All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Toaster Strudel]

Maybe I'm unfairly typecasting, but I would expect someone that pees in bottles and saves it to also steal makeup kits and stuff them in garbage in the snow, and grab the odd $20 bill from unsupervised wallets.  These things go together so well, why the requirement for proof?

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I do NOT understand why Annaliese never said the definitive remark about Mister Fudge:  "He was the ONLY ONE THERE!"

I once absent-mindedly threw a card containing 300$ in the trash. Another time (well, a number of times) I was positive I had more money in my wallet than I actually had. I've found 20$ in the pocket of a jacket I hadn't worn in months. All that to say, Fudge probably did the stealing (being called a thief didn't seem to bother him as it would me), but there's no way to definitively prove it. Maybe plaintiff miscalculated or miscounted her money. Maybe she lost it. Maybe her friend lifted it. Maybe she spent it and forgot.

[Brattinella]

But WHY on earth did JJ not call him out on PEEING IN BOTTLES?  She didn't even act offended!  Is this a normal activity?

[Toaster Strudel]

I think it was too outrageous to register!

[Trini]

I just really wanted to know how those two crazy people became roommates in the first place! Surprised defendant didn't have a countersuit - he got locked out.

[AuntiePam]

Not to mention that the first time you suspect someone is stealing money out of your wallet, you stop leaving your wallet where he can get to it.  And who puts birthday cards -- with money still in them -- on the mantle?

A relative stayed with us for a couple months after she split with her husband.  We knew she had sticky fingers so my jewelry box went to my daughter's house and I hid the credit cards.  She still managed to steal some stuff, but we got most of it back.  Gal has problems, and she's in therapy now. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Is this peeing-in-a-bottle-for-keepsies a thing now? This is the second time someone who has done this has appeared on JJ.

There was also a batshit crazy, shrieking woman who peed in containers on TPC and left them for her landlord. Does seem to be a thing now.

[SRTouch]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

There was also a batshit crazy, shrieking woman who peed in containers on TPC and left them for her landlord. Does seem to be a thing now.

And all I could think was, "THANK GOD FOR BUCKETS!"

[ElleMo]

17 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I did learn something though -- signing over title doesn't relieve someone of responsibility.  The registration also has to be changed. 

I recently told a friend to meet a potential buyer at Motor Vehicles so that they could go in together to change the registration.  She didn't listen.  Hope she is not on a court show next year.

[AZChristian]

13 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Plus, the homeowners insurance usually pays for alternate housing while the place is being fixed.

Cousin and her friend didn't have money for homeowners insurance; she looked to be drinking up whatever money came in.  Besides, if insurance was paying for it, seems like the work would have been done on a more timely basis.  As JJ pointed out, you can build a whole house in less time than those refurbishments were taking.  Can't imagine it was 25% of a mansion that burned down.

[ElleMo]

On 9/22/2016 at 8:04 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I watched only a few minutes of this until I coudln't take it anymore. Anneliese, from what I saw (and I could be dead wrong) seemed like a nut. Her lease specifically precludes anyone from storing PEE in their rooms? Whatever. Anyway, I was thinking about when I was young and single and lived alone. I had some hard times financially. I never considered getting a stranger to move in with me, but if I had I'm pretty sure I'd want someone who is kind of like me - a young, single woman who worked full time and paid her bills, etc., not college boys, grandmothers, ex-cons, heroin addicts or men. People on this show get the most bizarre roommates and then squawk about them.

It probably said something about health hazards and I would consider bottles of pee a health hazard. But she should have phrased it that way.  And the guy admitted to being lazy and peeing in bottles. Disgusting. 

