All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[iwasish]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I haven't even watched this and I'm cackling like mad. Not "yea high and yea tall"? Must watch. Now.

About the size of a body... sort of.. kind of...maybe.

I was at the oil change place annoyed it  was taking so long but hearing that I was hoping it took just 15 minutes more. 

There was no explanation.   Why!!!! I needed closure.

[augmentedfourth]

The adopted daughter was one of the most "has her shit together" litigants on JJ in a long time. Wonder where she got that from, since it sure as hell didn't seem to be from her "mother".

 

I kind of had to hand it to the baseball uniform defendant for waltzing in there with no defense and giving zero fucks about it.

(paraphrasing)

"So you delivered some of the hats four weeks later than you said you would."

"YUP." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"Were the hats supposed to have numbers on them?"

"YUP."

"Did you put them on?"

"NOPE." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Hallterview: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Meanwhile, Adoptive Mom Of The Year was making stupid "OMG" faces during her entire testimony, and kept shouting out "unbelievable" "you outta be ashamed of yourself" "oh mah god!"

She should have been admonished for that, but I suppose JJ let it slide because it made for interesting visuals. Although the plaintiff at first glance looked like another of those run of the mill unfocused litigants frequently seen on these shows, she was prepared, had her evidence all in a row and told her story simply but credibly. The "mother" on the other hand had nothing except her scandalised faces and phony indignation. I can't understand why the plaintiff would still want to have anything to do with her after this case, especially since as you say there seems to be more to the story and defendant's misdeeds.

 

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

t doesn't matter! We saw siblings here fighting tooth and nail over some old patio furniture.

It's like I said: the need to prevail at all costs eclipses everything else, starting with the true value of the items in dispute.

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

I kind of had to hand it to the baseball uniform defendant for waltzing in there with no defense and giving zero fucks about it.

I know! That was the only interesting part of this. Nope - he just didn't do it, wasn't going to do it and wasn't going to give a refund. *shrug* The fact he didn't even try to think up an excuse was kind of awesome in a messed up way.

[NYCFree]

Years ago I worked at a law firm that specialized in estates. One practice that can be done if there is a family home that includes personal items and furniture that is to be split amongst several relatives is to have everyone come to the house and each person gets their own set of colored stickers (Mary has red stickers, Bob has blue, etc). They go around and put a sticker on the items they want. If multiple people want the same item, the executor helps negotiate trades (Mary, you get the gilded mirror, Bob gets the rocking chair). The head of the firm loves a story about how a group of siblings in their sixties and seventies were fighting over the possessions, nobody would give an inch. Then they started reaching back to their childhoods to justify their choices. One sibling brought up how another had a pony when she was little and the now old lady yelled back “it’s always all about the pony!” The phrase “it’s all about the pony” became our shorthand for people fighting over stuff, it usually is less about the stuff than the idea is the stuff represents how much love the person had from the deceased.

The case with the ex con ex boyfriend slashing tires should be a scared straight video for wayward teens. “Do you want to end up llike this?”

[Spunkygal]

8 minutes ago, NYCFree said:

Years ago I worked at a law firm that specialized in estates. One practice that can be done if there is a family home that includes personal items and furniture that is to be split amongst several relatives is to have everyone come to the house and each person gets their own set of colored stickers (Mary has red stickers, Bob has blue, etc). They go around and put a sticker on the items they want. If multiple people want the same item, the executor helps negotiate trades (Mary, you get the gilded mirror, Bob gets the rocking chair). The head of the firm loves a story about how a group of siblings in their sixties and seventies were fighting over the possessions, nobody would give an inch. Then they started reaching back to their childhoods to justify their choices. One sibling brought up how another had a pony when she was little and the now old lady yelled back “it’s always all about the pony!” The phrase “it’s all about the pony” became our shorthand for people fighting over stuff, it usually is less about the stuff than the idea is the stuff represents how much love the person had from the deceased.

The case with the ex con ex boyfriend slashing tires should be a scared straight video for wayward teens. “Do you want to end up llike this?”

I am SO stealing "it's all about the pony!" I may just purposely pick a fight with sis so I can use it.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, Spunkygal said:

I am SO stealing "it's all about the pony!" I may just purposely pick a fight with sis so I can use it.

