All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[vibeology]

Could you imagine stealing $2600 from your sweet 81 year old Aunt Nancy? Between the lazy ass niece and Captain Kangaroo yesterday, this week is really depleting my faith in humanity. 

[Brattinella]

Does the defendant in the gate issue have FANGS?

[Guest]

OMG! I just got to the Captain Kangaroo episode! It was as awesome/awful as you all have said and your commentaries were better than the epi itself. But in order to redeem my hero of all time, Bob Keeshan, a kind, gentle, decent, and wonderful human being, I have to hereby rename that particular litigant (Mr John Yanuskiewicz) as Captain KangaRUDE.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, vibeology said:

Could you imagine stealing $2600 from your sweet 81 year old Aunt Nancy?

Oh yeah, now I remember this one. JJ talks about never employeed niece buying Christmas presents with OPM  (Other People's Money). Auntie still essentially doing volunteer work, getting paid a couple bucks an hour tutoring kids who have trouble reading, and niece moocher thinks she's entitled to have Auntie support her and give her spending money out of her Social Security. 

Edited October 18, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

But in order to redeem my hero of all time, Bob Keeshan, a kind, gentle, decent, and wonderful human being, I have to hereby rename that particular litigant (Mr John Yanuskiewicz) as Captain KangaRUDE.

DING DING you win the internet today. Brilliant. And I grew up as a little tyke watching the Captain and his crew constantly so I appreciate you clearing his name (although I still think Mr. Green Jeans was creepy)

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

(although I still think Mr. Green Jeans was creepy)

I'll agree to that! I was a Mr Baxter fan myself. And Bunny Rabbit! I also loved when Bill Cosby did the Picture Pages and now that good memory is all ruined. 

[AuntiePam]

Your thoughts on today's Case of the Missing CD?  I think mom cashed it.  Otherwise, why say "I don't remember" instead of "No, I didn't".  She said she didn't remember because she didn't know what proof her daughter had, or what JJ might know of banking rules, and she didn't want to be caught in a lie.  So she said she didn't remember. 

Daughter left home as soon as she could, and there were three other daughters at home.  Mom fell on hard times, was pissed at the daughter, and used the money.  Maybe she thought she'd pay it back someday, or that it was owed to her for supporting her daughter for 18 years.  JJ was leaning that way, when she asked daughter if her parents had helped pay for her college.  But daughter paid her own way, and JJ dropped that line of questioning.

The second case was another one of those "you lived together, those weren't loans" cases.  Boring!

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

The second case was another one of those "you lived together, those weren't loans" cases.

The only thing that stood out in this case was how much of an arrogant, repulsive asshole the plaintiff was.

Quote

Your thoughts on today's Case of the Missing CD?  I think mom cashed it. 

I think she probably did. If I were being accused of stealing from my daughter (or anyone!), I'm pretty sure I could definitely say I didn't. But, everything was so vague and indefinite, I can see why JJ dismissed it. Neither side had real proof of anything.  Plaintiff seemed bright, but a bit odd and I have the feeling her new hubby, who seems quite a bit older, had a big hand in these proceedings.

[Mondrianyone]

I agree that it's possible the mother cashed in the CD, but it also seems odd to me that the daughter, who couldn't wait to get out of her parents' house and live on her own, left a bunch of money sitting untouched for a decade, or however long it was.  If I were eighteen and going out to support myself (and at one point I was), I'd want to get my hands on any funds I was entitled to--as soon as I was legally able--and either use the money for something or park it in a different account, in my own name, alone.  The whole thing is strange.

[AuntiePam]

12 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

I agree that it's possible the mother cashed in the CD, but it also seems odd to me that the daughter, who couldn't wait to get out of her parents' house and live on her own, left a bunch of money sitting untouched for a decade, or however long it was.  If I were eighteen and going out to support myself (and at one point I was), I'd want to get my hands on any funds I was entitled to--as soon as I was legally able--and either use the money for something or park it in a different account, in my own name, alone.  The whole thing is strange.

Definitely strange.  I can understand leaving the CD alone -- there are penalties for cashing them before they mature.  She seemed to have her act together, so it's surprising that she didn't take mom's name off the CD as soon as she could.

When I was growing up, my mom would occasionally mention that she had a $1,000 term life policy on me and that it could be cashed in when I was 18.  $1K was a lot of money in 1963 and I was looking forward to it -- I could have bought a decent used car!  Turns out mom and stepdad had borrowed on the policy and it had no value.  That was fine with me though -- I knew they wouldn't have used the money if they hadn't needed it.