My only roommate, other than my now husband and in college dorms, was someone I had worked with.  She was my age and I had moved on to another job so there was no danger of workplace drama.  She ended up moving in with her boyfriend halfway through the lease.  It was a gradual thing.  First she spent a night or two, then a few days,  a week, then all of a sudden I realized that she hadn't been home in a month. She paid her rent through the remainder of the lease.  I now realize how lucky I was that she did! I didn't bother to ask her for utilities since she wasn't using them and I was getting the benefit of basically my own apartment at 1/2 the price.  I ended up staying in the apartment for another 1.5 years alone and struggling to pay my rent because I couldn't find someone I wanted to live with. This was Hoboken, NJ, a stone's throw from Manhattan.  I could have found *someone* to live with me but I didn't even consider moving in with someone I didn't know. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by ElleMo

[SRTouch]

3 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

.... I ended up staying in the apartment for another 1.5 years alone and struggling to pay my rent because I couldn't find someone I wanted to live with. This was Hoboken, NJ, a stone's throw from Manhattan.  I could have found *someone* to live with me but I didn't even consider moving in with someone I didn't know. 

Ah, admit! The real reason you didn't find a new roommate was because this was pre-craigslist.  Just think, with craigslist you could have found yourself someone to steal the money you left on the mantle or the perfume off the coffee table, not to mention peeing in the glass soda bottle before turning them in for the deposit ... (to myself: geez, how long has it been since I lived where I could turn in bottles and get money back? Good grief, probably back when the milkman left milk and eggs on the front porch, and mom paid by leaving money in an envelope left with the empties.) 

[califred]

I thought I had lost you all, somehow all my J shows disappeared.  Thankfully I found you the long way.  It's still many hours before it will be on here.  

[Guest]

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

There was also a batshit crazy, shrieking woman who peed in containers on TPC and left them for her landlord. Does seem to be a thing now.

May I add to the list the peculiar behavior of peeing in certain corners of the room.  Not all.  Just the ones who have been carefully chosen.  (Corners that is).  And with that I think I'll see if my sidecar is sufficiently cold.  It's Friday.  Wine isn't cutting it.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

It's Friday.  Wine isn't cutting it.

My wine didn't cut it either, so I had three Grand Marniers after that. I think I'm sufficiently mellow to watch today's episodes now.

And, BTW, not even any  of my cats or dogs have peed in inappropriate places, unlike our dear litigants who are supposed to be thinking human beings.

[AuntiePam]

10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

My wine didn't cut it either, so I had three Grand Marniers after that. I think I'm sufficiently mellow to watch today's episodes now.

 

Were there episodes today?  My DVR didn't record anything.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Were there episodes today?

I got new ones, but they were merely ho hum and I've almost forgetten them already.

[SandyToes]

Our show forum isn't busy enough to warrant a J-listing at the present time, apparently, so that's why it isn't on the home page.   Wake up, everyone!!!  Missed today's shows (all 4 of 'em!). Looks like I didn't miss much. Glad to know I'm  no longer the only one who openly (!) admits to enjoying an adult beverage or two or eight whilst watching our show!

[califred]

Oh I was missing all the Js ! I found them.

 

i remember a bicycle case today where the driver was fortunate the guy only asked for $550.

 

Ive broken open the Titos tonight.

[SRTouch]

Gotta get my recap fix out of the way...

FIRST CASE: bicyclist suing motorist who bumped him while in a crosswalk. Plaintiff saves money on helmets by putting a gallon of "product" on his hair, young, obviously fit, articular, well prepared... what's he doing on JJ.  Ah, the reason is  standing across the aisle.  Defendant, hefty snaggle tooth dude (especially standing next to plaintiff, who looks ready for an iron man race) hair short on sides, an inch to 2 on top, clean looking, but never been combed, THINKS he's well prepared with his excerpts of Minnesota law and eager to school JJ on the finer points of pedestrian vs vehicles law. JJ was actually pretty mellow and didn't come down on defendant like a ton of bricks as she could have. Open and shut case, defendant hit someone in crosswalk, cyclist or not, admits he didn't see the guy, police report clears cyclist and says defendant at fault. As JJ told him (although he didn't seem to hear her) he was lucky guy only sued for the bicycle repair costs - not even pain and suffering for the scraped elbow, and that would have easily been thousands in most cases. Heck, I was surprised to hear $600 for fixing a bike, but after thinking I realise a serious cyclist could literally have thousands invested in it.