If I were to guestimate how much time of my practice is devoted to "pony squabbles" I'd say close to 60%.

For most people (and I am not necessarily categorizing JJ's plaintiffs/defendants in this group) the process of grief is so strong that clients will shelve dealing with that emotion and would much rather focus on the pony.  It's avoidance, plain and clear.  My job is to get them to put aside the pony squabble and to focus and experience the grief.  Once this is done successfully the client will set aside the pony squabble because they've maneuvered through the grief process and in the whole scheme of things the squabble really is insignificant...and the meaning they place on the pony seems to dissipate.

That being said, you still have assholes like the ones on JJ who will fight tooth and nail for the rusted patio furniture. 

These fine specimens of human behavior are known in our office as "our bread and butter".  Without them, we'd have no practice.

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

These fine specimens of human behavior are known in our office as "our bread and butter".  Without them, we'd have no practice.

I can imagine, just as idiots playing house, "borrowing" money to deadbeats, buying junk "as is" cars and putting everyone they know on their cell phone plans keeps our court shows on the air.

The only things I wanted after my mother died was an afghan I crocheted for her and a jewelry box one of my uncles had made for her 40 years previously and that had sat on her dreser all my life. I got the afghan, but the box was nowhere in sight. I guess I should have dragged my stepfather into court and sobbed and shrieked hysterically, "That belonged to my mother and my mother is DEAD!!" (I always remember that crazy bitch here screeching about how her Grandma's china was broken and "My Grandma is DEAAAD!") and demanded 5K for the sentimental value. However, I just let it go and said nothing.

1 hour ago, Spunkygal said:

I am SO stealing "it's all about the pony!"

Me too!

[augmentedfourth]

4 hours ago, NYCFree said:

Years ago I worked at a law firm that specialized in estates. One practice that can be done if there is a family home that includes personal items and furniture that is to be split amongst several relatives is to have everyone come to the house and each person gets their own set of colored stickers (Mary has red stickers, Bob has blue, etc). They go around and put a sticker on the items they want. If multiple people want the same item, the executor helps negotiate trades (Mary, you get the gilded mirror, Bob gets the rocking chair). The head of the firm loves a story about how a group of siblings in their sixties and seventies were fighting over the possessions, nobody would give an inch. Then they started reaching back to their childhoods to justify their choices. One sibling brought up how another had a pony when she was little and the now old lady yelled back “it’s always all about the pony!” The phrase “it’s all about the pony” became our shorthand for people fighting over stuff, it usually is less about the stuff than the idea is the stuff represents how much love the person had from the deceased.

The case with the ex con ex boyfriend slashing tires should be a scared straight video for wayward teens. “Do you want to end up llike this?”

My best friend's wife works in a similar firm with similar clients, and after one notable case, their go-to phrase became "But what about the wicker furniture?" We've totally stolen it and use it when our 3-year-olds get fixated on things. 

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Holy Gyproc! - So much untold emotional baggage involved in a hole in the wall, which was this wide and this tall, roughly the size of a portal to another dimension.

It was even big enough to put a body in. I guess the loving adoptive momma didn't get enough of making a kid's life miserable with the plaintiff, her adoptive daughter, so 12 years ago she found someone, somewhere to inseminate her and had a kid of her own to torture, dragging her around to cheap hotels and sofas and rooms in other peoples' homes. I guess government entities in charge of adoption care less about where the children go than I cared about where cats went when I was adopting them out.

22 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

The daughter raged after the verdict: "she let a criminal off!" "despicable human being" "an animal just walked away" - daughter was way too heavily invested in this BS.

That woman was unbearable. I bet her enormously bearded hubby speaks only when spoken to. Def., Mr. McGuire? Domestic violence? Restraining order? I spent this case expecting him keel over and expire before our very eyes. He did seem to be listing to one side. But plaintiff's mom stayed with this "despicable criminal" for 25-odd years and I'm sure this is not the first time he's been violent. Sounds like his nasty nature only bothered her when she wanted to sell the house and get 300K.

22 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

I bet you didn't know these two well-known, outstanding Christians were an "almost married" item for years!

