All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[DoctorK]

1 minute ago, califred said:

never loan anyone more money than you can afford not to have returned

Well done, similarly my mother (who grew up during the Depression) taught me to never lend or gamble more than I could afford to lose.

[Spunkygal]

Regarding the puppy that eventually died, I thought JJ was such a jerk to the plaintiffs. Yes, they got their purchase money back for the pup and yes, perhaps it was never proven that the pup had an illness that the seller could have known about and yes, perhaps the vet over-treated the dog, but these two people loved that dog and thought they were doing the right treatment to save it. I'm not saying JJ should have refunded the vets bills, but she was so freaking loud and rude and unfeeling. Since she's a dog lover, why not lower the voice and say, I'm sorry your pup was so ill, I'm sorry you lost it, but you can't prove that the defendant had any part of it. Good luck and maybe use a different vet next time and adopt from your local shelter for $15 like Spunkygal did. Good Lord I hope I dont get this obnoxiously righteous as I age. Show a teeny bit of compassion!!! ???

Edited May 18, 2018 by Spunkygal

[jww]

The case of the 16 year old who drove a car into the post was absurd. JJ never ask the plaintiff if she knew the 16 didn't have a license or knew how to drive.  If the owner of the car gave her keys to  an unlicensed inexperienced driver and told  him to get gas any mishaps should be on her.  He never asked to drive the car and was only doing her a favor.

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I think JJ blew another one today. In the case of the lightning struck HVAC, the contractor submitted a bid to do the work for $6900. Insurance company accepted this and paid the homeowner all of it except for the deductible. JJ let the homeowner pocket the deductible so the contractor got only $5400 for all of the work. Sorry JJ, law school or not, you don't understand deductibles, I do, having had my house heavily damaged twice by hurricanes. The deductible comes out of my pocket, not the contractor's pocket. (not that it is unheard of for a contractor to inflate the estimate by the deductible amount so that the owner evades the deductible.) This is not like a case where I get a $12,000 estimate, insurance agrees and sends me $10,000 (less my $2000 deductible) and I shop around or postpone the repairs until prices come back down and can get the job bid at $9000, pay that from my $10,000, and keep the $1000 and don't suffer a deductible.

Agree 100%.  Was baffled by her ruling on that one. Another example of her just being too cranky to be fun. 

 

I didn't catch the end of the teen driver case. Who won?

[Florinaldo]

Litigants should stop saying "I feel", because JJ invariably pounces on them, saying feelings are irrelevant and fodder for Dr. Phil, not her. Even though in popular parlance it is synonym with "this is my opinion".

But even if they tried an alternative wording, like "these are the facts and they point to this conclusion" or "my opinion is based on the following facts", she would probably also throw a hissy fit because she is the only one allowed to draw conclusions in her America.

 

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I think JJ blew another one today. In the case of the lightning struck HVAC, the contractor submitted a bid to do the work for $6900.

I thought exactly the same thing. In my experience, but I admit I have not seen everything, the contractor is owed the whole of the agreed-upon estimate; the claimant pays the deductible and the insurer pays the balance, all to the contractor who certainly does not agree to receiving only the amount paid by the insurer. But JJ made him swallow the deductible! According to that logic, if her deductible had been 5 000 $, he would have taken quite the blow.

I feel (oups!) that even if she realised her mistake, she would have been too proud to reverse herself and admit it on camera. A few years ago, she might have been more open to admitting a mistake, but not in her present cantankerous state of mind.

 

In the sick puppy case, the defendant mentioned that the plaintiffs had started a GoFundMe; it that was for the veterinary bill, would the proceeds have been deducted from an award if JJ had ruled in their favour? I wonder how many suckers were willing to contribute to funding these two snowflakes' responsibilities as new dog owners.

 

In the car accident case, JJ should have found joint liability because the car owner told him to go put gas in her vehicle. But since he was a young male, of course JJ was putting all of the blame on him.

 

That tree cutting plaintiff is the classic neighbour from hell, who thinks she can lord it over everyone on her street and that her word is law.

2 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I used to have a big heart. 

I still have one; I keep it in a jar on my desk (I freely admit to stealing the basics of that joke from author Robert Bloch).

Edited May 17, 2018 by Florinaldo

[Spunkygal]

Thanks for reminding me of the tree cutting case. I have owned two houses in my adult life and I always understood that any neighbor tree limbs on your side are your responsibility. The few times I have had to have my lawn guys trim neighbors' tree limbs, I always let the neighbors know hey, lawn guy will be here on Saturday and I'm planning on having limbs trimmed. If you'd rather do it, let me know. And there has never been a problem. Most limbs don't inhibit the enjoyment of my lawn so it hasn't been an issue. She's just the neighborhood nightmare.

[Hellohappylife]

I will never understand how someone gets so bent out of shape over trimming a tree! The texts just came off as so bitchy,  From what I could see from the texts shown it looks like she just texted the neighbor randomly one day to make threats &  demand him cut down the tree or she’s going to court!