SECOND CASE: Neighbor suing over $500 junk heap she sold the new neighbor ... and this is the case with harrassment claim - $4,500 for a nice round total of 5 grand. Defendant wants us to believe this lady, who he describes as a neighbor from hell, gave him the car - no really, that's his defense, he says he had trouble with her when he moved in, even before the UHAUL was unloaded. Then she just gave him a car in between times when she was making his life hell. He has a 2 grand countersuit because she filed for a false restraining order. Oops, plaintiff must not be a regular JJ, not only does she pour herself a glass of water, she tries to talk after giving Byrd some pictures. However, she does seem to have her evidence together, including a signed "Transfer of Liability" where the selling price was $500 for the car. Hmmm, why are these people in court again? Defendant says the signed form was just show the DMV "for tax purposes" ... hmmm did he just admit to trying to scam the DMV? When JJ asks him why he didn't just give back the car when he learned she expected to be paid we hear lots of nonsense, but no answer to the very simple question. Instead he tries for sympathy, saying that while he's filming his disabled son is in the ER with a broken leg. What does that even mean? Did he get a call on the way into court that his son was hurt? Hey, this is a TV show not a real court date, so why appear if you need to go take car of your child's medical emergency? He made the choice to appear, the fact that the son is hurt (if true) has nothing to do with the case, and the sooner he answers the downer he can go be with the kid (assuming he doesn't have to catch a flight). JJ orders him to pay the $500, and moves on to the other $4500 in the claim. Hmmm, for some reason plaintiff now wants 2 grand for the car she just proved she sold for $500. For the balance she presents a laundry list of "harrassment", multiple police reports, etc etc. JJ quickly dismisses that portion after hearing the case has already been heard and dismissed by another court after a previous hearing. Same deal with counterclaim.

next case: silly girl suing her mechanic former friend over money she put into a nonrunning, unregistered 1999 car she bought from stranger off facebook. Ah, not only a dummy paying to repair a car she doesn't own, but here's today's tatty tat cleavage girl vs fat mechanic dude. (Yep, I'm getting old. This girl looks way to young to be buying her 17yo son a car.) Not only that, but she leaves the car to be fixed with her friendly mechanic while she moves out of state. Convoluted story about the title, but supposedly friendly mechanic fixed the car, towed it to her father's house,  and put a mechanics lien on it. Now these two are in court fighting over the still unregistered rust bucket - but supposedly they at least now have a clean title. Messy ending, plaintiff has to pay $200 dollars to get rid of mechanic lien, but she says he never fixed the car and he left it on blocks at her dad's house. Who knows, but smug defendant acts like he got over in the hallterview.

'Nother car case: plaintiff says she paid $2200 for a car without a title. She says dude said he had one more payment, and as soon as he made the payment he'd sign over the title. Oops, turns out he owned way more, was behind, and car was repo'ed from in front of her place. Course, his story is different. He says the $2200 was just the down payment, then she was to assume the loan (later on he changes that and says he agreed to sell it for $2200). As JJ questions him we get a great example of how so many people get in credit trouble. He has no idea what the total purchase price of the car was when he bought it, just what he put as a down payment and that he had 4 payments left. Lot so many others, just makes payments and trades it in when it's almost paid for, making finance companies happy but never actually owning a car. So, kid bought this $6,000 (according to Byrd's KBB) a few months ago and guesstimates the total, with finance charges, was 10k. Hmmm, maybe just miscommunication, but I agree with JJ he probably wouldn't sell the girl the car for $2200. But his math is all messed up, no way he only had 4 payments left with the numbers he's giving, his story just doesn't work. Now we get another example of JJ discounting someone's story because it doesn't fit her preconceived notions. This time she assumes the plaintiff knew to check KBB and learn the true value of the car was $6000, and should have known there was no way he was selling it for $2200. People just don't buy cars without checking the KBB in JJ's world, but out in the real world it happens all the time. People DO sell property for way less than it's worth so that they can get the minimum amount needed for the down payment on the new toy. People DO purchase cars with no real idea what the vehicle should cost. I could see the girl doing what she did without checking his story as she should have - stupid, but it happens all the time. I have alot more trouble with him, there's no way for him to believe his own story. JJ jumps to the conclusion they are both running a scam, and throws out the case even after the defendant admits he told plaintiff he would sell the car for $2200. She could be right, but I would have given the plaintiff the money.