I was so happy to find out they're true Christians! Mr. Fox, who appeared to be smuggling a beach ball into the courtroom, wants his weight set back? Where did he keep that in their 1-bedroom apt? WTH was he doing with it? For sure he never used it. He can't bend over far enough to grab a weight. Maybe he just wants it to sit there, gathering dust, to impress his next squeeze with his uber-manly pursuits. They say all great love affairs end in tragedy. Mr. Fox and his ex-paramour are perfect examples. Go get your dinette set, Fox. No one cares about you and the sour-faced def. playing house all these years. 

[VartanFan]

I’m in the process of buying our family Six Flags memberships right now (and on my OWN credit card, no less!)...and there’s NO WAY....absolutely none, that that user woman thought she was getting 4 or even 3 season passes WITH a meal plan for $440.  Let me give you an example...if one season pass is $7 per month (12 month contract)....the Cadillac meal plan costs something like $10 PER MONTH on top of that (to say nothing about if she also got a merchandise, picture, skip the line...bla bla bla add-ons).  Pppffft.  And when you can’t even pay for the membership on your own, you can schlep out to your car to eat food from home - out of the cooler- like the rest of us folks on a budget.  

Edited May 27, 2018 by VartanFan
Mixed up pass prices.

[Florinaldo]

On 26/05/2018 at 11:34 AM, PsychoKlown said:

These fine specimens of human behavior are known in our office as "our bread and butter".  Without them, we'd have no practice.

They also help the mediation sector to flourish these days; so many people focus so much on a small aspect of a situation or disagreement (the pony, the wicker furniture or the chef's knives) and lose all global perspective, that they need the help of a third party to see things more clearly. Although some never manage to achieve clarity, despite all the efforts by a lawyer, mediator or judge; we have been treated to some very fine examples of such tunnel-vision stubbornness on these court shows.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Florinaldo

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

They also help the mediation sector to flourish these days; so many people focus so much on a small aspect of a situation or disagreement (the pony, the wicker furniture or the chef's knives) and lose all global perspective, that they need the help of a third party to see things more clearly. Although some never manage to achieve clarity, despite all the efforts by a lawyer, mediator or judge; we have been treated to some very fine examples of such tunnel-vision stubbornness on these court shows.

Absolutely without question.

[AngelaHunter]

Ugh. Ms.Mizzaro is suing her ex-loverboy for various crap associated with their cohabitation. She wants from him money - for rent, food, etc - not a penny of which she earned. She's disabled, of course, so if anyone should be reimbursed, it's the taxpayers who support her and put food in her mouth and supply internet and cable to her. She reminds me of welfare recipients I knew in the past, who referred to their welfare as "My pay." NO, you get paid for working. This is charity. Anyway, hated Ms.Mizarro - who thinks she should live for free and pocket all her charity -  and her stupid perma-grin.

Then we had the realtor who convinced def. to put a Sec8 tenant in his townhouse instead of selling it. Realtor finds some savage parasite who not only didn't pay rent but trashed def's property and realtor wants money from def, believe it or not. Plaintiff has 40 years experience in his field, yet doesn't believe in using contracts, or doesn't know he needs any for real estate transactions. Def was harassing him! His tone was not good! Oh, it was all too much or me. Verdict: Plaintiff is a complete asshole and gets nothing.

[AZChristian]

Too bad this idiot is suing for $2.7 million.  I'd love to see him on Judge Judy.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Too bad this idiot is suing for $2.7 million. 

Me too! I'd love to see her showcase his utter stupidity to the world before ripping him to shreds.

Quote

. “I was shot by Lan Dong Dong in my right shoulder and I did not receive medical treatment because I was scared of Getting Arrested . . . so I did my own medical treatment.”

I guess Genius practices Medicine in his Spare Time, when he's not stealing Hennesey and other Fine liquors.

Quote

“We was followed outside and the store owner pulled out a handgun and stated give me the bottles back,”

I don't know if I should laugh hysterically or weep. 

[Schnickelfritz]

Wow, Where to start?