[DoctorK]

Yeah, I totally think Mom cashed out the CD because she was pissed that daughter wanted to be emancipated and get out from under her, but the plaintiff did not have enough to prove her case. Mom was smirking and the old "I don't remember" defense to me was really weak. Overall a sad situation. Given the plaintiff's efforts to become emanicipated tells me that her relationship with her mother was not as ideal as Mom portrayed it.

Edited October 19, 2016 by DoctorK

[Brattinella]

35 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

That was fine with me though -- I knew they wouldn't have used the money if they hadn't needed it.

You are WAY more forgiving than I was when a similar situation happened to me.  I still don't forgive them.

[lovesnark]

ITA that mom cashed out the CD. I didn't buy her "I don't remember" excuse for a second. DoctorK nailed it. The relationship was not all unicorns and rainbows like the mom wanted us to believe. All teenagers want to get out of their parent's house when they're approaching adulthood. But, not to the extreme of wanting to legally emancipate themselves and be 100% responsible for the expense of living on their own.

My folks had a term life insurance policy for each of us. I used mine as a down payment for my groovy 1972 Datsun pickup with a canopy!

[califred]

I completely think mom cashed that in.

 

omg niece who charges 2600 (for Xmas gifts, yikes!) on her Aunts credit cards.  My aunt who never had her own kids did that for my sister and now my sisters oldest lives with her with her husband and kid.  It got to the point that my aunt went bankrupt but lets them keep mooching.  

[Guest]

I think mom cashed the CD, too. I mean what kind of defense is, "I didn't but if I did, I don't remember doing it." I'd think every criminal in the world should employ that defense since JJ seemed to think it was valid. The girl certainly did her legwork trying to track down the money and it was clear (to me at least) that the legal owner of the CD cashed it out. I also didn't appreciate JJ grilling that poor girl over why she left the house. She worked all her life, went to school and certainly didn't seem like another "taker" that JJ likes to rake over the coals. Blah. Totally unsatisfying. 

In better news, I got the rerun of the creepy criminal who, at 37, never had a drivers license suing his technocolored chest-tatted ex girlfriend for some rent money. Not only did he use the (non)word, "tooken," he also explained out of his crooked little mouth at the hallterview that he was never at a wont for "females" of the "stripper kind." He had a generic name so I couldn't Google him but had I, I'm pretty sure I'd have found out he was in jail for some serial killing. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

creepy criminal who, at 37, never had a drivers license suing his technocolored chest-tatted ex girlfriend for some rent money.

He was totally creepy. I bet he's never had a license because he can't read. And that is allowed to raise a child. Depressing.

Yeah, g/f was sporting some classy, if cartoonish titty/chest tats.

[Ilovecomputers]

13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The only thing that stood out in this case was how much of an arrogant, repulsive asshole the plaintiff was.

I think she probably did. If I were being accused of stealing from my daughter (or anyone!), I'm pretty sure I could definitely say I didn't. But, everything was so vague and indefinite, I can see why JJ dismissed it. Neither side had real proof of anything.  Plaintiff seemed bright, but a bit odd and I have the feeling her new hubby, who seems quite a bit older, had a big hand in these proceedings.

Mom did seem vague but it does seem odd that the bank wouldn't have had more information about the closing of the account.  To hear the plaintiff talk, the account was opened with about $1,200 but it was closed soon after it was opened.  Wouldn't there have been a withdrawal slip or a bank check or a cashier's check signed by someone for $1,200 plus interest when the account was closed?  Didn't the plaintiff say her parents were still together?  Odd that dad wasn't there to staunchly defend his wife, sputtering, "We didn't need Mathilda's money.  I'm was and am quite able to support my family."  Daughter didn't want to live at home because she wanted to do as she pleased.  I'm thinking as soon as she turned 18 she got the money and had a great party.  If they had had such a great relationship, wouldn't she have noticed that Mom was suddenly able to purchase [whatever]?

[ElleMo]

1 hour ago, Ilovecomputers said:

Mom did seem vague but it does seem odd that the bank wouldn't have had more information about the closing of the account.  To hear the plaintiff talk, the account was opened with about $1,200 but it was closed soon after it was opened.  Wouldn't there have been a withdrawal slip or a bank check or a cashier's check signed by someone for $1,200 plus interest when the account was closed?  Didn't the plaintiff say her parents were still together?  Odd that dad wasn't there to staunchly defend his wife, sputtering, "We didn't need Mathilda's money.  I'm was and am quite able to support my family."  Daughter didn't want to live at home because she wanted to do as she pleased.  I'm thinking as soon as she turned 18 she got the money and had a great party.  If they had had such a great relationship, wouldn't she have noticed that Mom was suddenly able to purchase [whatever]?