[Albino]

9 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

next case: silly girl suing her mechanic former friend over money she put into a nonrunning, unregistered 1999 car she bought from stranger off facebook. Ah, not only a dummy paying to repair a car she doesn't own, but here's today's tatty tat cleavage girl vs fat mechanic dude. (Yep, I'm getting old. This girl looks way to young to be buying her 17yo son a car.) Not only that, but she leaves the car to be fixed with her friendly mechanic while she moves out of state. Convoluted story about the title, but supposedly friendly mechanic fixed the car, towed it to her father's house,  and put a mechanics lien on it. Now these two are in court fighting over the still unregistered rust bucket - but supposedly they at least now have a clean title. Messy ending, plaintiff has to pay $200 dollars to get rid of mechanic lien, but she says he never fixed the car and he left it on blocks at her dad's house. Who knows, but smug defendant acts like he got over in the hallterview.

Honestly I could barely understand a single word either of these Einsteins said.  It wasn't until JJ repeated it that I realized they were saying "mechanics lien" and not "mekkalean".

Edited September 24, 2016 by Albino

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Bicycle Man looked like an Ikea Mannequin. And the defendant was dumb as dirt.  What's with these shouter-outers? Seems like this season is full of the rudest snappiest people ever. They don't appear to be totally stoopid, just rude

The guy that sold the car owing a mess of payments was lying like a rug y'all.  And his mouth was janky and his eyes were looking like a crazy ping pong match. He was lying like a cartoon character. I was surprised the car was worth so much on KBB (I actually think JJ knows the value ahead of time and Bird's looking up of the value of a car in his trusty paper copy is just for dramatic flair). 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Bicycle Man looked like an Ikea Mannequin. And the defendant was dumb as dirt.  What's with these shouter-outers? Seems like this season is full of the rudest snappiest people ever. They don't appear to be totally stoopid, just rude

 

And may I add ItsHelloPattiAgain that not only are they all that - they've also abandoned all sense of respect with dressing.  Even earlier episodes had most people attempting to dress properly for the court, now, if you notice we comment on those who do because it's so rare.

What's with that?  When did casual dress mean showing up in pajama bottoms, untucked shirt tails, torn jeans and sneakers?  The unbalanced guest house cousin looked like she just rolled out of bed.  Hair - a woman's crowning glory is now nothing more than a birds nest. 

I'm not saying that everyone needs to wear designer duds....but some element of self-respect goes a long way in JJ's courtroom.  And on this board too.

[wallysmommy]

One of the reruns was the genius who was fighting with another girl in the car, and ran into some half-witted security guards patrolling the parking lot of a club.  I was ready to start the "wuz" drinking game to take a big drink of something alcoholic every time she said it -- even though it was only 10 am.  The total level of common sense among all the litigants wuz scary.

Edited September 24, 2016 by wallysmommy

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

THINKS he's well prepared with his excerpts of Minnesota law and eager to school JJ on the finer points of pedestrian vs vehicles law.

Haha! Yeah, I forgot about him. He was mildly entertaining.

Quote

 he says he had trouble with her when he moved in, even before the UHAUL was unloaded. Then she just gave him a car in between times when she was making his life hell.

I swear, SRTouch, sometimes I enjoy your recaps more than I do the cases!

36 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

And may I add ItsHelloPattiAgain that not only are they all that - they've also abandoned all sense of respect with dressing.  Even earlier episodes had most people attempting to dress properly for the court, now, if you notice we comment on those who do because it's so rare.

