All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I will say that those dogs were as cute as hell, though. I liked that both litigants kept patting their respective puppy. It made them seem less like assholes. Also, that dude the woman brought in with her, the other guy who worked with her (I guess), looked like Mr. Clean. Further also, DNA no longer sounds like something that actually exists, since the plaintiff must have said it fifty bajillion times.

[Brattinella]

4 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I will say that those dogs were as cute as hell, though. I liked that both litigants kept patting their respective puppy. It made them seem less like assholes. Also, that dude the woman brought in with her, the other guy who worked with her (I guess), looked like Mr. Clean. Further also, DNA no longer sounds like something that actually exists, since the plaintiff must have said it fifty bajillion times.

I noticed that the man with the female dog kept patting her, and loving her.  The woman with the male puppy wouldn't let her poor little dog SIT!  She kept grabbing the harness and lifting his hips off the table.  Hey lady!  I think there is a crew there that will clean the podium!

[arejay]

How cute was Her Supreme Honor as she took the bench smiling genuinely at the pups.

[SRTouch]

4 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I noticed that the man with the female dog kept patting her, and loving her.  The woman with the male puppy wouldn't let her poor little dog SIT!  She kept grabbing the harness and lifting his hips off the table.  Hey lady!  I think there is a crew there that will clean the podium!

I agree Cobalt Stargazer those were two beautiful, well trained and obviously well taken care of pooches. But, I think the lady with the stud was posing her dog, while the man seemed to be more into petting his girl. 

Along with not understanding breeding purebred dogs, dog shows are something else I can't understand. Plaintiff in the case had her dog standing in the head up back leg back pose I associate with dog shows. To me that just seems static and more than a little unnatural. I very much prefer watching dogs competing in athletic events like agility, Frisbee catching, or even the long jump into the water.

[speac]

6 hours ago, SandyToes said:

The dog case baffled me.  What was she wanting the DNA to show/not show? What was she testing for? And why? Just weird.

The best I could make out was that the picked puppy didn't have the right DNA markers for color.  She mentioned AA genes which a bit of googling gave me AyAy and A series genes in French bulldogs which has to do with the color of the dogs.  I'm not a dog expert but those dogs looked to be what I found is called blue tricolor which is not a breed standard color so I have no idea why the dogs were so valuable.  Perhaps someone else knows more?  Then again I found this http://www.westcoastrarebulldogs.com/puppies-available.html which shows people will pay a fortune for 'rare' colors even though the breed standards call for not breeding for 'fad colors.'

[Brattinella]

8 hours ago, speac said:

The best I could make out was that the picked puppy didn't have the right DNA markers for color.  She mentioned AA genes which a bit of googling gave me AyAy and A series genes in French bulldogs which has to do with the color of the dogs.  I'm not a dog expert but those dogs looked to be what I found is called blue tricolor which is not a breed standard color so I have no idea why the dogs were so valuable.  Perhaps someone else knows more?  Then again I found this http://www.westcoastrarebulldogs.com/puppies-available.html which shows people will pay a fortune for 'rare' colors even though the breed standards call for not breeding for 'fad colors.'

WOW!  What a link, thanks for posting it!  Such gorgeous little puppies (and frightfully expensive, too)!

[ElleMo]

According to my closed captioning, she said said something about the "ATAT".  So I looked that up and found 

Quote

The "at" Allele

Both the "black-and-tan" and "tricolor" phenotypes are caused by the "at" allele. A tricolor dog is "black-and-tan", plus white, which is generally just an absence of color, rather than being a different pigment the dog is making. For a dog to be a black-and-tan or tricolor, he must be "n/n" for the dominant black gene, and have either two copies of the "at" allele, or have one copy of the "at" allele and one copy of the "a" allele. This is because the "ay" and "aw" alleles are dominant over "at." A dog that is"at/at" will always pass on a copy of the "at" allele to any offspring. This does not ensure that the puppies will be black-and-tan however, this depends on the genotype of the other parent in the breeding.