Here's another article on our friend. https://thegoldwater.com/news/27313-New-York-Liquor-Store-Burglar-Wants-Business-to-Pay-Injuries-Sustained-During-Theft

A man who represents himself has a fool for a client! But that's okay, because he's got that great medical career to fall back on. Has he been shot so many times that he honestly confused where this happened? Or is his brain just that pickled from that high end hooch? The really annoying thing is that the suit is still winding its way thru the New York courts. Should never have seen the light of day. Please, no one give that idiot ANY settlement. Just a longer sentence (call it an idiot penalty).

All in all, it's enough to make the baby Jesus weep.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Schnickelfritz said:

Should never have seen the light of day. Please, no one give that idiot ANY settlement.

Getting compensated for injuries sustained in the commission of a crime is mind-blowing, but it happens in this "Nothing is my fault" era, as disgusting as that is. We know JJ would give him a "You got what you deserved, you moron. Byrd, get him outta here."

Edited May 28, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

"We're from Arkansas; we're rednecks"; what a great new slogan for the Tourism Board.

[DoctorK]

Oh boy, the Arkansas kids were sort of scary. Based on their description of the laser they were playing with, they had a fairly high power laser, not like the laser pointers (about thumb sized which can still be hazardous). Neither of the idiots know anything about lasers and eye safety and someone is going to end up with serious eye damage, possibly blindness. Shining it randomly across a lake without knowing if someone on the far side happens to be looking towards them is criminal negligence, and if this laser is powerful enough to start a fire, it is dangerous to look into the beam even at quite a distance. Good thing these morons don't seem to have tried to point it at aircraft (yet), an act of stupidity that has gotten jail time for other morons.

[AngelaHunter]

Loved the rerun today of "5 Shots of Espresso." If anyone here hasn't seen this, I suggest you watch immediately. No words can do justice to this person.

We also had the repeat of Gregory Sanchez, despicable scumbag who doesn't like working, so stole 4,000$ from his stepdaughter's trust fund. It wasn't his fault! The bank made him take the money so the bank should be liable. He was only 50 so didn't know that stealing the girl's money was a no-no. Anyway, it seems Mr. Sanchez gets in trouble fairly frequently. Duh - he's a scumbag!

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/utah-county-s-most-wanted-man-who-appeared-on-judge/article_dd6ec56d-45c4-5652-aa99-4176d373766e.html

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Based on their description of the laser they were playing with, they had a fairly high power laser, not like the laser pointers (about thumb sized which can still be hazardous)

Yes, it seemed to be the type that can fry some electronic components if it falls squarely on them; not quite the effect of an EMP but it can do damage. I do not know if the beam going through the aperture of an iPhone camera would be enough to fall on sensitive parts and cause damage, but the video seemed to indicate a strong possibility since the trouble began when the guy was playing with the laser. And yet, JJ dismissed the complaint and let the two idiot defendants get away scot-free.

Since I missed part of the the verdict on first viewing, I had to watch the second broadcast (we get the new episodes twice a day here, on different channels) to understand the outcome. As best as I can make it, JJ found some minor discrepancies between the plaintiff and her witness and decided the complaint was bogus; this despite the video evidence. She has ruled favourably in the past based on equally circumstancial evidence, but it seemed that she was so pleased with herself in finding the two girls diverging on small points of detail that she seized on this as an opportune demonstration of how a clever lady she is. With her experience, she must know that people do not remember events exactly the same even though they witnessed them together. Unless she relied on the witness' statement that "we do not know what damaged the phone" as expert technical testimony.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Oh boy, the Arkansas kids were sort of scary. Based on their description of the laser they were playing with, they had a fairly high power laser

But it was cool! It could pop balloons! Cool! What a bunch of morons, including "Sierra" and "Baylor" or Saylor or maybe that stupid, round-headed boy was "Taylor" - or  whatever the hell their millennial trendy names were. They can't speak properly, they're dumb as bricks, they act like babies yet know all about what truly matters in life, like Snapchat and fake eyelashes. So dumb are they that none of them could get their stories straight to save their lives.

However, those dopey, self-proclaimed rednecks looked like a MENSA meeting in comparison with Lisa, a 37-year old woman who feels that leasing a car is like renting an apartment and that the leasing company should make repairs to the car. They do not, so ol' brainy Lisa had no intention of continuing to pay for it. Her head was like titanium and there is no power on earth that could make her understand how stupid she sounded and looked. Why on earth the plaintiff would give her a car, I cannot imagine. She's lucky cash registers are fool-proof now, or she'd never ever get a job of any kind.