What's with that?  When did casual dress mean showing up in pajama bottoms, untucked shirt tails, torn jeans and sneakers? 

If you watch really old episodes of The People's Court with Judge Wapner on YT, you'll see a world of difference. Nobody appeared half-naked, with acres of tatted skin on display, wore shirts with rude slogans on them, or sported clothes that looked as though they were snatched from the "Reject" pile at the Salvation Army.

[NYCFree]

My favorite inappropriate-for-court ensemble came from real life.  In the summer of 1992 I did an internship with the Bronx County DA.  A young woman tried to show up before a female judge wearing a t shirt that said "shut the fuck up, bitch!"  The court officers made her turn the shirt around.  It was the talk of the court house that day.  Keep in mind this is Bronx County court, mid-way through crack years, they have seen it all!

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I'm not saying that everyone needs to wear designer duds....but some element of self-respect goes a long way in JJ's courtroom.  And on this board too.

Whenever JJ goes off on someone's apparel by saying, "Where did you think you were coming today," I'm waiting for one of them to say "Wal-mart"  (In which case they would be WAY too over-dressed.

[califred]

I noticed someone yesterday in the shoulders showing but has sleeves shirt and the defendant had long sleeves but they were see through.  

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I noticed someone yesterday in the shoulders showing but has sleeves shirt and the defendant had long sleeves but they were see through.

We have two types of dressers here: Those who look as though they're going to a mud wrestling tournament or to take up their post on a street corner after the show, and then we have the black chiffon "mother of the bride" or "Las Vegas sequined cocktail gown, circa 1972" attire, both of which always look as though they would reek of mothballs.

[DoctorK]

Actually, I think there is a third type - so-called fashion designers/stylists/fashion forward  litigants who usually look like clowns at a small and run down circus.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

We have two types of dressers here: Those who look as though they're going to a mud wrestling tournament or to take up their post on a street corner after the show, and then we have the black chiffon "mother of the bride" or "Las Vegas sequined cocktail gown, circa 1972" attire, both of which always look as though they would reek of mothballs.

If it's true that the production crew and staff sometimes give litigants outfits when what they show up in is too outrageous, I wonder what they had on. I mean, how do some of these folks slip through, when it's obvious some people are wearing brand new, fresh out of the wrapper, clothes that don't always even fit. I guess the ones who slip through could be for entertainment value.

[augmentedfourth]

I've been working like crazy this week and finally got caught up with the DVR. The surveillance footage of the parking lot fight is my everything. You've all recapped it brilliantly, so I don't have much more to add. Just that everything about it was amazing.

 

Second place goes to the dune buggy plaintiff who masterfully coordinated her sundress, cardigan, and husband's shirt. This is not a criticism - I have been known to engage in some hardcore color coordination. And now I'm forced to wonder if I could get away with wearing that shade of yellow, because it was pretty, but that's a hard color to wear.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

so-called fashion designers/stylists/fashion forward  litigants who usually look like clowns at a small and run down circus.

Are you thinking of a couple of ladies awhile ago whose hair, eyeshadow and clothes all matched? IIRC, the colours were purple and orange, so yeah - kind of clown-like.

 

Quote

when it's obvious some people are wearing brand new, fresh out of the wrapper, clothes that don't always even fit.

I guess Mr. "Beer is Fun" t-shirt flat-out refused to have his style muzzled that way. I liked it when they made litigants wear even worse clothes than folded-up K-Mart shirts. The best was that brainless, 20 year old mother of three who had to put a ratty old green hoodie on over her off-the-shoulder, tawdry, gold lame prom dress.

[OhioSongbird]

I love the guys shirts fresh out of the package where you can see every fold.  You'd think they could use the steamer in the wardrobe room to spiff them up a bit.  I'm in the vintage clothing business and I notice this stuff. 
Drives hubby crazy..;-).

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I love the guys shirts fresh out of the package where you can see every fold.

