teebax

She was one of my professors in college. It made me sad that none of them got that one right. It was a good TOC, especially once I realized I really didn't care who won. Apparently, I just like to watch Jeopardy when the contestants are sharp and (most) of the questions are challenging. Are we back to regular games Monday?

I think that's why the strategy is so effective (although I also hate it as a viewer). It keeps your opponents off-balance. I thought I cared who won, but once the game began I realized I was just enjoying it for the sheer competitiveness of it. There were a couple of TS's that surprised me, but for the most part it was exciting to watch. Julia betting big on the two DD's she found and getting them right was cool to me because it made the overall scores closer. And for as much as I despised Arthur during his initial run, whatever he was doing that bothered me, he has either stopped doing it or it's stopped bothering me. I got FJ only because presidential trivia is smack dab in my wheelhouse. I arrogantly assumed none of them would get it right, so color me impressed with Ben's answer. I also loved, loved, loved the Roman numerals category. When we go back to regular games it's going to be a letdown for me. I hate when all three contestants just stare at the board, mouths agape, while having no clue what the correct responses are. And we've had a few of those games already this season.

JJ's producers would hate to read this, but you guys are miles more entertaining than the actual cases! "Chins a-quivering" is one of the funniest things I have ever read on here. I didn't realize how large the plaintiff was until they showed her from the side. I don't know if that Impala could have fit all the junk that was in her trunk. Did she say she flew to Texas? I'd hate to sit next to her on a plane. If only she were as determined to partake in an exercise routine as she was to owning that car. Regarding the landlord/tenant case, count me in as one who really thought Miss Passive-Agressive had moved an actual pig into the staged house and then took off for two months. Truth be told, had that happened it would've been an instant classic. And her trying to object was hilarious to me. Again I ask, do these fools never watch the damn show before they go on it? JJ said the landlord was being nice. I think she was being stupid. If all the other roommates could manage to move out, Miss Objection could have too. The Pride boys reminded me of another recent case in which someone took a relative stranger home with them from a gay bar and got robbed. It might have been on People's Court. Gay or straight doesn't matter; that's some dangerous behavior right there. Do you know how much vetting, public records checks, and Google searches you have to pass to get an invitation to Casa Teebax? Hell, I have a few relatives I don't trust enough to have over to my house! The next show we see some of these fools on might be on the ID Channel. Don't bring strangers home (or to your hotel room) with you.

Unlike you, I don't get to see the shows until about 6 pm Arizona time. But now I'm looking forward to it!

You could be right. You could also argue that since the plaintiff is the one who helped the defendant open the account at the CU, she knew the defendant didn't have her car loan there. Of course, that doesn't mean she didn't snoop. I just don't think that knowing the defendant didn't have a car loan through the CU is proof that the plaintiff snooped.

For all the times MM has given an example of how you can't sue someone for a drug deal gone bad because of the doctrine of clean hands, it was amusing to me to see a case in which a litigant was trying to sue someone for a drug deal gone bad. Only a crackhead would think a judge would buy that cockamanie story the plaintiff was selling! He had just met the guy; the guy saw him loan money to the woman whose house they were at (an 80-year-old crackhead herself); the guy asked the plaintiff for $20; the plaintiff said, "Oh, I don't loan money in small increments. I'll loan you $1,500 instead." The defendant must have been high out of his mind. He left his drivers' license with the freaking plaintiff as "collateral". WTF?!!!

You made a really good point. Had JJ asked if the defendant closed the account immediately after the alleged privacy breach, she'd have had better evidence of whether or not the breach occurred than just relying on the hairs on the back of her neck. I also find it hard to believe that the only damage caused were a couple of blinds and cigarette burns. It seems to me like the defendant and her family lived like pigs. Who the heck keeps all those dogs? And I do believe she lied to the plaintiff about being afraid of big dogs so she only has the small lap dog. I also agree with you that in life there are often things that happen that don't make sense. People do unpredictable, stupid things all the time. Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's not true.

I don't feel suspicious at all. In my imaginary betting pool, that's pretty much what I expected. They were, in my opinion, the three strongest champs of their season.

I agree with you. To me it's a silly thing to accuse her of. She sounded sick to me, and even if she didn't, who cares? The woman is a 20-time champion. Whether she wins the whole TOC, lost in the first round, or loses in the finals, nothing will change that. I guess there are bragging rights that come with winning a TOC, but nothing about Julia has indicated to me she's anything other than a nice, down-to-Earth lady who happens to be really good at Jeopardy. And Alex brought up her illness, not Julia.

I really shouldn't have decided to read this thread while I eat lunch in my office. Gross.

You have to have an insurable interest in something in order to insure it. At least, that's what the rules say. We all know JJ litigants think differently! The best way to do it would be for each tenant to have his/her own renter's policy that covers their possessions. If something happens to your stuff, you file a claim. Incidentally, renters also covers your possessions off premises. For example: If someone breaks into your car and steals your laptop, your auto policy isn't going to cover the laptop, but a renters policy would. Another example: If you have a piece of jewelry stolen from you while out and about, it would cover that. And so on and so forth. (I know that's not what you asked, but I like to educate where possible, and many people don't understand how broad renters coverage really is.) It is possible to get one policy with multiple named insureds so that two unrelated renters could cover their property together. I'd never recommend that because of the arguments that could ensue about the money if there's a claim.

I know! I'm such a snob!