[Florinaldo]

Another thing which I found very grating in the laser boys case: JJ told litigants they have to get their stories straight with their witnesses before coming to court. It sounded like an inducement to coordinate testimony so that they coincide in every detail, in other words that the wisest trial strategy is to make sure that they all lie in exactly the same way. A curious attitude coming from a former judge.

[Spunkygal]

17 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Another thing which I found very grating in the laser boys case: JJ told litigants they have to get their stories straight with their witnesses before coming to court. It sounded like an inducement to coordinate testimony so that they coincide in every detail, in other words that the wisest trial strategy is to make sure that they all lie in exactly the same way. A curious attitude coming from a former judge.

Yes, because, "if you tell the truth, you don't need a good memory!"

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Lisa, a 37-year old woman who feels that leasing a car is like renting an apartment and that the leasing company should make repairs to the car.

Actually, I think most legitimate leasing contracts make the lessor responsible for repairs and some maintenance, but lessee responsible for preventative maintenance like oil changes. However in this case, there was an explicit contract covering this which made it the defendant responsible for repairs.

[Brattinella]

I think we are talking about NEW CAR vs USED CAR.  I would never expect a warranty of any kind for a used car.  A lease on a used car, in my mind, is just a fancy way of saying "making payments".

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

It sounded like an inducement to coordinate testimony so that they coincide in every detail, in other words that the wisest trial strategy is to make sure that they all lie in exactly the same way. A curious attitude coming from a former judge.

To me it sounded like sarcasm and contempt for their stupidity, rather than heartfelt advice.;)

What about Louis Jefferson, suing his former sparring partner, Ms. Galo, who just loves to have babies? She has tooken all his stuff! He wants to be reincompensated!

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

To me it sounded like sarcasm and contempt for their stupidity, rather than heartfelt advice.;)

I am convinced it was not heartfelt, this is JJ after all, but I don't credit her with enough wit to display sarcasm in that manner and context. She was trying to demonstrate how she is the alpha in the room, in a self-initiated one-sided pissing match, and is also cleverer than all (although far from as clever as she believes herself to be these days).

Edited May 29, 2018 by Florinaldo

[bad things are bad]

On 5/26/2018 at 12:02 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I am SO stealing "it's all about the pony!"

Well, I already frequently use "Who WOULDN'T like a pony? Who WOULDN'T like a kid with a pony?", so this will fit right in!

[SandyToes]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

What about Louis Jefferson, suing his former sparring partner, Ms. Galo, who just loves to have babies? She has tooken all his stuff! He wants to be reincompensated!

Didn't see this episode, but I know everything that happened!  <snerk>   Gotta be careful with our JJ vernacular. I find myself ALMOST using too much of it.  Accidentally, of course...

[augmentedfourth]

23 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Another thing which I found very grating in the laser boys case: JJ told litigants they have to get their stories straight with their witnesses before coming to court. It sounded like an inducement to coordinate testimony so that they coincide in every detail, in other words that the wisest trial strategy is to make sure that they all lie in exactly the same way. A curious attitude coming from a former judge.

This comment, combined with her earlier statements about how the defendant's witness should have been thinking about the facts of the case while on the plane from Arkansas to California (the plane ride that her show paid for, of course) made me interpret this comment as her believing that this whole group of friends cooked up this wacky case for the free trip and TV appearance. I haven't made up my mind either way about that, but we all know it wouldn't have been the first time it happened. Actually, as I type this out, I'm leaning toward them *not* scheming for a free trip because, to be perfectly honest, I don't think they're bright enough. Either way, I do think JJ should have given the plaintiff a couple hundred bucks for her phone because the video did indicate damage. Though on the other hand, we all know they get paid to be there, so the plaintiff probably got enough to replace her phone anyway. And now I'm going in circles and getting way too meta for this late at night.

 

Today's cases were kind of fun.

Plaintiff landlord, who is about to at least get a month's rent, and clearly thinks he has the upper hand: She never notified me of any problems!