The problem with those cheap-o shirts is they're so full of sizing they're like cardboard and getting the fold lines out is a major task.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Are you thinking of a couple of ladies

I was actually thinking more about several of the male fashion designers who come in looking like deranged homeless peacocks.

[Trini]

On 9/24/2016 at 0:38 AM, SRTouch said:

next case: silly girl suing her mechanic former friend over money she put into a nonrunning, unregistered 1999 car she bought from stranger off facebook. ...

My eyes glazed over with this case; everyone involved seemed a litle shady and/or dim.
 

On 9/24/2016 at 0:38 AM, SRTouch said:

'Nother car case: plaintiff says she paid $2200 for a car without a title. She says dude said he had one more payment, and as soon as he made the payment he'd sign over the title. Oops, turns out he owned way more, was behind, and car was repo'ed from in front of her place. Course, his story is different.

This one I concluded that both litigants are not so great at math/finances in general. But yeah, not everyone looks up what a car is worth before buying it.

[QuinnM]

Quote

Bicycle Man looked like an Ikea Mannequin.

I'm from MN and dammit half the population looks like Ikea manneqins.  Ikea was all excited opening a store where people spoke Swedish.  Sigh, it's hard on us short brunettes.

Now the interesting thing is that the guy was on a trail. Bikes and pedestrians only.  We have about 100 miles of them in the city.  So when a trail crosses a parkway (parkway has a planted median and separate bike and pedestrians paths on either side, clear in the mock up) the bike/walker looks both ways and assumes right of way.  Cars have signage telling them they are expected to stop.  The regulations being sited only apply to area where the bike only path is in the street.  It also states that bikes can't be ridden on the side walk.  And NONE of that applies to a bike/pedestrian trail. 

I understand cuz bikes be drivin me crazy too.  You come down a sidewalk at 10 mph and I might not see you since the brushes are in my way and I am only clear to see someone at a walking pace.  Plus stop at the stop side you whippersnapper!  Don't be flipping me off cuz I took a left turn and interrupted your biking zen.  And stop being tall and athletic with blonde hair.  You can just go back to Sweden and visit the family farm!

Edited September 25, 2016 by QuinnM

[QuinnM]

Quote

You did a good job of explaining it, I just still can't picture what is supposed to happen at the crosswalks. 

Here's your problem right here.  This is not a crosswalk.  It is a trail which has the right of way through a parkway.  See?  The car is not king in this scenario.  As a result these parkways with no stoplights have not become shortcuts.  They are not shortcuts due to the non-car traffic.  And they will just stop you dead for any of the millions of races along these trails and parkways.  You just sit there in your car and text your pain on twitter cuz we have a race and you aren't a priority.  You probably don't live in a city with 100 miles nonshared trails and 100 miles bike lanes shared on street and 100 lakes all within the city limit.  We get bike awards from all around the world and I have some of the best views on my daily walks.  The river the sky the eagles the bunnies and I live downtown.  

And because all kinds of numbnuts drive cars there are signs that tell said numbnuts that they need to stop and that a walker or a biker has the right of way.  Now it seems that walkers/bikers are smarter since they realize the level of intelligence that often get behind the wheel of a car.  They do all slow and look etc.  But this is not a crosswalk.  I bet in his written complaint the biker explained the trail since JJ seemed to get that the defendant's documentation didn't apply.

[Brattinella]

Wow what a terrible city to live in!

[SRTouch]

33 minutes ago, QuinnM said:

And because all kinds of numbnuts drive cars there are signs that tell said numbnuts that they need to stop and that a walker or a biker has the right of way.  Now it seems that walkers/bikers are smarter since they realize the level of intelligence that often get behind the wheel of a car.  They do all slow and look etc.  But this is not a crosswalk.  I bet in his written complaint the biker explained the trail since JJ seemed to get that the defendant's documentation didn't apply.

Gotcha,  I thought it pretty plain from the pictures, with the big ol sign on the marquee, that cars should stop for pedestrians/bicyclists. Cyclist had the right of way, driver's car hit the bike in the crossing, driver liable.