Why not go over like a normal Sane adult & ask your neighbor how they’re day is going & ask if they have a few minutes to talk instead of sending threats thru a screen like a 17 year old.

I’ve never once called or texted one of my neighbors. We say hello, wave & smile! That’s good enough for me! I also don’t freak out when their leaves fall off the tree into my yard every year,I have better things to do in my life then stalk the neighbors tree. 

Why do people love creating drama with neighbors? Home is suppose to be a relaxing place!

Edited May 18, 2018 by Hellohappylife

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, stewedsquash said:

Okay wow. Road trip to Spokane to get those two kids and Molly the dog. And while we are there, there will be some neutering and spaying of any humans in their orbit. 

If only......

I'll help cover your gas. Somebody grab the cheeseballs!

Edited May 18, 2018 by SandyToes

[VartanFan]

Quote

I think JJ blew another one today. In the case of the lightning struck HVAC, the contractor submitted a bid to do the work for $6900. 

100% Agree.  To avoid the rigamarole of sending the same money back and forth, the insurance sends the check less the deductible the homeowner would have paid them. In turn, she is supposed to essentially pay her deductible TO the contractor to round out the total amount owed to him.  Utter bullshit!  So basically the guy probably did the job for free.  

[Quof]

The cheque should be made out jointly to the insured homeowner and the contractor. 

[ButYourHonor]

The mother and son duo swearing up and down that 40+yr old, Mohawk ponytailed son didn’t do drugs and didn’t cause problems?  Good grief.  And yet another person crying “slum lord” after having been evicted..

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Quof said:

The cheque should be made out jointly to the insured homeowner and the contractor.

Usually yes and both of my hurricanes were that way, but now (since I paid off the last of the mortgage just after I got laid off in 2011) all checks will come direct to me in my name only. Based on my memory (not infallible), in 1995 (Opal), I was only two years into the mortgage, and the checks were joint to me and the bank. The bank as I recall released about 30% immediately to get work started, and continued releasing big chunks based on completed work, always staying ahead of the repair costs to date. In 2004 (Ivan), I had refinanced to a shorter term, overpaid monthly, so the difference between the (market value) versus (total repair costs plus remaining loan balance) was about ten times the insurance payments and the bank released 90% of the funds immediately and the last 10% when I told them the work was done. Different banks, different owners, etc. will probably produce different results.

[BusyOctober]

Was today’s theme “Parents Who Don’t Get It?”  The first couple suing their 25 yo college graduate, employed daughter for her “share” of the rent looked like total grifters. Trying to teach her to be responsible was their reasoning...huh?  That responsible young lady did well enough in school to be accepted to college.  Then she either earned scholarships &/or worked to put herself through school.  She graduated & managed to find work vs. sitting at home on the couch. Instead of being proud about her accomplishments, they were looking to her to supplement their income.  I hope the 15 yo at home has begun drafting her escape plan after watching this episode.

Then we get mother and son duo who look like they are auditioning for  “Sid and Nancy; The AARP Years”.  Mommy thinks the mean old slum lord is in the wrong because there is no way any of the multiple police calls or hazmat suit inducing damage clean up is her Sonny Boy’s fault! Did I hear the 43 yo son trying to tell JJ that the cops were there so often because he worked for them?  So now he’s auditioning for Donnie Brasco!  He’s really an undercover cop, you guys! I totally believe him. You just have to look into his eyes...if you can see past those drug-addled Manson lamps. 

[Brattinella]

11 minutes ago, BusyOctober said:

Did I hear the 43 yo son trying to tell JJ that the cops were there so often because he worked for them?  So now he’s auditioning for Donnie Brasco!

Yes, the closed caption said "Confidential Informant".  WHAT??  So, if that is TRUE, why would you show that on TV??  This guy, nasty as he appears, will probably be worm food shortly.

[Schnickelfritz]

41 minutes ago, BusyOctober said:

Then we get mother and son duo who look like they are auditioning for  “Sid and Nancy; The AARP Years”.  Mommy thinks the mean old slum lord is in the wrong because there is no way any of the multiple police calls or hazmat suit inducing damage clean up is her Sonny Boy’s fault! Did I hear the 43 yo son trying to tell JJ that the cops were there so often because he worked for them?  So now he’s auditioning for Donnie Brasco!  He’s really an undercover cop, you guys! I totally believe him. You just have to look into his eyes...if you can see past those drug-addled Manson lamps.

Wow, he's in such demand as a "confidential informant" that other states use him. I'm sure he was arrested just as a cover story.

https://www.rapsheets.org/illinois/chicago-jail/WEKSETH_BRYAN/17291775

He is NO stranger to the inner workings of a court (only the first few are him. Not sure why the rest came up)

https://www.juralindex.com/bryan-james-wekseth.html

But all of these are him...

https://www.courtrecords.org/people/BRYAN+WEKSETH+MN/

Why in the world did this landlord let this guy in? Didn't he run any background check? Bet he's learned a lesson.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Schnickelfritz
adding to the fun

[catrice2]

I do get tired of Judge Judy imposing her own moral code regarding raising children on everyone else.  Great you can afford to pay for your children to go to college, get a car, etc., but everyone can't.  It is not a parent's responsibility to give everything to their child, or take care of them for the rest of their life. 