Defendant tenant: *whips out text messages clearly notifying him of problems, plus proof she paid someone else to take care of the issues*

 

Probably a good call not awarding either of them money. And then the painting case was entertaining. The plaintiff gives a quote for painting a house, winds up getting MORE money because of a surprise!wallpaper removal, and is then suing because she thinks she should get EVEN MORE money than what was in her original contract. Ha. But the best part, of course, was the hallterview. Both of them screaming about this one being drunk and taking klonopin, that one driving somewhere to get weed ("I WENT TO A BABY SHOWER!!!"), and lots of gesticulating and literal finger wagging. I bet both of them (but especially the defendant) are the type to be irrationally annoyed that they wore similar shirts to each other for their 15 minutes of fame.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, augmentedfourth said:

Both of them screaming about this one being drunk and taking klonopin, that one driving somewhere to get weed ("I WENT TO A BABY SHOWER!!!"), and lots of gesticulating and literal finger wagging.

I often skip the hallterviews because I've had enough of the double-dumbasses during the case, but I'll make a point of watching this one.

 

1 hour ago, augmentedfourth said:

Though on the other hand, we all know they get paid to be there, so the plaintiff probably got enough to replace her phone anyway.

Yeah, they got paid plenty for taking a free trip and acting like fools here.

[Toaster Strudel]

On 5/28/2018 at 4:43 PM, Florinaldo said:

"We're from Arkansas; we're rednecks"; what a great new slogan for the Tourism Board.

What do you do with a laser?

Start fires, kill frogs, play the banjo. I was disappointed in the verdict since the rednecks confessed in the hallterview.

[Brattinella]

35 minutes ago, Toaster Strudel said:

What do you do with a laser?

Start fires, kill frogs, play the banjo. I was disappointed in the verdict since the rednecks confessed in the hallterview.

I had no idea you can actually BUY a laser that will start a fire!

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Either way, I do think JJ should have given the plaintiff a couple hundred bucks for her phone because the video did indicate damage. Though on the other hand, we all know they get paid to be there, so the plaintiff probably got enough to replace her phone anyway.

In effect, because JJ dimisssed both cases, each side got exactly the same amount from the awards kitty and the same round-trip to LA. So they came out even, whereas the laser rednecks should have been penalised in some part for their idiotic carelessness. Looking at it like a balance sheet, they all come out on the same line as far as what they got from the show, except she has to buy a new phone, an expense the defendants don't have to incur, so that the net result is she loses by the corresponding amount in terms of money and benefits while the defendants are rewarded for their actions.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Florinaldo

[KittyMom4]

On 5/28/2018 at 8:57 PM, AngelaHunter said:

However, those dopey, self-proclaimed rednecks looked like a MENSA meeting in comparison with Lisa, a 37-year old woman who feels that leasing a car is like renting an apartment and that the leasing company should make repairs to the car. They do not, so ol' brainy Lisa had no intention of continuing to pay for it. Her head was like titanium and there is no power on earth that could make her understand how stupid she sounded and looked.

Tight-lipped Lisa reminded me of a former coworker who bought an expensive vee-hic-cal that she couldn't afford, after missing a couple payments I heard her on the phone with the financing company saying "The dealership knew my finances, they knew I couldn't afford this car but they sold it to me anyway, they should make the payments!" 

[Quof]

Is my tv broken?   Why were both of the litigants in the dog sitting case purple????

[AngelaHunter]

Just watched The Widow vs. Car Guy (I forget both names) He is an unrepentant thief and conman and his witness who sat there with her large, droopy breasts exposed? I'm glad we didn't have to hear whatever nonsensical bullshit she had to spout. I just wish JJ had instructed the widow (as she has others) to close her damned mouth! She's just lucky JJ keeps this place fly-free or she would have had a mouthful. Yuck.

Annoying painter vs. annoying William & Jennifer: I've painted my entire house twice by myself. The first time I had to remove lots of wallpaper left by the previous owners. I would rather paint the whole house again than remove wallpaper from a single room. There is no way someone who paints for a living whines, "I didn't notice the wallpaper, (like that someone else's fault) so I'm charging more than our agreement." Defs want money cuz plaintiff said "bad things" about them all the all-mighty, all-important FACEBOOK, so they want a bunch of money too. However, William just could not keep his dumb piehole shut and Jennifer couldn't control her loud cackling, so there goes your countersuit. William and Jennifer should paint their own house. They look able-bodied and the exercise would do them no harm.