Got all that?  Me neither.  But when I scrolled down there was a chart that explained it better:  

Genotype    at/at
Coat Color: Tricolor/Tan Points
Hidden Color: None

There is a list of other genotypes too.  http://www.animalgenetics.us/Canine/Canine-color/ALocus.asp

So I guess the dogs don't always show their color for the first few months.  My only reference point is 101 Dalmations.  All but one of the puppies were born plain white; the rest got their spots later on.  

All my dogs were mutts, most were from a shelter.  I never even cared about the color.

Edited August 26, 2016 by ElleMo

[SRTouch]

15 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

All my dogs were mutts, most were from shelter.  I never even cared about the color.

ITA you took the words right out of my mouth. Some of those dogs on the above link cost 40k! Good grief, for 40k I can get a great mutt at the shelter, buy a new car, and have a bunch left over.

OTOH, I think I understand the case a little better. My understanding now is that the plaintiff wanted a puppy of a certain color, but the color can change as it grows. So, to determine color for when the puppy is an adult, you need to get a DNA study for the puppy. Plaintiff is insisting that part of the contract was verbal. And, of course JJ is going to answer that the written contract is binding and supercedes any verbal or handshake amendments, so plaintiff is out of luck. Really, when you're talking thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars, you're out of my league. You're talking business investment, not a pet puppy, and planning to breed and make money off the puppy for generations. Forget handshakes and verbal agreements and have a lawyer to go over the contract.

[Taffy]

What she wanted was a Lilac Frenchie. Those dogs have DNA markers for chocolate and blue color. Very rare to get a dog with both markers. Lilacs are $50,000 and usually have vet bills during their lifetime that equals that. (My daughter is a Frenchie fan.) 

[SRTouch]

33 minutes ago, Taffy said:

What she wanted was a Lilac Frenchie. Those dogs have DNA markers for chocolate and blue color. Very rare to get a dog with both markers. Lilacs are $50,000 and usually have vet bills during their lifetime that equals that. (My daughter is a Frenchie fan.) 

Wow, even more expensive than I thought! I thought I heard her say the puppy she wanted was worth $15k and the one she got was worth $10k and I understood how she'd be upset. If she expected a dog worth 50k even more reason for her to GET IT IN WRITING. 

[ElleMo]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

ITA you took the words right out of my mouth. Some of those dogs on the above link cost 40k! Good grief, for 40k I can get a great mutt at the shelter, buy a new car, and have a bunch left over.

If I had 40K to blow on anything dog related, I'd get a dog from the shelter then take him on a vacation with me.  :-)

[teebax]

21 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I thought at first that it was a tattoo.  So glad to see that it wasn't. 

I sympathized with the plaintiff in today's car case -- the guy whose friend drove his car, did some damage, and actually paid the insurance deductible (good for him!).  The body damage had been repaired, but when the car was first driven, it was discovered that the transmission was also damaged, and defendant wanted more money.  JJ didn't believe that the mechanic/repair shop wouldn't have noticed the damaged transmission.  She's not a mechanic!  I don't think you can tell by looking at a transmission if it's okay or not.  And if the guy drove into a snowbank, or ice, or whatever it was, it's possible that a tranny would be damaged.

I think plaintiff was trying to give JJ some evidence of the transmission damage -- he was waving a paper around -- but she wasn't listening. 

That case ticked me off, and I'd just started watching JJ again. Yes, a car can be an accident and the mechanical issues not be discovered until the exterior damage has been repaired. I rolled a Mitsubishi Eclipse three times on the PA Turnpike one year on my birthday (good times.) The insurance company spent over $10,000 to fix the exterior, when they should have just totaled it. Once that happened and it was driveable, the mechanic took it for a test drive and realized the tranny was ruined. Since they'd already coughed up $10,000, they went and paid another $5,000 to fix the mechanical issues. This was on a $22,000 car. Like I said, they should've just totaled the damn thing. It never ran the same afterward anyway.