Ah, but the problem is the same as back when I rode a motorcycle. Bike may have "right of way" but cars pretty much always have "right of weight". Ignore that little tidbit from motorcycle safety class and you might get to visit the ER, or the morgue if you're unlucky. My question wasn't really who legally had the right of way, but could the cyclist have prevented the accident if he had been riding more defensively. To me the answer is obviously yes (especially if the driver was right that the cyclist had his shoes clipped in as he crossed the road.) Just as you need to be cautious making a turn on uneven pavement or when there's gravel on the road, you need to be extra vigilant crossing a street, no matter whether you have the right of way or not.

[QuinnM]

Quote

 am still confused. Is it a park area? Feel free to just go ppphhhhbbbttt to me.

I think it is confusing. It's something that developed over time. We have parks and lakes and this big river. All in a metropolitan area. So things developed to try to utilize the recreational areas with minimal disruption to commerce. So you use a main aterial to get to work but a parkway to get to the river park for a picnic or to ride/run/walk with friends. a lot of the trails old rail tracks that are repurposed. You can go miles without a street interrupting you. It works here. People bike year round. 

So parkways are multipurpose but trails are single. If you come upon a trail crossing you are in a very well signed area for recreation. Before you get to that trail crossing you have seen bikes whizzing down a bike path on your left and walkers/runners on your right. You've seen signs for all the trails, there are very cute names to trails.  If you don't want the view and the hassle there are about 30 other streets that get from point a to b. And this dough head defendant knew that. It's just struck in his craw that his car didn't have right of way so he blew through the trail crossing. 

You know it's like the pedestrian right of way on CA.  Cars stop, period. 

[Brattinella]

33 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

Ahhhh, clarity comes to those who wait. I think I finally am able to visualize this paradise. 

Bwahaha!

 

34 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

You know it's like the pedestrian right of way on CA.  Cars stop, period. 

Yeah, I never understood that one, either.  Going up against motor vehicles with a red cape is a losing proposition.  The car will always win.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

6 hours ago, QuinnM said:

I understand cuz bikes be drivin me crazy too.  You come down a sidewalk at 10 mph and I might not see you since the brushes are in my way and I am only clear to see someone at a walking pace.  Plus stop at the stop side you whippersnapper!  Don't be flipping me off cuz I took a left turn and interrupted your biking zen.  And stop being tall and athletic with blonde hair.  You can just go back to Sweden and visit the family farm!
 

We have bike trails here in NC, but cars are also expected to share the road with bikes. I have a Honda Metropolitan scooter that I use mostly for running small errands or going to the movies, because you can't drive it on the highway, and I usually use the bike lane because the scooter tops out speed-wise at forty-five miles an hour. God forbid you should get some dipshit behind you who wants to drive at sixty when the limit is forty, because then you're the problem.

[AngelaHunter]

I can't get past the Minnesota "borrow/loan" ("I borrowed her my car") kerfuffle into their convoluted laws that seem to apply nowhere else in North America.

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I was actually thinking more about several of the male fashion designers who come in looking like deranged homeless peacocks.

Quote

Actually, I think there is a third type - so-called fashion designers/stylists/fashion forward  litigants who usually look like clowns at a small and run down circus.

Had a dinner party here last night. At bedtime I was very tired and was looking forward to sleep but started thinking about these and laughing out loud. A lot. In bed, with the light out. Talk about "deranged."

[OhioSongbird]

I call it "hipster hell".  Some guys can pull it off...Mo Rocca---edgy, retro but always tasteful...but damn, some of these outfits leave me scratching my head.  Been in the vintage clothing biz for almost 40 yrs so I always zero in on fashion.

The women....where do I begin....please ladies for all our gender when you come to COURT! cover the tats, for God's sake wear a damn bra, and tone down the jewelry, make up and maybe take out a few of the face piercings...'k?  Guys...T-shirts, shorts and sandals........your Momma taught you better.