If that daughter asked her parents to move into a larger place and split the rent into 1/3, and that is what SHE suggested and they agreed, she should have to honor that.  It is not the business of the judge who else is living there, what they are paying, or if the parents helped her through college.  Whether she agrees with parents charging their children rent or not is irrelevant. That is what he daughter agreed to .

[Silver Raven]

Judge Judy had no clue you can take your Social Security before the age of 65?  OMG.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Schnickelfritz said:

I'm sure he was arrested just as a cover story.

I really try not to judge a book by its cover but thank you for confirming my initial opinion of a drug addled worthless piece of crap. Maybe we are wrong, maybe the squeaky clean looking plaintiff went out dumpster diving to get syringes and paraphernalia to incriminate him. By the way, I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Edited May 19, 2018 by DoctorK

[VartanFan]

Quote

Judge Judy had no clue you can take your Social Security before the age of 65?  OMG.

Ugh, I know. But the truth of the matter is that he’s getting paid under the table for the musician gigs- and they’re quite profitable!  He has to be under the table because he’d lose a dollar of benefit for every $2 he makes since he’s not hit full retirement age yet.   He’s a hustla!  

[Guest]

On 5/17/2018 at 6:46 PM, Spunkygal said:

Regarding the puppy that eventually died, I thought JJ was such a jerk to the plaintiffs. Yes, they got their purchase money back for the pup and yes, perhaps it was never proven that the pup had an illness that the seller could have known about and yes, perhaps the vet over-treated the dog, but these two people loved that dog and thought they were doing the right treatment to save it. I'm not saying JJ should have refunded the vets bills, but she was so freaking loud and rude and unfeeling. Since she's a dog lover, why not lower the voice and say, I'm sorry your pup was so ill, I'm sorry you lost it, but you can't prove that the defendant had any part of it.

Jesus with this case. Apparently, we have to call her Judge Jude, DVM now because she sure "knew" that all dogs in the litter had to be Parvo+ in order for the Plaintiff's puppy to have Parvo. That is NOT TRUE AT ALL. But there's Judge Judy, DVM refusing to read the expert's letter (was the vet supposed to take days off from work to trot out to L.A.?!) and instead relying on her Miss Know-It-All knowledge. And then having the temerity to suggest the vet did too much for the dog. How would she even begin to think that?! How would she like some plebe telling her that she knows nothing about the law? And the dog most certainly could have tested with a false negative on that test! 

OMG. She is such a resolute bitch. I need to delete my backlog of 40+ shows and find something else to watch that doesn't make me want to throw my TV down the stairs. 

[Brattinella]

33 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

Jesus with this case. Apparently, we have to call her Judge Jude, DVM now because she sure "knew" that all dogs in the litter had to be Parvo+ in order for the Plaintiff's puppy to have Parvo. That is NOT TRUE AT ALL. But there's Judge Judy, DVM refusing to read the expert's letter (was the vet supposed to take days off from work to trot out to L.A.?!) and instead relying on her Miss Know-It-All knowledge. And then having the temerity to suggest the vet did too much for the dog. How would she even begin to think that?! How would she like some plebe telling her that she knows nothing about the law? And the dog most certainly could have tested with a false negative on that test! 

OMG. She is such a resolute bitch. I need to delete my backlog of 40+ shows and find something else to watch that doesn't make me want to throw my TV down the stairs. 

Hubby and I agree so much with "throw TV down the stairs"!  She is so godawful, I am just about to turn her off forever.

[AngelaHunter]

Catching up. "Bryan Wetsleth" or whatever? Ah, how pure is a mother's love. Mom has never had the police called on her in her life, but after her darling boy moves in with her, they're called 8 - 10 times, but is has nothing to do with him, she claims. "Bryan", who looks like he should be tied to the front of a truck in a new "Mad Max" movie, is a creepy, drugged-up POS who is well-versed in Minnesota law. The landlord has a video of the revolting mess left in dear Bryan's little bedroom, including a ton of drug paraphanalia, like needles, etc. Bryan protests, saying the landlord planted all that stuff, just so he could have the enjoyment of filing a case and coming to court to sue poor little Bry and his MommaBear. You just know the landlord had to pay extra to clean up Bryan's playground. You're not going to get a regular housekeeper to deal with drug needles, that's for damned sure.

Skipped whatever puppy case.

We have parents suing their daughter for rent and utilities. She went to college with not a dime of help from either of them and works all the time, but instead of encouraging or helping her, they think she owes them 3K. The only thing I didn't get is that although she now lives with friends who don't make her pay rent, she buys a car with payments of over 400$/month. Seems kind of crazy to me, but that's her perogative.