As usual, JJ gets a case she doesn't understand and screws the pooch. She should stick to dog cases. Anything with technology or cars, and she is out of her element.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, teebax said:

As usual, JJ gets a case she doesn't understand and screws the pooch. She should stick to dog cases. Anything with technology or cars, and she is out of her element.

One more complaint.  When she dismisses a case with items she deems irrelevant.  The whole "My father the dentist didn't pay all that money for me to go to law school to quibble about lawn chairs."

Well, what might seem trivial to you JJ might mean a lot to someone else.  It's their right to sue (right or wrong) but I would ask or even demand an intelligent legal reason for her dismissal of the lawn furniture other than it's time for lunch and they're serving sushi.  Not acceptable.

There are times in my job where I'd like to say something very similar but I don't because it's called professionalism and I owe that to my employer.  She should adopt a similar work ethic.

Edited August 26, 2016 by PsychoKlown
because different words have different meanings

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

There are times in my job where I'd like to say something very similar but I don't because it's called professionalism and I owe that to my employer.  She should adopt a similar work ethic.

But would we still watch, if JJ was calm and professional?  I'm not sure.  I don't watch the other court shows -- are those judges different from JJ?

Today's cases, ugh.  The trucking company employee/friend/partner/independent contractor with the loan and the check and the second loan and the death threats -- I fast-forwarded -- did JJ give anyone anything?

And the car auction lady with that one tooth that was longer than the others -- and the hair that looked more like a hat -- I'm glad she got her money, but I couldn't figure out why JJ said the defendant could sell the $3100 car for $2500.  Why would he want to do that?

The roommate case -- the plaintiff was more attractive than most, but JJ doesn't care about appearance, does she? 

[Spunkygal]

Regarding today's case about the car bought at auction.....because I haven't been super snarky in a long time....did the plaintiff have an egg tooth?

[Quof]

Quote

I would ask or even demand an intelligent legal reason for her dismissal of the lawn furniture other than it's time for lunch and they're serving sushi.

There is an intelligent legal reason.   de minimis non curat lex.

[SandyToes]

Is that Latin for, "'I don't give a rat's ass?"    I'm guessing it has to do with "minimal value" but I like mine better.  :-)

The truck company/ driver/no license (again!)/ friend/partner/loan/not loan was tossed. "Go back to your home court."

[Quof]

"The law does not concern itself with trivialities". 

But I like yours better. I might drop it into a brief.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

And the car auction lady with that one tooth that was longer than the others -- and the hair that looked more like a hat -- I'm glad she got her money, but I couldn't figure out why JJ said the defendant could sell the $3100 car for $2500.  Why would he want to do that?

She should use some of that money to get her teeth fixed. Or at least buy a better wig.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

But would we still watch, if JJ was calm and professional?  

Ah, but AuntiePam she wouldn't be calm and professional. 

She'd be so ticked having to deal with lawn chairs and junk drawers (remember that guy?  Or was he on the People's Court?)  the steam from her ears would  blow those 4 carat earring right off her lobes.

I'm not requesting for her to change her personality - she is who she is.  I just think that she shows her holier-than-thou attitude by dismissing what she deems irrelevant when to some of the litigants it does mean something.  In my country I can sue my neighbor if his 50k gray/pink/purple yorkie claws my lawn furniture I bought two years ago after saving up all winter for them.   To her they're not worthy of her dentist-paid education but dammit I saved all winter for them and I want justice.*

It really is a pet peeve of mine and obviously doesn't bother anyone else but I still think articles presented in court documents should at least be reasonably addressed rather than waving a perfectly manicured hand dismissing the whole issue.  I get that there's a certain amount of time for each case but the way she does it really jars my potatoes.  I'm done now.  Good night all.

*For the record there is no lawn furniture nor do any of my neighbors own a yorkie.  I was just citing this for dramatic purposes.  But if I did have lawn furniture and.........