***As I sit here in my fleece pj bottoms & oversized T-shirt.  What?  It's my day off dammit!***

Here in Ohio the state took a lot of old tracks for bike paths.  You can criss-cross the state in any direction.  One passes about hundred feet from my shop and it's busy all the time.  But bikes have to yield when crossing streets (does happen as trains ran thru the middle of many towns...'wrong side of the tracks' and all..;-)).

Damn...I'm getting cranky in my old age.

You.  My lawn.  Off!

eta:  I was referring  to DoctorK's posts yesterday about fashion.....

Edited September 26, 2016 by OhioSongbird
....brain fart....

[Intocats]

20 hours ago, QuinnM said:

I think it is confusing. It's something that developed over time. We have parks and lakes and this big river. All in a metropolitan area. So things developed to try to utilize the recreational areas with minimal disruption to commerce. So you use a main aterial to get to work but a parkway to get to the river park for a picnic or to ride/run/walk with friends. a lot of the trails old rail tracks that are repurposed. You can go miles without a street interrupting you. It works here. People bike year round. 

So parkways are multipurpose but trails are single. If you come upon a trail crossing you are in a very well signed area for recreation. Before you get to that trail crossing you have seen bikes whizzing down a bike path on your left and walkers/runners on your right. You've seen signs for all the trails, there are very cute names to trails.  If you don't want the view and the hassle there are about 30 other streets that get from point a to b. And this dough head defendant knew that. It's just struck in his craw that his car didn't have right of way so he blew through the trail crossing. 

You know it's like the pedestrian right of way on CA.  Cars stop, period. 

I live downtown in a city in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California, it's legal to turn right at a red light. But dadgummit, drivers here are so inattentive (and often busy with their cell phones, which is NOT legal) that they often just blow through a crosswalk with pedestrians in it, and don't even look.

ive been known to shout curses and slam my purse or backpack right into said cars, as I'm almost mowed over.

(and don't get me started about bike riders and skateboarders around here...)

(down from old fart soapbox now)

[Guest]

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 5:15 PM, AngelaHunter said:

We have two types of dressers here: Those who look as though they're going to a mud wrestling tournament or to take up their post on a street corner after the show, and then we have the black chiffon "mother of the bride" or "Las Vegas sequined cocktail gown, circa 1972" attire, both of which always look as though they would reek of mothballs.

...and stale beer.  Don't forget the beer.  Probably Budweiser.

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 10:50 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I liked it when they made litigants wear even worse clothes than folded-up K-Mart shirts. The best was that brainless, 20 year old mother of three who had to put a ratty old green hoodie on over her off-the-shoulder, tawdry, gold lame prom dress.

Complete with dangling earrings.  Wouldn't it be something to find out that the hoodie was hers and part of her ensemble?  You know, coming to court and all that - she wanted to look her best.  We jest but who knows?  There just might be a spot for her in the Real Housewives series.  Real Housewives of what, I do not know but there's always Naked and Afraid!!

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

the women....where do I begin....please ladies for all our gender when you come to COURT! cover the tats, for God's sake wear a damn bra, and tone down the jewelry, make up and maybe take out a few of the face piercings...'k?  Guys...T-shirts, shorts and sandals........your Momma taught you better.

I'm a big believer in undergarments. I'm one of those older ladies who always wears a bra out along with one of those tanks under my shirt - most of the clothes for women these days are cheap and practically see-through and I'd rather the judge be looking at my evidence than my areolar headlights through my cheap Old Navy T-shirt. 

*sigh* remember the days of the nicely creased dress shirts right out of the bag from Sears?? The neckties that were borrowed from the JJ staff (and inevitably too wide and too short - maybe this crazy clown college look is in again) 

Down here in good old FL we have a lot of bike riders, but not as many of the Ikea type - we seem to get the ones who are cruising around, smoking a blunt and checking out Snapchat while riding down the road. 

GAH -  watching the crazy people trying to take that girl's cat. Wanted to slap the parents all over again.