"LuCreitia" suing her niece because she - like so many other plaintiffs - thought it was a good idea to buy a car for someone else in expectations of them to making the payments. "Adryenne" had to go on bed rest or something, so didn't make the payments. What a surprise. NOT. Adryenne doesn't realize that the lender doesn't give a rat's fluffy bottom if she has problems. They want their money. People - stop extending your credit to those who can't buy anything in their own name. Get a clue. They can't buy stuff because they don't pay their bills!

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Ugh, I know. But the truth of the matter is that he’s getting paid under the table for the musician gigs- and they’re quite profitable!  He has to be under the table because he’d lose a dollar of benefit for every $2 he makes since he’s not hit full retirement age yet.   He’s a hustla!  

You can still earn some money if you take early SS retirement.  From one website:

"Until you reach full retirement age, Social Security will subtract money from your retirement check if you exceed a certain amount of earned income for the year. For the year 2018, this limit on earned income is $17,040 ($1,420 per month). The amount goes up each year. If you are collecting Social Security retirement benefits before full retirement age, your benefits are reduced by $1 for every $2 you earn over the limit. Once you reach full retirement age, there is no limit on the amount of money you may earn and still receive your full Social Security retirement benefit."

IIRC, the gentleman in that case reported making money by playing for churches, and what he said under oath was much less than the $1,420 he's allowed to make.  And we know that no one ever lies under oath on these court shows.  Right?

[Florinaldo]

On 17/05/2018 at 6:46 PM, Spunkygal said:

Regarding the puppy that eventually died, I thought JJ was such a jerk to the plaintiffs.

Obviously you haven't received the memo to the effect that not only is JJ an all-knowing jurist in all aspects of the law (never mind that she did not know social security, as do private pensions plans I am aware of, allow to retire early albeit with penalties, sometimes hefty), but she is also an infallible expert in veterinary medecine. Shame on you for doubting the majesty of her infinite knowledge!

 

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Ah, how pure is a mother's love.

I had a very brief moment for sympathy for her when her voice caught as she admitted the filthy bedroom was her son's, but that quickly dissipated when she went right back to making excuses, enabling his behaviour and being complicit in the sorry state of the apartment, while casting gratuitous aspersions on the landlord. What she should have done is smack her offspring on the side of the head, telling him to shape up and that, by the way, his haircut is not a good look on someone his age.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Florinaldo

[Brattinella]

One of my closest girlfriends, upon her 18th birthday, was summarily kicked out of her parents' home.  She (and they) told me that is the current custom.  I was horrified!  She moved in with my family.

[augmentedfourth]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

"Bryan", who looks like he should be tied to the front of a truck in a new "Mad Max" movie

My entire day was spent on an emergency transcript regarding a sexual assault at a well-known institution where you'd think people really should know better (and I still have about a quarter of it to finish up tomorrow), so reading this actually was one of the best things to happen to me today. I regret that I can only click the heart button once. Thank you!

[SRTouch]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Catching up. "Bryan Wetsleth" or whatever? Ah, how pure is a mother's love. Mom has never had the police called on her in her life, but after her darling boy moves in with her, they're called 8 - 10 times, but is has nothing to do with him, she claims. "Bryan", who looks like he should be tied to the front of a truck in a new "Mad Max" movie, is a creepy,

Hmmmmm, I had same Mad Max reaction

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Obviously you haven't received the memo to the effect that not only is JJ an all-knowing jurist in all aspects of the law (never mind that she did not know social security, as do private pensions plans I am aware of, allow to retire early albeit with penalties, sometimes hefty), but she is also an infallible expert in veterinary medecine. Shame on you for doubting the majesty of her infinite knowledge!

Just caught up - had 3 days worth of cases that I watched tonight.... another case where JJ showed her omniscience - the case of the feuding exes. Oh I know, a staple of court tv - to narrow it down a tad - this was dude suing gf over a myriad of stuff she supposedly kept, trashed, or whatever when she had him booted from the home... then she splits town and filed a countersuit for harrassment when he tracked her down and showed up demanding his "stuff." A couple of the items JJ dismissed out of hand (well, I think it was almost lunch time and besides, she didn't go to law school to straighten out the mess of ALMOST-MARRIEDS.) Apparently, gigantic big screen tv's, surround sound bars, and oh, race car intake systems are beneath her. Well, IIRC, she did give him something for the sound bar (after gf proudly announces it was his but he can't have it because she got rid of it) - yeah, JJ got PO'ed at the ex gf. Hey, no gear head, here, but a quickly google search would have informed JJ that racing car intake systems can get pretty pricey - hey, as much, or more, as a month's rent for these two.. Although - to be far, this dude seemed to do a lot of his shopping from friends and CL - still, JJ couldn't be bothered to ask for receipts.