[Brattinella]

30 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

t really is a pet peeve of mine and obviously doesn't bother anyone else but I still think articles presented in court documents should at least be reasonably addressed rather than waving a perfectly manicured hand dismissing the whole issue.  I get that there's a certain amount of time for each case but the way she does it really jars my potatoes.  I'm done now.  Good night all.

It bothers me, too.  You just KNOW that some of those documents she so flippantly dismisses are VALID. That one case should have said "Screw you, JJ, we'll take this back to our county and take our chances there, you ignorant prejudiced bitch!"

[AuntiePam]

4 hours ago, Spunkygal said:

Regarding today's case about the car bought at auction.....because I haven't been super snarky in a long time....did the plaintiff have an egg tooth?

You made me look up "egg tooth".  I thought "Is this really a thing?"  (Nope -- birds have them, to help break their shells at birth.)  At first I thought maybe she just had the one tooth on top but no, she had top teeth -- they were just smaller than that one tooth.  I've never seen such a thing.  It might come in handy though.

In JJ's defense, I think sometimes she dismisses the small items (like one guy's heirloom Christmas decorations) because she thinks the free flight to California, hotel, meals, etc. makes up for the loss of what she considers "junk". 

Speaking of "junk", sometimes I think I should leave notes for my kids, for after I'm gone -- I know they'll be thinking "Why did mom hang on to this?"  That dinky little plastic cutting board, for example -- one of the kids sold them to raise money at school 40 years ago.  And that WearEver stockpot with only one handle -- it was my grandma's.  Good thing I won't be around to see them fill the dumpster. 

[Quof]

I can't tell you the number of little old ladies I have had ask me to draft their will to leave every specified tea towel and knick knack to a relative. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

How cute was Her Supreme Honor as she took the bench smiling genuinely at the pups.

Somewhere in my feeble memory I think JJ has/had a bunch of maltese doggies. I think she actually has some experience with breeding. 

Quote

If I had 40K to blow on anything dog related, I'd get a dog from the shelter then take him on a vacation with me. 

Or I would buy a really nice car to drive the dog around in. lol. I'm on my third pug. Two of them had AKC papers and medical problems. The third didn't have any papers (the seller was going through a divorce) and was super healthy until he passed away last year. 

Quote

One more complaint.  When she dismisses a case with items she deems irrelevant.  The whole "My father the dentist didn't pay all that money for me to go to law school to quibble about lawn chairs."

Well, what might seem trivial to you JJ might mean a lot to someone else.  It's their right to sue (right or wrong) but I would ask or even demand an intelligent legal reason for her dismissal of the lawn furniture other than it's time for lunch and they're serving sushi.  Not acceptable.

I gotta disagree with you a little bit. Particularly when people are going through divorces/ break-ups people get NUTSO. They will fight over the tiniest thing (like the people who fight over spoons or crappy $200 TVs). When I went through my split from my crazy ex he was obsessed with a handful of CDs and a big picture of an eagle I bought him from one of those home decorating parties about 20 years ago and actually showed up at the house with the police demanding those things. He got them, started a fight and then left them in the backyard when he stormed out in the rain. He also got angry because he got the house in the divorce but went crazy that we were replacing the rotten carpet with wooden floors and had left a spot about 2 feet x 10 feet undone (didn't have time to finish but left the rest of the supplies). He tore all that floor out and lived on top of the concrete until the house was foreclosed. Bitches be crazy, yo. 

So I get that JJ doesn't want to waste her time arguing what she perceives as minutia. And I'm assuming people watch her show so they know how she is. . . People just want to get their story told and validated (no matter if it has no relevance to the case). That's why the hallterviews are often the best part!

[Spunkygal]

15 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

You made me look up "egg tooth".  I thought "Is this really a thing?"  (Nope -- birds have them, to help break their shells at birth.)  At first I thought maybe she just had the one tooth on top but no, she had top teeth -- they were just smaller than that one tooth.  I've never seen such a thing.  It might come in handy though.