It's not odd at all that the bank had no records. If it was closed shortly after it was opened, it was 9 or 10 years ago;  I don't believe that they are legally required to keep records for that long.  Additionally, the bank merged and sold accounts over that time.  There have been cases of people being screwed over on mortgages because banks lose documents and the new lender has the account holder owing much more than they should. It's a nightmare to get fixed.  So if they are that lax about open accounts that are probably $100k and more, they are probably more lax over CDs and other accounts that are less than $2k.

I do, however, agree with those people who think it is strange that the daughter didn't cash it in sooner since it seemed like she would have needed money.  It could possibly be that her mom never gave her the information on the account and she wasn't sure how to go about looking for the money and just let it slide until she mentioned it to her husband who convinced her to contact the bank. Or maybe she was under the impression that it was a 10-year CD until she looked into it.  I don't recall her explaining why she waited the 10 years.  Did she?

But even though it is odd plaintiff didn't get the money out earlier, I think it was the mom.  "I don't remember but if I did . .." is a suspicious defense.  And if the plaintiff had already closed the account and spent the money, why go through all the craziness of contact several banks, the media, etc?  How could she be sure that they wouldn't have a record with her signature on it??  

(There is a slight possibility of someone at the bank taking advantage of the buyouts, closing out an account with little activity then falsifying records,  but the mom's "I don't remember" defense makes that highly unlikely)

Edited October 19, 2016 by ElleMo

[bad things are bad]

Quote

Oh yeah, now I remember this one. JJ talks about never employeed niece buying Christmas presents with OPM  (Other People's Money). Auntie still essentially doing volunteer work, getting paid a couple bucks an hour tutoring kids who have trouble reading, and niece moocher thinks she's entitled to have Auntie support her and give her spending money out of her Social Security. 

A useful German word was used frequently to describe Ted Cruz when he was running for President: Backpfeifengesicht. Means a face that begs to be slapped . That niece needs slapping BADLY.  

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

A useful German word was used frequently to describe Ted Cruz when he was running for President: Backpfeifengesicht.

I wish I could pronounce that. I'd love to use it!

[AZChristian]

If you Google it, you'll find pronunciations.  

[Beamish]

Repeat case yesterday: totally hip and with it 81ish year old aunt gave a debit card to the 41ish year old SLACKER (thanks JJ) niece to buy $300 worth of Christmas gifts for her children. SLACKER, who doesn't work, spent upwards of $2000, claiming it was a 'gift' of course. I'll always love this case for two reasons:

1) JJ's SLACKER smackdown.

2) The aunt is totally awesome! If I were her neighbor, I'd visit her all the time. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Beamish

[AlleC17]

18 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

The second case was another one of those "you lived together, those weren't loans" cases.  Boring!

It was boring but there was one thing that puzzled me:  as JJ was about to dismiss the case, the plaintiff mentions that she had signed some sort of promissory note stating she did owe it, and JJ replies (paraphrasing here) 'that's nice, but this is a court!'  errrr...okay, so why wouldn't you look at a promissory note before dismissing, since that would be pretty pertinent in court???  Did I mishear, or was JJ really hungry for lunch?

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

  Did I mishear, or was JJ really hungry for lunch?

It could have been sushi day.

[califred]

Omg once again the debate (which is on at 3pm in Hawaii) will be cutting into my Judge Judy time.  It always plays over one episode.  

[SRTouch]

In the pool man case, I totally think plaintiff was ripping get off his boss, but have to agree that defendant didn't prove it. I might have thought differently had he not folded completely when JJ brought out her "easy to prove, I'll just call make a call." What I didn't understand is the whole ex-wife tattling on him to the boss. Way I understood it, they had been divorced 17 years, he was close to current on child support (owed $800), and she was trying to raise the support for their 18yo son. Hmmm, guess that makes sense if she wanted help paying the kid's college. Anyway, supposedly she went to the boss to find out on much he was getting paid, was upset with the what she learned, and ratted the guy out for stealing tools, equipment and clients. I suppose it really didn't matter to this case, but that sounded more interesting than the stop payment case. I wonder if maybe dude wasn't maybe under reporting his income to the Family Court, and that got her upset as she was scrimping to get by while preparing to send the 18yo off to school. Ok, rank speculation on my part, maybe she's just a world class sh#t stirrer upper who likes to cause trouble. Anyway, I figure the pool man employee/independent contractor is crooked, and probably lied about what he pays in taxes. Pool service owner is probably a little lax with his tax paperwork - not at all uncommon for a small business with 2 employees - who pays his 2 sub contractors under the table. Then, when boss lets slip what daddy actually earns... well, they end up on TV.