Edited May 20, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

My entire day was spent on an emergency transcript regarding a sexual assault at a well-known institution where you'd think people really should know better (and I still have about a quarter of it to finish up tomorrow), so reading this actually was one of the best things to happen to me today

If any of my nonsense could give you a moment's levity after a hellish day, I'm pleased as punch. The posters here have very often done the same thing for me. It's hard to be upset/angry/depressed or anxious when you're cracking up so hard you're crying, even if said cracking up doesn't last long. Hoping for better days for you!

[iwasish]

While I agree that JJ was tough on the puppy owners, I did agree that it was unlikely that it died of parvo. Rarely does only one pup out of a litter get sick. And I do think some of the vets over treat when they don’t have any idea what is wrong with the patient. I felt sorry for the owners but annoyed that they only bothered to research anything about the laws regarding the sale of puppies after the pup died. Common sense would tell you that buying an alleged purebred puppy without visiting the home and seeing the litter and at least the mother dog, is not a good idea. That and the fact selling the dog before 8 weeks of age is against the law. 

Breeder was wrong in trying to pass off a mixed breed as pure  bred but had they seen the litter they might have gotten a clue from the looks of the other pups. 

It bugs me when AFTER the fact they come to court with all this newfound knowledge and are all outraged, demanding their “rights”. Ten minutes on the internet would have told them what the law is and they could have avoided a sad situation.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, iwasish said:

Ten minutes on the internet would have told them what the law is and they could have avoided a sad situation.

Yes, and that ten minutes would also explain in detail what bybers and puppy mills are and why no one should financially support them. People want what they want - like those buying some shit car on CL "as is" and not bothering to have it checked until after they give a handful of cash for it - then squawk about laws and such later. To hell with them all, I say!

I just watched Ranford Fleming, Jr. Wow, all dressed so nicely and with such a lofty handle for someone who turns his apartment into a transient flophouse, jamming 6 total strangers into a two bedroom, two bath apartment. Problem is that Ranford likes to drink and can't be bothered paying the rent that his houseful gives him to do so, since the money is better spent on booze. I agree Ranford. I like booze too, but have never bought it with someone else's money. I guess he likes the prestige of saying he lives in such a place and would never think of living somewhere he can afford. Now he's homeless and "couch surfing" after the police gave him the boot for his drunken rage, precipitated by his roomies having the gall to ask him why he didn't pay the rent. Oh, Ranford is too heavily under the influence to discuss such trivial BS, so leave him alone! Too bad, Jr. I wish I could scrape up some sympathy for you, you idiot, but I cannot.

[pagooey]

On 5/19/2018 at 2:24 PM, AngelaHunter said:

People - stop extending your credit to those who can't buy anything in their own name. Get a clue. They can't buy stuff because they don't pay their bills!

Now, now--they can totally BUY stuff! They just can't PAY for the stuff!

[ButYourHonor]

Maybe it’s because I spent part of my weekend watching HOARDERS, but I had more sympathy for the lawyer in the “human trafficking” case.

I agree that $3500 seems excessive, but I don’t really know what lawyers make.  JJ may very well be correct that they only “earned” $1000.  But I am pretty firmly in the “she’s nuts” camp, and like I said, I’ve seen a lot of nuts on tv lately and they take up a lot of time and energy of the people around them.  “Billable hours” desn’t necessarily encompass the time they all spent talking amongst themselves about what to do with MrsLoonyToons, the fact that they did feel that they needed to at least send someone to the preliminary hearing, etc..

I did think JJ was probably as nice to him as she felt she could be.  I’ve certainly seen her ream lawyers up one side and down the other when she didn’t like them, and he seemed like a nice enough guy.

[SandyToes]

Idiot mother and her mumbling 18-year old suing older sister (from another mister) for money for the car being illegally driven/parked.  Glad they got thrown out. Sadly, they will probably still get the show's money.  18-year old's attitude summed it up pretty well:  "Mmmm -hmmm."  Not used to answering direct questions, that one.

In other news, EVERY add on my page today has a puppy on it.  Must be picking up on all the dog cases we've been discussing.  They are so adorable! 

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, ButYourHonor said:

Maybe it’s because I spent part of my weekend watching HOARDERS, but I had more sympathy for the lawyer in the “human trafficking” case.

I could not agree more.

And while I am not versed in what attorneys charge I was cranky enough to think that JJ was a coming down a bit hard on him.  He was trying to explain to her how they arrived at that figure and she was having none of it.  Perplexed too because she pounced on "hearsay" with the attorney yet let the plaintiff tell her what the police/police dispatcher said.  Isn't that hearsay also?

There was a part of me that was hoping the attorney would have said something to the effect that who is she to judge what he charges?  He has to go to the courthouse (and unlike JJ does not have a private plane to get him there!) and he has to deal with the assorted crazies while she sits on her bony ass making approximately three million a month for less than five days of work. 

I know he would never say that, in fact I think he complimented her...but for the past two months JJ has not been appointment tv with me.  She's not just body slamming the losers she is genuinely mean to people when it is unnecessary.  