Ha! Yes, egg tooth is a real thing but just for birds! But that's all I could think when I was fixated on plaintiff's amazingly long tooth. It is really cool to watch a baby bird use its egg tooth to crack open the egg. Love those hummingbird nest cams!!

Back on topic, I have to go to the dentist in a week to have a permanent crown installed and will ask what could cause a tooth to outgrow the others.

[Trini]

On 8/26/2016 at 5:46 PM, AuntiePam said:

Today's cases, ugh.  The trucking company employee/friend/partner/independent contractor with the loan and the check and the second loan and the death threats -- I fast-forwarded -- did JJ give anyone anything?

Nope; nothing. And that plaintiff was shadier than shady, even if he admitted some of shadiness.

[Brattinella]

If, after you loan someone some money, and you don't get paid back for it, you CANNOT loan them any more money, because you are a LOSAH. 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Brattinella said:

If, after you loan someone some money, and you don't get paid back for it, you CANNOT loan them any more money, because you are a LOSAH. 

And heaven forbid someone you've slept with owes you money.  According to JJ if you slept with him/her after loaning the money it's no longer a loan.  Your're a cuppal.

Some legal advice here please, isn't that prostitution?

Edited August 28, 2016 by PsychoKlown

[Quof]

Nope, it's condonation, you've forgiven them.   And JJ usually uses this concept about alleged assaults or thefts - if you believe you've truly been wronged, you wouldn't then canoodle with the person who wronged you.   She's not so quick to invoke it with loans.  With loans she usually invokes the (very sound) logic that, if they haven't paid you back the first time, yet you keep doling out money, you clearly had no reasonable expectation they would ever repay you so it's not a loan.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Quof said:

Nope, it's condonation, you've forgiven them.   And JJ usually uses this concept about alleged assaults or thefts - if you believe you've truly been wronged, you wouldn't then canoodle with the person who wronged you.   She's not so quick to invoke it with loans.  With loans she usually invokes the (very sound) logic that, if they haven't paid you back the first time, yet you keep doling out money, you clearly had no reasonable expectation they would ever repay you so it's not a loan.

No Quof.  You don't understand.

You see, he most certainly, definitely, absolutely will pay me all this back when his tax refund comes in.  He swears to it. 

The only thing is....he hasn't worked in twelve years.  He's disabled.   

And I have to bring this to court because if I bring it up to him we'll be bicker-backing.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

No Quof.  You don't understand.

You see, he most certainly, definitely, absolutely will pay me all this back when his tax refund comes in.  He swears to it. 

The only thing is....he hasn't worked in twelve years.  He's disabled.   

And I have to bring this to court because if I bring it up to him we'll be bicker-backing.

Or, he will just beat and/or murder you because you are nagging him.  :(  Sorry, women are at a huge disadvantage with this scenario.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 Yes, egg tooth is a real thing but just for birds!

Just now watched this. She has never saw the car again. Son - who I was expecting to be a teenager - is a grown man who wants a car but can't afford it and Daddy thought he should have a BMW.  The egg tooth made me very uncomfortable and that wig reminded me of an outlandish fancy chicken.

[teebax]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Just now watched this. She has never saw the car again. Son - who I was expecting to be a teenager - is a grown man who wants a car but can't afford it and Daddy thought he should have a BMW.  The egg tooth made me very uncomfortable and that wig reminded me of an outlandish fancy chicken.

I don't usually quite someone just to laugh because it adds little to the discussion, but damn if that didn't make me snert.

