant reads the Korean dye warnings, none of them say harmful. Without a vet report, how can the judges give a judgment? But vet bills, and grooming total $700. Corriero wouldn't give pain and suffering, because it might encourage others to dye their dog. So, 700 for vet bills, and grooming. $1,500, with Corriero dissenting for $720 because plaintiff demanded the dye job. Plaintiff gets $1500. “Car and Driver Missing Wire"” Rerun, Season 10, Episode p. 45, 10 January 2024

Kristen did say they may chop two cheftestants in a future episode. So, now they're down to ten? Or did I miscount again? This episode was a big fail for me, and I'm hoping they gave the chefs more explanation that we didn't see.

Sounds like a job for Simon Cowell. I keep wondering what kind of venues Brandie is touring with her performances, and if it's a paying performance, or something else. I wonder how the trio are really doing now?

For me, the switch to Wednesday night is very disconcerting. I don't know why, but it is. Because of conflicts with My 600 Lb Life, I only get to watch the ending, and have to watch the On Demand for it. Watching it backwards is very strange. This episode was very confusing, and I still don't understand Chaos cuisine.

First airing Wednesday, 1 May 2024, 7 - 9 pm Central, 8 - 10 Eastern (I'll try to remember to post the air date from now on). Update on Nathan and Amber from Palestine, TX. He was a drama teacher, she was a teacher, and he became Dr. Now's patient in S10:E01. From IMDB: In this special episode featuring bonus scenes, viewers will catch up with Nathan and Amber as they navigate their weight-loss journeys. Nathan, who underwent weight-loss surgery, is making strides towards a healthier life and is even returning to work as a teacher. However, his wife, Amber, is facing her own challenges as she struggles to qualify for a second surgery to update a previous one she had years ago. As Nathan and Amber confront their respective obstacles, viewers will witness the highs and lows of their transformations, highlighting the physical and emotional tolls of their weight-loss journeys.

25 April 4 p.m. episodes- p. 500, 29 September 2021 Family Emergency Upset! ; Cancer or No Cancer? ; Prison Visit Crash! p. 503, 24 December 2021 Same Sex Wedding Woes! ; Hit-and-Run Detective! 5 p.m. episodes- Child Support From Hell -Plaintiff Raul Cervantes suing his child's mother/ex Patty Hammons for money he gave her to prevent his daughter from being homeless, and says mother turned child against him. He pays his court ordered support, and defendant wanted him to pay her bills off. The litigants got back together, and she claimed she was pregnant again (no she wasn't). Plaintiff claims he loaned her $4,000 to $5,000 to pay off her debts, but she claims $1,000. She wanted the money before they started to co-parent. Byrd needs to take the Fly Swatter From Hell after motor mouth defendant. Defendant says they weren't intimate, but plaintiff says they were, and she claimed a false pregnancy. Defendant claims she was never behind on rent, but plaintiff says defendant claimed she had an eviction notice, and was really behind on rent. JJ is going to call apartment manager. Now defendant is lecturing JJ on what's relevant (Byrd get the Fly Swatter, please). JJ talks to apartment manager, and defendant is absolutely lying. $3501 is what he paid the defendant. Plaintiff has paid child support for 10 years. The day they broke up, she stole his car, threatened to get his child support raised. JJ advises plaintiff to show the payments he made that exceeded his child support payments to the family court judge when she takes him back to court. $0 to plaintiff, because there was no expectation of repayment. c**** Cat Custody--Plaintiff (room renter) Libby Crawford suing defendant/former landlord Dawn Jarman for return of her cat, and an assault by defendant. Plaintiff moved in with the cat, Melvin, but defendant still has it. Cat is in court with defendant, and a designated cat holder. Police were involved with the dust up, and plaintiff did get some property back. No rent owed. Security deposit $150, according to defendant loon, and plaintiff says she paid $650 total. Ms. Jarman, defendant was emergency contact on vet paperwork, not as co-owner. I really hope Byrd takes the Flyswatter of Death after the defendant, and I get to see it. (This is the case where the defendant states "A cat isn't a roommate, it's an infant". When JJ says something's wrong with the defendant, the defendant looks at JJ like she's the nutty one. ) Officer Byrd is totally over the defendant's ranting. She better not advance on JJ's Sacred Bench of Justice, or Officer Byrd will stop her cold. Cat was declawed before plaintiff adopted it three years ago. Defendant got a license in her name, vet bills, and other 'proof'. All of this happened a month or six weeks ago, so plaintiff gets her cat back. Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and I can't see why anyone wouldn't want to punch her. Plaintiff gets her cat back, and defendant gets nothing. Crash Sob Story-Plaintiff John Velani suing defendant Tina Prewitt for repairs to his parked car that defendant hit. Defendant has a bunch of garbage excuses, including the mysterious truck that ran her off the road. (Must be the same truck in all of these cases, wandering the country, and forcing other drivers off the road). Plaintiff receives $5,000.

I am tired of cheftestants coming to TC, and saying "Desserts aren't in my wheel house" or "I haven't done a dessert since culinary school". If you want to come to TC and do well, you try a variety of local dishes when you know the location, a variety of dishes including a couple of desserts, and a full menu if you make the finals. I watched the elimination challenge instructions again, and I still don't know what the challenge actually was.