And while I'm ranting one more thing she says that really jars my potatoes - I am uncomfortable when she make the comment "Whatever you have I don't see it".  I think it is not only mean spirited but emphasizes that a large bank account does not equal dignity.  Several times she has said this when it was completely unnecessary. 

Just disappointed with her.  She used to filet and dice the jerks with a velvet glove - now, she's a crabby old woman who probably needs to think about retirement.

[WhoaWhoKnew]

Lawyers always seem to have a hard time on this show.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, ButYourHonor said:

I had more sympathy for the lawyer in the “human trafficking” case.

Every time JJ goes into a dissection of charges on a bill or anything involving numbers, I feel that I should watch the show with a forensic accountant who could help me find my way out of the numerical quagmire she almost always digs herself in. She was not even able to locate the lawyer's hourly fee in the retainer agreement until he pointed it out to her!

I do not know how long she was in private practice, if she ever was, but she apparently has forgotten what rates take into account. She seemed to think that the only expenses involved when the associate appeared in court were that lawyer's salary, whereas the firm still has to bear the overhead and other expenses like paperwork, preparation time and other staff's involvement. P signed a contract, she should have been held to the "four corners" of the agreement as JJ likes to say, even if the rates may have been excessive but we were never allowed to find out for certain. As usual, she knew better than everyone else and came to an arbitrary figure to decide the case.

She was also inconsistent in her speculating that the lawyer should have suspected mental problems with P; she usually aks if people are experts in the relevant field, in this case psychiatry or psychology, and then dismisses their opinion if they have not trained in that subject.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Florinaldo

[Steph J]

1 hour ago, ButYourHonor said:

Maybe it’s because I spent part of my weekend watching HOARDERS, but I had more sympathy for the lawyer in the “human trafficking” case.

I agree that $3500 seems excessive, but I don’t really know what lawyers make.  JJ may very well be correct that they only “earned” $1000.  But I am pretty firmly in the “she’s nuts” camp, and like I said, I’ve seen a lot of nuts on tv lately and they take up a lot of time and energy of the people around them.  “Billable hours” desn’t necessarily encompass the time they all spent talking amongst themselves about what to do with MrsLoonyToons, the fact that they did feel that they needed to at least send someone to the preliminary hearing, etc..

I did think JJ was probably as nice to him as she felt she could be.  I’ve certainly seen her ream lawyers up one side and down the other when she didn’t like them, and he seemed like a nice enough guy.

This episode made me really mad. Firstly, as she never tires of reminding everyone, Judy was a lawyer so why is she acting shocked when a lawyer says that she gets paid by the hour? Lawyers bill at an hourly rate, though in my experience most lawyers bill a flat fee for criminal proceedings, which I believe is what he was trying to get at when he kept referring to the agreement (I missed a bit of the argument, though, so I might be mistaken).

Secondly, her reasoning that the lawyer either believed that the client's daughter was a victim of human trafficking or that the client had mental health issues is specious as hell. The fact is, the woman was charged. She needed a lawyer to assist her with that. Just because she may have mental health issues doesn't mean he shouldn't be paid for giving her that assistance, particularly if he had to negotiate with the other side because she's pissed off the police by making multiple false claims.

[Brattinella]

For me, the phrase "billable hours" is a HUGE red flag.  This (in my own experience) can mean he went to lunch and mentioned this case to his partner.  So, billable hour for lunch.  I do think $1000 was a fair settlement.

[Toaster Strudel]

Hush! I'm Reading Your Rap Sheet - Do share! No closeup that we can pause and read? :sadface: I didn't know people lined up to buy mustard and white sneakers. Maybe it's just me but I found them cheap looking and hideous. I'm not sure what happened here, there were two boxes, only one was received, one was empty, the dates were wrong, "how much do sneakers weigh, Byrd?" I'm surprised she accepted the rap sheet as evidence and looked at it, ultimately, it's what convinced her to rule for the plaintiffs (I think!). Girlfriend's audacity in counter-suing because they rang her doorbell where she lived with the scamming defendant was rewarded with three emphatic "Go home with your boyfriend, Goodbye!" Go JJ. - 3 AIR GAVELS.

Don't Lie, Bobbie Blue - Ah! Some dumb case about some dumb old Mustang that big sister gave Bobbie Blue, who drives around another dumb car without a license for no reason that she could articulate. It turns out, mom's dumb boyfriend was driving the Mustang, and she gave (or loaned!) big sister some money to put towards another car. Why would that be a loan? JJ didn't fall for it either. In the Hallterview, the plaintiff agreed that the decision against her was fair! Well then why couldn't you fix it among yourselves? 2 DUMB GAVELS.