[funky-rat]

Mr. Funky deals with a car auction at his job.  He said the defendant didn't have a leg to stand on, and that the auction she was referring to was rare if they let you drive the cars (he thinks she meant "start the car"). 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

WHAT?!?! Nobody's on here talking about the telenovela that was Judge Judy's first episode (at least for me?). The grandma whose more interested in saving her grandson from the evvvviillllllllllllllll clutches of a teenage Jezebel?? (Hope Granny likes visiting Wussy Boy in jail, I was SO hoping JJ was going to say that). Grandma got some money back for her computer that Sonny Boy lent/ "borrowed" to the plaintiff who was giving off a post millenial Ann Margret vibe (beautiful girl BTW). And Grandma had to let loose about the teenage defendant's sexual history (why the HELL would that boy tell his grandmother about her sexual antics? Did I miss a chapter in my grandma manual? ) I did enjoy watching Granny get all pissed off, cross her arms and watch her chest catch on fire with the repressed fire of a thousand suns. I imagine Sonny Boy tells Grandma about all his trials and trouble at night while they watch Wheel of Fortune and he pumices the calluses off her bony feet. 

[Brattinella]

I didn't like Ann-Margret wannabe; her folks kept TAKING AWAY all her devices!  There must have been a reason why.  And then to SELL his phone? Oh, NO!

ETA: Cool!  Sonny Boy got a restraining order against red-headed vixen!

Edited August 29, 2016 by Brattinella

[AuntiePam]

58 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I didn't like Ann-Margret wannabe; her folks kept TAKING AWAY all her devices!  There must have been a reason why.  And then to SELL his phone? Oh, NO!

ETA: Cool!  Sonny Boy got a restraining order against red-headed vixen!

I think Vixen was the one who got the restraining order.  ??

She reminded me of a young Kim Novak -- Novak's facial expressions didn't change, like she was afraid she'd get wrinkles.  Now they can't change, because of the unfortunate plastic surgery.  Vixen's face didn't move either.

I feel bad for Vixen if Sonny Boy is sharing those photos.  Let's hope some young women were watching today.  Sonny Boy is bad news.

The car accident case -- I couldn't help but wonder what mom looks like.  Dad and daughter didn't look even remotely related.  I liked the daughter though -- so clueless, but not angry/stupid/defensive clueless like so many of them can be. 

[SandyToes]

No idea what you are talking about!  I saw completely different episodes!  Although I will say that the litigants I saw today were among the most entitled, stupid, unrepentant lot we've ever seen.  Girlfriend (or not) stayed at bf's house, paid rent for a couple of months, got hurt in car wreck, hospitalized for a couple of months, moved back in, awarded $$ judgement, spent it all, can't be bothered to go back to work, but doesn't believe she owes any rent.

And then the gal who agreed to pay $150 for a custom wedding dress, didn't pay, boyfriend stole the dress, cops called, still no money changes hands, bride HAS to buy new dress, had allergic reaction to it (?!?!) spent wedding night in ER, lost a child (miscarriage?) blames all the drama on seamstress. Come to find out, she paid $110 for the FABRIC, so thinks she only owes $40 for the balance.  Yeah, what a bargain.

To top if off, idiot driver (who could have been 17 and could have been 40, hard to tell) with a 2-day old drivers license signals to turn right, starts to turn right, and then presto change-o decides to turn left!  Bang! No insurance, of course, since daddy didn't add her to the policy.  But it wasn't her fault!  The other driver was driving on part of the road that was "lined-ed."  "Lined-ed." Over and over and over. Muttered as the case is closed something about it being unfair, and not her fault.  I could see where she may be impaired in some way, in which case, perhaps she should not be driving.

Would have enjoyed the cases y'all saw!  Although, AuntiePam, it looks like we both saw the car case.

[Guest]

OMG! Today's Judgmental Grandma case was awesome but lacked two things for magnificence: 1.) her accusing the Defendant (who looked like she was 28) of intentionally luring her grandson into having sex with her; and 2.) Granny calling the girl a WHORE! That woman, with the hands on her hips when they were't crossed on her chest, had to be related somehow to Patricia Beans. HAS. TO. 