9 hours ago, GoodieGirl said:

"The dealership knew my finances, they knew I couldn't afford this car but they sold it to me anyway, they should make the payments!"

She's right, according to today's logic. Why should she have to be the one to figure out she can't afford something? Strangers should make our decisions.  I've often gone to a store to make a major purchase only to have the salesperson say, "Sorry, you can't have that. I think you might have trouble with the payments sometime in the future and then we'll have to eat it because for sure it's not your responsiblity." <snerk>

[NYCFree]

4 hours ago, Quof said:

Is my tv broken?   Why were both of the litigants in the dog sitting case purple????

I’ve noticed over the years that we frequently have plaintiffs and defendants wearing similar outfits, that are clearly the trending style in their hometown. Like groups of young men, who are plaintiff and defendant and their witnesses, and all are wearing khaki pants and button down blue shirts, or young women all wearing black midi skirts and off shoulder sweaters. I’ve even noticed where we see the “type” someone goes for, with current and former husbands being nebishy guys wearing sweaters. This is the first time we have seen the dueling purple hairdos. I would LOVE it if each woman got her hair done, unbeknownst to the other, and then they see each other in California and to their shock, they both have dyed their hair different shades of purple! 

Back in my estate law firm days, one morning my boss and I showed up in court wearing the same shreaking scarlet colored suits. We had both purchased them from Dress Barn a few days earlier and hadn’t mentioned it to each other. It was spectacularly embarrassing, they were so unbelievably vivid, and the both of us were standing next to each other. You better believe neither of us wore her suit without clearing it with the other ever again.

[badhaggis]

Its been a while since I saw this episode but it seems like this has to be her:  http://www.azfamily.com/story/38311476/woman-named-crystal-methvin-busted-for-drug-possession?autostart=true

Unless more people are naming their kids Crystal Methvin!

[KittyMom4]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I've painted my entire house twice by myself. The first time I had to remove lots of wallpaper left by the previous owners. I would rather paint the whole house again than remove wallpaper from a single room. There is no way someone who paints for a living whines, "I didn't notice the wallpaper, (like that someone else's fault) so I'm charging more than our agreement.

Same here! And I had to remove a border, those suckers are stuck on with cement glue I think, and it took longer to remove that than the wallpaper at my old house! When the annoying painter mentioned having to clean it first, well duh, you always have to wipe down stuff before you paint, isn't that part of the prep work? If you're a seasoned painter you should know all the steps to prep, paint and clean up after, and it should all be factored in to the price BEFORE you start. Idiot.

[AngelaHunter]

57 minutes ago, badhaggis said:

Unless more people are naming their kids Crystal Methvin!

Haha. Seem a lot of baby mommas were dead set on naming their bundles of joy "Crystal" if their last name started with "Meth."  How witty. This is not OUR Crystal, who was merely a skeevy backyard breeder/kitten peddler and liar. But that's not all, folks. There is yet another Crystal Meth(this one is "aney.) who is also skeevy. I guess they all want to live up to their handles.

Another marginal moon-faced "Meth" They all look the same!

59 minutes ago, GoodieGirl said:

And I had to remove a border, those suckers are stuck on with cement glue I think

Someone papered every square inch of my large kitchen with super-thin paper. TSP, toothed wheels, rented steamer, scraper - even using all those it took nearly a week as it came off one inch at a time. No wallpaper ever again.

[KittyMom4]

Did anyone watch the dog sitter v. dog owner case where the DS was suing the DO because the dog bit her while she was attempting to leash the pup? She accused the DO off "swooping in" and startling the dog and it bit the DS. JJ could not get it through the DS's head that it is not always the DO's fault if the dog bites. DS was adamant that it was the DO's fault. And from the sounds of it she didn't even get badly bitten although we never got to see any pics or medical records because JJ was done with her. As was I, I hate the fact that people always need to make money off of accidents. Good grief, you're a DS and you have never been nipped or bitten before just because the pup was in a feisty mood? Heck my neighbor's dog, a big black mastiff who doesn't understand that she weighs almost as much as me knocked me over when she was attempting to give me kisses, my neighbor was so worried that I was hurt and had to assure him several times that getting knocked over by his ginormous dog was not going to cause me to sue!