#QAnon #PizzagateIsReal #Adrenochrome - Don't look up these hashtags if you want to preserve your sanity. I have a feeling that the plaintiff is all up in this nonsense. In her testimony she made it sound like the police were covering something up, and I found it very unsettling, even if she wasn't particularly convincing. But then we caught a glimpse of deeper issues like "anger management" and repeated nuisance calls in what seemed to probably be multiple jurisdictions. What I really wanted to know is if the daughter was estranged from the mother to escape the crazy. That's a real possibility. As is the daughter not being able to escape... I remember watching a special on Elizabeth Smart, and the cop really had to work through her denials to get to the truth. I'm leaning on the plaintiff being bonkers because of the anger management - and maybe the daughter is a drug addict.  As to the lawyer, the contract has four corners! Oh wait... not this one. I get he didn't do all that much, and his out-of-pocket expenses are not relevant (overhead etc), but technically he didn't really have to deliver on the first item for $2500 so I was pretty "meh" on the decision, it could have gone either way. Allison Mack slams 4.5 GAVELS

[lovesnark]

I really think the woman in the lawyer case is a total whack job and her daughter doesn't want anything to do with her. Whack job mom won't accept it and invents stories of her daughter being held against her will. She has driven local law enforcement and her daughter to the point of pressing charges to keep her away. I sure wish JJ would have let the lawyer speak about it. I found myself distracted by the lawyer's associate. She had one eyebrow that was in a constant, surprised looking arch. I couldn't tell if it was because she was afraid of what JJ was going to yell or a bad botox job.

It makes me sad to agree with some here that it's time for JJ to take her gazillions of dollars and retire. 

[Quof]

Quote

For me, the phrase "billable hours" is a HUGE red flag.  This (in my own experience) can mean he went to lunch and mentioned this case to his partner.

This is how lawyers work, and have for generations.  Hours are carefully docketed in 0.1 hour increments.  And, yes, certain legal services may be offered at flat rates - divorces, wills, etc. The lawyer still dockets their time. Sometimes they make money on the deal, lots of times they actually lose money, and so they periodically reassess what their flat fee should be.  There is nothing shady about it, as JJ implied. 

[Florinaldo]

16 hours ago, Brattinella said:

For me, the phrase "billable hours" is a HUGE red flag.  This (in my own experience) can mean he went to lunch and mentioned this case to his partner.  So, billable hour for lunch.

"BIllable" means just that; activities that qualify as legitimate legal services rendered by the lawyer or the firm and which the client must pay for. Respectable firms make sure their lawyers do not bill such things as lunch unless it is with the client, but it is true that they keep a very close track on things to make sure every admissible expense is indeed billed. For example, many have a system that automatically clocks the length of every phone conversation in increments of 3 or 6 minutes or whatever other quantum is chosen, and the lawyer or other professional has to enter the case it was in relation to. Personal calls must be justified and are thus heavily discouraged.

Is it possible that some lawyers or firms abuse the billing? Of course; such behaviour happens in every field. But I do not think it was the case here. I still can't fathom why JJ felt such sympathy for the deluded mythomaniac plaintiff and came down so hard on the lawyer who had to put up with her craziness.

13 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

In the Hallterview, the plaintiff agreed that the decision against her was fair! Well then why couldn't you fix it among yourselves?

Most likely for a chance to get their portion of the awards kitty the show pays to litigants. But it is rare that people accept so readily the verdict against them and do not try to relitigate their case in the hallterview, often adding new accusations.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, lovesnark said:

I found myself distracted by the lawyer's associate. She had one eyebrow that was in a constant, surprised looking arch. I couldn't tell if it was because she was afraid of what JJ was going to yell or a bad botox job.

The stunned 25$/per hr lawyer was so cowishly (I know - that's not a word) blank as she stood with her glazed eyes and lip chewing that I could not imagine wanting her services to fight a fine for not picking up dog poop, let alone deal with "human trafficking". *rolleyes*

 

37 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

But it is rare that people accept so readily the verdict against them and do not try to relitigate their case in the hallterview, often adding new accusations.

Yeah. She could have at least trotted out a "It is what it is" or "Don't trust anyone!"

[augmentedfourth]

Yeah, I thought right off the bat that "human trafficking" daughter was getting away from Mom for a reason, and that feeling only intensified as the case went on. Even if she is involved with something shady, she still might prefer that to having to deal with her mother.

 

It's hard to say without seeing the contract itself, but while I don't think JJ was 100% right, I don't think she was totally wrong either. I think the big issue was having the flat fee on one page and the hourly fee on another without a clear explanation. Again, it's impossible to say for sure without actually reading it, but based on my experience, clients blow through retainers SO fast, and I don't think having both on there was necessarily an issue. (Standard I Am Not A Lawyer disclaimer goes here.) So the flat fee said she had to pay $1000 for ABC hearing/process/procedure, which happened, and $2500 for XYZ hearing, which did not. Were I adjudicating this case, I would have ruled that the attorneys keep the $1000 for ABC, and then deduct the hourly rate from the remaining $2500, because even though XYZ didn't happen, the attorneys most likely prepared for it anyway, and then given the plaintiff back the difference. In other words, I do agree with JJ that the plaintiff should have gotten *something* back since XYZ never happened, but I do think she was a little harsh on the attorneys and claiming he was overcharging, or even insinuating that he was scamming. Litigation is expensive. It's a fact of life.