A little annoyed that JJ gave her any money (not to mention not admonishing her to "uncross your arms!"). She should have sued the grandson for the computer since it's pretty clear he gave it to Lolita Lite and more than likely said, "Here, take this computer, granny ain't using it anymore since she it got a virus from one of her repeated viewings of Lemon Party*." I don't know if anyone else caught it, but during the third segment (after the second commercial break), at some point, when Granny was shooting off her mouth again, the grandson gave her a side kick under the table! 

And the poor, dumb, ghost-faced (or should that be, "faced-ed?") "lined-ed" girl. Sweet Jesus.  Put down the cheap black hair dye and stop stuffing your face with Mountain Dew and Doritos -- you're too young to look 12 months pregnant all the time. I don't understand why JJ awarded (awarded-ed) the Plaintiff the full value of the car. Didn't he say he went through his own insurance because, naturally, the Defendant didn't have any.

*If you don't know what Lemon Party is, do not Google it. I didn't heed the same warning years ago. 

[teebax]

She gave that grandmother way too much leeway and should have thrown her out after the tenth interruption.

The Lolita was a rough-looking sixteen, or however old she claims to be. At girl could order at a bar and not get carded!

[SandyToes]

Was the grandma on the same ep as the driver?  How did I miss that?!

 I hadn't drunk THAT much wine, yet...

Edited August 30, 2016 by SandyToes

[Spunkygal]

Who says this thread isn't educational? Not just creative ways to get over on the system, but this week we've learned about egg teeth and lemon parties. I ignored Giant Misfit's plea to not Google. No, it was not recipes for lemon tea cookies as I had hoped.

[Quof]

Jeezuz, Grandma nearly strangled herself clutching those pearls.  And Faith is 40 if she's a day.   That whole episode was exhausting. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

Was the grandma on the same ep as the driver?  How did I miss that?!

 I hadn't drunk THAT much wine, yet...

Naw...Grandma got a deserved-ed full show. Dumb-Dumb driver was on the other new episode.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

And Faith is 40 if she's a day. 

That's mean! I was going to say a jowly 35. Two vastly unattractive teenagers, some (probably) hideous nudie shots and Battleaxe Granny, who thinks HER unattractive, beady-eyed teen is beyond saintly were all mildly entertaining.

I had to turn off Savannah. There is some official entitity who gave a driving permit to that moon-faced, mutant moron? Very scary. I couldn't take it and didn't want to hear hillbilly Daddy who is no doubt toothless, defend his little sugarplum.

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

I don't understand why JJ awarded (awarded-ed) the Plaintiff the full value of the car. Didn't he say he went through his own insurance because, naturally, the Defendant didn't have any.

I think he said his insurance company paid off his car loan, which must not have been very much -- plaintiff said $350 and I don't know if he meant that's all he owed or that $350 was his monthly payment.  The car's book value was $7K+ so JJ gave him the max. 

That's a crappy insurance policy.  Full coverage and all they do is pay off your balance?  Balls to that.

[Guest]

Thanks, AuntiePam. I guess that's what threw me -- I had no idea insurance companies only paid off the loan in the case the car gets totaled. I thought they totaled it and paid the market cost for the car. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

What I learned from today's cases is that small children should not be allowed to play with smaller dogs when said small children are unsupervised. Poor pup looked like it was mostly fur. That chick should have known better.

[Brattinella]

They dropped that poor puppy off the top bunk!  Beatings!  5 and 6 is old enough.

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

Thanks, AuntiePam. I guess that's what threw me -- I had no idea insurance companies only paid off the loan in the case the car gets totaled. I thought they totaled it and paid the market cost for the car. 

I didn't know that either, and I'm hoping it's a quirk of his insurance policy.  Maybe he insures with The General.

Brattinella, they had the puppy on the top bunk?  Yowza.  Not good.  This isn't the first babysitter case where the sitter let kids play unsupervised.  I'll let the teen grandkids do their own thing when they're here, but anyone under 12 needs to be where I can see 'em.