25 April “Moving Without a Hitch” New, Season 10, Episode ( Julie Ribiero vs. Justin Stephanson ) From the show site: A woman was between apartments, and her friend allowed her to tow his mobile home. Then she crashed the mobile home while hitching it to her SUV and using it as a moving truck! Plaintiff suing defendant. Defendant owned a mobile home, and was nice enough (OK, stupid enough) to let plaintiff to borrow it, and use it as a moving truck, at least that's plaintiff's stupid story, it was going to be a surprise when she moved out. Plaintiff wrecked the mobile home, and defendant is now homeless, and plaintiff is suing him. Judge Tewolde is angry with the plaintiff's lawsuit blaming the defendant for her property loss in an accident that was her fault. Plaintiff was allowed by defendant and girlfriend to camp out in his trailer. Then, defendant's mother showed up, and said plaintiff couldn't put her stuff all over the defendant's property. Then, plaintiff got the keys to her new place early, and she hitched the trailer to her SUV, and it broke loose, car went straight, and trailer went it's own way. Trailer was wrecked, (on Avenue of the Giants), and plaintiff called AAA for a tow, and they declined (they don't tow RVs, trailers, etc.). Plaintiff wrecked the defendant's trailer, which was his home, and how he's homeless. And the plaintiff has the monumental gall to sue defendant!!! Defendant claims plaintiff didn' have his permission to use his trailer as a moving truck, and he would have warned her that she couldn't use the trailer that way, since the hitch was defective. Defendant was stunned when he found out plaintiff stole and wrecked his trailer home, and police declined to get involved, and said it was a civil manner. Judge Juarez is livid at the plaintiff, and Judge Tewolde is too. Plaintiff tells Judge Tewolde she wanted to surprise the defendant by moving out, it certainly was a surprise. Actually, I would call it a shock. Corriero takes over, and even Bleeding Heart Corriero can find a way to make plaintiff's despicable actions plausible. Defendant's travel trailer was only insured in place, not for traveling, so no claim is possible. Trailer is still at the auto shop, and isn't repairable. Defendant gives plaintiff permission to get her property out of the trailer, most generous of him. The judges' discussion is bizarre. Plaintiff never even apologized, and judges have total contempt for plaintiff. Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's Bull Pucky. She will be given access to retieve her junk within 10 days, and I hope it's all destroyed. Defendant is awarded $5,000, court maximum. I wish they could give him double. (the way Judge Tewolde smacked her gavel makes me wonder if she wanted to smack something else with it). “Mind Your Loan Business ; Handi-Snapped” Rerun, Season 10, Episode “Mind Your Loan Business”’ (Jacqui Ramey vs. Baker) From the show site: Two ladies at a senior living center used to love watching Netflix together. But when a loan was made between them and nagging ensued, their relationship lost all its chill. The defendant says she'd pay it if she had it, but she's fighting a separate battle to recover lost wages. Is the plaintiff being too pushy? Plaintiff is suing defendant for an unpaid loan. Loan was $700, and defendant repaid $200. Defendant apparently had no reason she hadn't repaid plaintiff, so the loan was paid to plaintiff by the court. Defendant makes it clear that she has no intention of repaying the remaining $500. Judges give the plaintiff her $500. “Handi-Snapped” (Salomon Navarro vs Daniel Ong) Plaintiff suing defendant for car damages from parking in defendant's parking lot. Plaintiff parked in defendant's parking lot, and he heard a strange noise, and the concrete bumper was under his car, and caused damages. Photo shows the metal rebar securing the concrete parking space block was sticking up under plaintiff's car. However, plaintiff parked over the concrete bumper with the concrete piece going front to back under his car, not where his tires would hit the concrete stopper the way it does when you pull into a parking space correctly. Defendant sent a check to plaintiff, for $429, but plaintiff never opened the envelope or cashed the check. Plaintiff refused to pick the check up at the post office. This is what plaintiff is suing for, and it settles the case. Judge Juarez is slamming the plaintiff for taking this to court, and clogging up the L.A. County court system. Plaintiff is so stubborn. $429 check from defendant to plaintiff.

According to Titan TV, here's next weeks lineup. I'm shocked that they're actually showing them in order. Week: 29 April to 3 May Monday-"Jewelry tussle" 10/17/2017, Season 21 / Episode 32 Tuesday-“You Broke My Window" 10/18/2017, Season 21 / Episode 33 Wednesday-"Mom sues her daughter's ex!" 10/19/2017, Season 21 / Episode 34 Thursday-"Roommate Ruckus" 10/20/2017, Season 21 / Episode 35 Friday-"Sticky Finger Stepson" 10/23/2017, Season 21 / Episode 36

I hate that Rasika will have to go to LCK, but at least Michelle stayed longer. I didn't understand anything about the challenge, and still don't. To me Chaotic means messy, sloppy, and disjointed. However, if Rasika's was really the way the judges said, it sounds hideous. I pity the judges for having to try to eat that. Laura is not showing very well, and I'm guessing she's going to claim a bad edit. However, you can't show something that didn't happen or wasn't said, so I'm not believing anything she says.

Michelle or Rashika is going to be hard to take. Though eitehr one could crush LCK. I don't understand the challenge at all. Rasika, LCK may be a good restart for her, and she could come back.