[stephinmn]

On 5/28/2018 at 4:16 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Loved the rerun today of "5 Shots of Espresso." If anyone here hasn't seen this, I suggest you watch immediately. No words can do justice to this person.

We also had the repeat of Gregory Sanchez, despicable scumbag who doesn't like working, so stole 4,000$ from his stepdaughter's trust fund. It wasn't his fault! The bank made him take the money so the bank should be liable. He was only 50 so didn't know that stealing the girl's money was a no-no. Anyway, it seems Mr. Sanchez gets in trouble fairly frequently. Duh - he's a scumbag!

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/utah-county-s-most-wanted-man-who-appeared-on-judge/article_dd6ec56d-45c4-5652-aa99-4176d373766e.html

I thought the show paid it? (so confused)

[configdotsys]

7 minutes ago, stephinmn said:

I thought the show paid it? (so confused)

This has always made me wonder about this show. If the defendant is guilty of not paying something back or breaking someone's stuff, why do they get so pissed off during the case? What do they care if the show is paying for the damage they caused? I heard once that there is a $5k "pot" and the proceeds after the plaintiff is paid are split between the plaintiff and defendant. So if the plaintiff is suing for $1k, the defendant is guaranteed $2k for their appearance? Does anyone know exactly how that works?

Also, with regard to the Sanchez case, if the JJ show paid the amount owed, I don't think that eliminates the fact that a crime was committed and that is probably why the police want to pick him up for that. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, configdotsys said:

. If the defendant is guilty of not paying something back or breaking someone's stuff, why do they get so pissed off during the case? What do they care if the show is paying for the damage they caused?

They get mad because one person winning a judgment cuts into the other person's share of the 5K fee paid. If one litigant wins 5K, the other person gets nothing but public humiliation (those who are capable of feeling humiliation, that is). If neither litigant gets a judgement, they can split the 5K.

With Dirty Sanchez, JJ instructed the plaintiff that in order to get her 4K, she must file a complaint with the police for the theft. I really hope she did.

[configdotsys]

7 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

They get mad because one person winning a judgment cuts into the other person's share of the 5K fee paid. If one litigant wins 5K, the other person gets nothing but public humiliation (those who are capable of feeling humiliation, that is). If neither litigant gets a judgement, they can split the 5K.

With Dirty Sanchez, JJ instructed the plaintiff that in order to get her 4K, she must file a complaint with the police for the theft. I really hope she did.

Got it. LOL @ Dirty Sanchez. The report to the police requirement makes me wonder if the gal in the "Hermeez" bag case ever filed a complaint against that defendant. 

[poeticlicensed]

2 hours ago, GoodieGirl said:

Same here! And I had to remove a border, those suckers are stuck on with cement glue I think, and it took longer to remove that than the wallpaper at my old house! When the annoying painter mentioned having to clean it first, well duh, you always have to wipe down stuff before you paint, isn't that part of the prep work? If you're a seasoned painter you should know all the steps to prep, paint and clean up after, and it should all be factored in to the price BEFORE you start. Idiot.

I had my bathrooms renovated a couple of years ago and one had wallpaper. When the contractor came to do the estimate, he looked over every inch of both bathrooms. Then  gave me the option to either remove the wallpaper myself, or he would charge  me for the removal. Period. I don't see how she could have not noticed a border. 

[Sarcastico]

In yesterday's landlord/tennant case: was this the first time a contestant called Her Eminence crazy?  IIRC, she used the word twice: once to describe JJ, and once to describe her living situation.  I mean, of course she had to up and move without paying rent.  Missiles were being fired into her apartment!  Missiles!  And in the hallterview, we got a classic "It is what it is."

In the case of the barbershop knife incident, whose ensemble did we like better?  Dilante's 3-sizes-too-big white shirt with the crooked collar, or Randale's all-black T-shirt/bow tie/suspenders combo? Seriously, they brought back unpleasant memories of Neshdae and the Knife Sisters.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Sarcastico