Julia's surprised reaction to being correct was the best thing about the episode for me. She was almost as excited as I was!

This case was interesting because I wasn't paying much attention to it since it seemed like a typical, boring JJ case involving a renter too stupid to buy renters' insurance (seriously, that coverage is very inexpensive and there's no excuse for a renter not to have it). But then, the twist. And oh what a twist it was! I was chopping up veggies for my evening green juice after a long day of car shopping. (Unlike JJ's litigants, car shopping for me does not involve a trip to a buy-here pay-here car dealership, a payday loan facility, an auction house, or even a Craigslist search, but it's a pain the neck of a process nonetheless.) So I was tired and uninterested in the case until that epic twist. That lady is a straight-up moron. The smartest thing she did was clam up and not say anything more incriminating once she realized she was busted. Sticking to her story about the nephew only being a visitor and her actually living in the house was the smartest thing she could do at that point. Being made a fool of on JJ is one thing; being arrested for insurance fraud is another. She'd better hope her agent or adjuster wasn't watching. It would have cost her a fraction of what she scammed to keep her nephew quiet, and she was just too greedy to do it. She's not too bright, is she? JJ laughing her way through the other case was so fun to watch. More idiots on parade.

I once caught my now ex using my toothbrush. The occasional nip from my bottle or taking a bite of my food was annoying, but the toothbrush thing sent me over the edge. Did I mention that she's now my ex?

It's a testament to how strong this show is that even a "weak" episode is funnier than almost every other comedy on TV. Holt saved this one for me, and I need a gif of him on that bouncy ball ASAP so I can look at it and laugh anytime someone pisses me off at my own soul-sucking job. I'm pretty sure that's a callback to last year's Thanksgiving episode.

I'm so glad Jane will be a part of this season!

The only thing I remember from that case is that Judge DiMango doesn't know what xenophobe means.

I'm sure glad I missed that.

I was hoping when she got Felix out of a jam (when he couldn't collect for work he'd done) that the theme of Cristela being a moocher would end. If they stopped with that and got rid of the laugh track, the show would be much better.I pulled some Cristela stand up videos on YouTube, and liked them. She's a good comic, and this show is mlies above John Mulaney's show. I think if given time to grow it will be fine.

My parents rented a house several years ago that went into foreclosure. The representative from the bank actually told them not to pay rent to the landlord because the landlord wasn't paying it to the bank and to wait until the bank told them how much to pay, where to send it, and when to pay. Upon my advice, they were putting their rent into a separate bank account, just in case the situation changed and they were ordered to repay back rent. Well, they never were, and that was three years ago. They lived there for over a year rent-free because no one told them to pay rent or whom to pay it to. My mom would call the bank every few weeks because she was certain that at some point she'd need to pay all that money back. She was always told that they were working on it and would get back to her. Foreclosures on rental properties can be very strange for a tenant, but even diligent ones sometimes end up living for free. The difference between my folks and these two idiots is that when the house was finally sold, my parents moved out when asked to do so by the new owner. They knew eventually they'd have to, unless the new owner wanted to continue renting out the house, so they were prepared to move and did so with no drama, police involvement, or court orders. It also bothered them that they weren't paying rent. Ironically, that house had a concrete floor in the master bedroom, and is was gorgeous, and nice and cool, which is great for Arizona weather. I think if JJ could put herself in the concrete floor landlord's shoes she wouldn't have been so dismissive. I'd be really ticked off if a renter decided to change my flooring without consulting me and getting permission.

With regard to government benefits: we see on JJ an inordinate amount of people scamming the system. In insurance, we call this soft fraud. People who are legitimately entitled to something look around and think no one's watching them, so they take more than they should. Think of a person who injures himself at work and then is on work comp. While on work comp, he decides he'd rather watch JJ all day than go back to work. So he claims he's still hurt when he's not. His initial claim was legitimate, but now he's milking it. Speaking of insurance, there was an old case on yesterday I hadn't seen previously. A woman who owned an insurance agency was suing a former employee for taking cash premium payments but not forwarding them to the insurance company. The case reminded me of an experience I had in my early 20s. After I was out on my own and off of my parents' insurance, I purchased a policy from an agent who represented Erie Insurance. I paid the deposit, and he gave me an insurance ID card. A few months later, I got rear-ended by another driver and called in the claim, which is when I discovered I had no insurance. Thankfully, the other driver was liable and had coverage, so my car was taken care of. It turned out that my agent was pocketing premiums instead of forwarding them to Erie. He had done this to a bunch of people in our community and got caught when a few of us tried to file claims. He finally ended up going to prison for it.

I thought about the same episode while watching this one. This was one of my favorite episodes, although I find myself saying that every week (except Halloween, which was still good but my least favorite). The kids at the white party were hilarious. (I'm also still getting invited to those things - ridiculous.) The only complaint I have is another episode without Laurence Fishburne. I wonder if he's shooting something. If IMDB is accurate (ha ha), he's shooting the Batman vs. Superman movie. But I don't know how long that's been in production or when Black-ish was filmed. I miss Pops!

I thought habeus corpus was easy and assumed they'd all get it correct. I also don't understand the FJ wager by Julia. Her total should have been plenty for the wild card; why risk it just to win the game? I mentioned that in an earlier post. I totally remember it.

Arthur lost some weight. I think he said 30 pounds. I do think he looked better, and he didn't irritate me this time around.