 

And I know things are different everywhere and I do live in an area with a high cost of living, but doesn't $25/hour for someone who went to law school seem a bit low? I, your lowly court reporter, doing a job that only requires a GED and a training program, am guaranteed $85 just for walking out my front door in the morning. Maybe she has an awesome benefits package? One can only hope.

[KittyMom4]

On 5/22/2018 at 5:48 AM, Quof said:

This is how lawyers work, and have for generations.  Hours are carefully docketed in 0.1 hour increments.  And, yes, certain legal services may be offered at flat rates - divorces, wills, etc. The lawyer still dockets their time. Sometimes they make money on the deal, lots of times they actually lose money, and so they periodically reassess what their flat fee should be.  There is nothing shady about it, as JJ implied. 

My experience with billable hours was through my divorce, I retained an attorney to review my separation agreement after going through mediation for child custody/child support and dividing assets. I wanted to make sure nothing was missed. I was asked for a retainer of $2,500 and it was explained to me that every phone call, email or meeting would be billed by the minute. So if I called with a question, I was charged for the # of minutes on the phone. My lawyer explained that I should write down all my questions as they came up, and to make one phone call to cover them all. Thankfully the few times I did have to call her were brief. She did a great job, found a couple things I needed to fix and even returned a small portion of the unused retainer. There are lawyers who aren't out to bleed you dry.

Edited May 23, 2018 by GoodieGirl
you write down a question....

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, augmentedfourth said:

doesn't $25/hour for someone who went to law school seem a bit low? I, your lowly court reporter, doing a job that only requires a GED and a training program, am guaranteed $85 just for walking out my front door in the morning.

Considering the number of law schools churning out graduates by the truckloads, is it possible that there is a glut of lawyers, even in such a litigious country as the US (lofty Canadian perspective at work here)? If the demand does not keep up with the offer on the job market, then pay will be lower, especially if this is a small firm in small town and the associate in question did not graduate in the upper segments of her class. Court reporters are more in demand I believe since it is not one of those prestige positions that attract a lot of students because they are played up in brochures, which means less people competing for the available jobs.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

I do agree with JJ that the plaintiff should have gotten *something* back since XYZ never happened, but I do think she was a little harsh on the attorneys and claiming he was overcharging, or even insinuating that he was scamming.

But didn't he list everything for which he billed her and the total came to 1000$? I've had only one experience of dealing with a lawyer, so wrote such a piss-poor letter of demand it was a joke. Around here, for legal documents like contracts, wills, house closing etc, we use notaries who charge a fraction of the price of lawyers.

2 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

but doesn't $25/hour for someone who went to law school seem a bit low?

It does, even for someone who may have graduated at the very bottom of the class. I had someone cleaning my house for a short period and I paid her 20$/hr which is the going rate for that service.

[lovesnark]

2 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Yeah, I thought right off the bat that "human trafficking" daughter was getting away from Mom for a reason, and that feeling only intensified as the case went on. Even if she is involved with something shady, she still might prefer that to having to deal with her mother.

 

It's hard to say without seeing the contract itself, but while I don't think JJ was 100% right, I don't think she was totally wrong either. I think the big issue was having the flat fee on one page and the hourly fee on another without a clear explanation. Again, it's impossible to say for sure without actually reading it, but based on my experience, clients blow through retainers SO fast, and I don't think having both on there was necessarily an issue. (Standard I Am Not A Lawyer disclaimer goes here.) So the flat fee said she had to pay $1000 for ABC hearing/process/procedure, which happened, and $2500 for XYZ hearing, which did not. Were I adjudicating this case, I would have ruled that the attorneys keep the $1000 for ABC, and then deduct the hourly rate from the remaining $2500, because even though XYZ didn't happen, the attorneys most likely prepared for it anyway, and then given the plaintiff back the difference. In other words, I do agree with JJ that the plaintiff should have gotten *something* back since XYZ never happened, but I do think she was a little harsh on the attorneys and claiming he was overcharging, or even insinuating that he was scamming. Litigation is expensive. It's a fact of life.

 

And I know things are different everywhere and I do live in an area with a high cost of living, but doesn't $25/hour for someone who went to law school seem a bit low? I, your lowly court reporter, doing a job that only requires a GED and a training program, am guaranteed $85 just for walking out my front door in the morning. Maybe she has an awesome benefits package? One can only hope.

I had the same thoughts about $25 per hour. He did start to say something about the compensation package of the young associate, but JJ cut him off.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, lovesnark said:

I had the same thoughts about $25 per hour. He did start to say something about the compensation package of the young associate, but JJ cut him off.

I'm sorry, but I still think the defendant is a nasty person, and that is why.  He (as a LAWYER) charges $350 per hour for his services.  So, he has his associate, a female LAWYER, do HIS JOB for $25 per hour.  What's not to hate?