Byrd is the Word

One word. Elderly Agree. Furthermore there was not enough evidence on the plaintiff’s side to warrant the JJ’s hostility and indignation. I wouldn’t base my defense on the “et cetera” note but I would certainly like some sort of accounting from the plaintiff before handing over $4,000. The old woman wasn’t all there and the well intended daughter didn’t impress me with her bookkeeping skills. Best guess is that the judgement was fair to both parties. I didn’t like him the moment he opened his word hole adorned with the Buffalo Bill soul patch.

The other day there was a Caucasian defendant contractor who had the affectations of a black gangster. In addition to being very off putting, I find that disrespectful to the culture that’s not yours and that you’re imitating.

Years ago it was explained to me that essence of matrimonial law is to protect the state. The argument being if you marry someone and divorce them, the financial burden of their support should fall on the bread winner and not the state if need be. You picked him, you support him and not we the people.

I’d settle for 9th geometry.

It makes me nuts when she automatically assumes that any car with side damage was hit by another car and therefore the driver with the side damage is at fault. Often that’s true. But any of us can side impact a stationary object and do damage to the side of the car that could appear as if the car were struck and not the other way around. If you don’t believe me ask to see the pictures of what our son did to my car when he was 16. 🙄

I’m glad it worked out so well for your granddaughter. What JJ never mentions is that any insurance, whether on your life of your $30 toaster is about nothing but risk, what party assumes that risk and an individual’s tolerance for risk; both financial and emotional. If you have resources and a strong stomach, assume more risk in the form or less insurance and/higher deductibles. If you more insurance will give you more sleep and peace of mind, go for it. As long as everyone understands their risk, what their liability is and honors that liability everyone will be fine.

Absolutely. He must have mentioned that himself. But HIPPA laws being what they are she have an almost impossible time making a case of it. And as soon as she mentioned that she was exiting a parking lot and into a lane of traffic she sprung the trap door on herself. And as hard as she tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again (“I was just a nose into traffic”) it was too late.

Good grief people. You’re not entitled to an award for pain and suffering when you get shorted by your insurance company or compensation for lost wages when dealing with life’s little frustrations. It’s not the lottery so rub some dirt on it and move on. You’ll be fine.

Thus blowing your 15 minutes of fame, an opportunity to wear your skankiest outfit and an audition for your own reality TV show. Not smart. 😉

I’m not convinced the can would carry like that if it were completely empty. Either way I agree with you. And if I’m struck by that flying can that laughter would stop quickly.

I’m not convinced the can would carry like that if it were completely empty. Either way I agree with you. And if I’m struck by that flying can that laughter would stop quickly.

Crazy and overweight is not unusual in a strip club. The saddest strip clubs reveal the cesarean scars and bullet wounds. So I’ve been told.

I had a sociology class years ago and learned that laughter is a response to stress and/or embarrassment exhibited by certain individuals and also certain cultures. It’s also a characteristic of a psychopath. Best of luck telling one from the other.

Interesting in the Yeet, PC case was the moment when Byrd stood up to JJ when she clearly got an important fact wrong, later proven on the audio replay. And why the hell do you yell at a 14 year old girl who’s telling the truth and only guilty of doing something foolish but absent of malice? Props to the defendant girl for holding her mud while Judge Crabby needlessly barked at her. The hallterview remarks of both girls were refreshingly sweet and made me smile.

Loved that case too. And shame on me for prejudging the blue haired plaintiff as a wing nut. She was lovely. Truthful. Concise. Absent of drama or embellishment. She had a burden showing the value of those phones. How can anyone decipher the cost of a phone that was purchased through your carrier and made part of your plan? Same as the pics of the Staples water damage box. JJ found her so credible that she actually took her word for the value of the phones and gave the plaintiff exactly what she requested. She had her shit together and earned my respect. Unlike the defendant who considers himself fabulously charming instead of slimy and stupid.

She’s been there for many years and worked her way up to $14.50 per hour so they must be a generous upstanding organization and she’s clearly excellent at what she does. Btw, there’s all kinds of stupid. One kind is having the man who lets you live rent free for a decade arrested.

Well now your laptop is trash. I hope you’re happy.

That's awful. And I'm sorry. Usually there's a circumstance that makes us vulnerable to mistakes in judgement and yours is clear here. It also highlights another problem and that's health care. My wife was in the doctor's office on Friday for her yearly mammogram. As always, she did her due diligence to make sure what elements of the procedure were covered and what, perhaps, were not. Nothing but green lights. The office had the customary financial responsibility form and there was a clause in which she assumes responsibility for the radiologist's charge regardless of whether or not he/she is in network. Yellow light. "Who's the radiology group?" She asked. "We don't know." was the reply. "We use more than one". Red light. My bride is smart AF and refused to sign an open ended, one sided guarantee and its vagueries. 30 minutes later she had the information from both the doctor's office and the insurance company. Green light but a real pain in the ass particularly under stress. My example is not exactly a scam but there's enough of a lack of transparency in that system to make it smell like one sometimes. Those that profit at the service of others are the heroes of capitalism. And those that profit at the expense of others are the villains.

If we're all being honest most of us have fallen for a scam or two in our lifetime. Years ago I was scammed on a very expensive wrist watch eBay sale that used a stolen credit card to complete the purchase. In addition to the money, I lost a lot of sleep over the upset of being so foolish. I comfort myself by imagining that the eBay experience taught me a lesson that might save be from a greater loss one day. Funny how these emails never answer the begged question of how I, the recipient, got to be the lucky one presented with this golden opportunity.

Point taken. I didn’t take her that literally when she referred to herself as the taxpayer to mean that she in fact considers herself the only taxpayer. Independent of the tax issue or even a custody agreement for me was that this guy brought the boy into the world and he has an obligation to protect him from the world while he’s still a kid, albeit a big kid who should know enough to keep himself out of the criminal courts. And don’t saddle your ex-wife with 100% of the burden. Be a man. Nut up and pay up.

He may pay taxes, but that fact hardly frees him for the obligation of his half of a $5,000 legal bill. The implication that as a taxpayer himself he pays for a public defender for his son's misdeeds ignores the fact that, at best, his obligation to the child he fathered is distributed among every other tax payer. As tax payers non of us should be paying for food, housing, health care or legal expenses for anyone who can afford it themselves and doing so robs from the people who truly need assistance and can't get by without out it.

JJ is correct that it's a life "necessity" though. In a criminal matter as this, you're grist for the mill without representation. Furthermore, I did find this ruling consistent in that she frequently rules (or pontificates) in favor of the tax payer as her lengthy and a bit redundant explanation of her ruling indicated. So, if I put two and two together, the minor 17 year old needs an attorney and the parents who have the means should pay before you and I are required to do so. Once the kid turns 18 and you want to feed him to the wolves, so be it; it's your life I guess. Until then be a man and protect your offspring.

I also happened to notice that she used her Facebook page to shame woman in NYC who wore a fur trimmed coat and posted a full face picture of the woman.