Second case just another almost-married couple fighting over assets after the break up. I think plaintiff thought she was being cute when she dropped defendant from the title when she refinanced, only to find more was owed on the car loan then she thought when the dust settled after the breakup and she went to sell the vehicle dude had been the sole driver of and had been making the payments all along. Oops, that backfired on her.

[SRTouch]

Quote

was boring but there was one thing that puzzled me:  as JJ was about to dismiss the case, the plaintiff mentions that she had signed some sort of promissory note stating she did owe it, and JJ replies (paraphrasing here) 'that's nice, but this is a court!'  errrr...okay, so why wouldn't you look at a promissory note before dismissing, since that would be pretty pertinent in court???  Did I mishear, or was JJ really hungry for lunch?

I get why judges don't concern themselves with a couple with co-mingled finances who are fighting after a break up. But seems to me it's a pretty clear indication that finances were NOT co-mingled if there is a promissary note. And, just because two people live and/or have sex together should not automatically negate all agreements made before they kanoodle and say goodnight. I'd go so far as saying a text where someone agrees to pay something should be checked out. Sure it could just be an offer to settle, and a text made to get someone off your back, but I think the judge should at least check the date and context before throwing it out.

Edited October 20, 2016 by SRTouch
Messed up quote

[AuntiePam]

I'm not liking JJ's "You get what you pay for" rulings.  Today it was a plaintiff who hired someone to reupholster the seats on his boat.  Plaintiff was quoted a really low price and defendant did a shitty job.  JJ was okay with that. 

She also didn't listen to plaintiff's claim that his boat was stored so that rain water couldn't drain out (which he had pointed out to the defendant) and the bottom of his boat was damaged.  I think the fact that in one of the texts, plaintiff had said he was waiting for a work comp check before he could make a payment to defendant.  JJ doesn't like anyone getting paid for anything except their job.

[Brattinella]

26 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I'm not liking JJ's "You get what you pay for" rulings.  Today it was a plaintiff who hired someone to reupholster the seats on his boat.  Plaintiff was quoted a really low price and defendant did a shitty job.  JJ was okay with that. 

She also didn't listen to plaintiff's claim that his boat was stored so that rain water couldn't drain out (which he had pointed out to the defendant) and the bottom of his boat was damaged.  I think the fact that in one of the texts, plaintiff had said he was waiting for a work comp check before he could make a payment to defendant.  JJ doesn't like anyone getting paid for anything except their job.

What a hateful bitch she is!  Plaintiff deserved his money back.  You get what you pay for *snicker*.  GAH.  She needs to retire, all she has is hate, except for a few 'choice' litigants. 

[SRTouch]

Ah, rerun of big bucks custom doll case. Looney tune ladies going bonkers fighting over a 2 thousand dollar doll which was bought and returned multiple times. I don't get it, but then I don't get how passionate people get over their collectibles, whether it's dolls, action figures or... remember the candy dispenser case - soon as I hit submit I'll remember the name. Anyway, these ladies are spitting mad about their dolls and the other sides badmouthing them in the "doll community". Two things of note in the case. Plaintiff gets all upset because JJ doesn't believe her and threatens to walk out, but stays after collecting her folders. Then we have Pinky sitting on the defendant's side (pink shoes, pink shirt, and pink hair) cradling a baby wrapped in a blanket - oh wait, it's another doll. 

 

Ah ha, plaintiff was suing over silver plated Pez dispensers

Edited October 20, 2016 by SRTouch
Now I remember

[Spunkygal]

And not only did defendant's witness bring her doll, defendant brought hers too! It wasn't even the doll in question! I don't get the whole baby doll collecting thing by adult women.

[augmentedfourth]

I just hope whoever is responsible for writing the episode titles is compensated appropriately. I wasn't able to watch live today, but as soon as I turned on the DVR and saw "The Picasso of Upholstery; Blue Book, Shmoo Book!", I knew I was in for a good 20 minutes. GOLD, I tell you!

 

I agree that Picasso/JFK's Upholsterer's Apprentice did a shitty job, but alas, he did *something*, and JJ's been pretty consistent that even shitty work, unless violating a written contract, has to be compensated (and then advises never to hire that person again). And while I get what the plaintiff was saying about the kinds of staples that should have been used, I'd bet money there was no written contract outlining that. (Because if everyone had a written contract, there would be no show.) As far as the rainwater damage...ehhhh. Yeah, it would have been nice to give him something. On the other hand, I can kinda see her reasoning that he knew right off the bat that the boat wasn't in a good position for storage, yet didn't do anything about it while he was standing there.

 

All parties in the second case just seemed odd, and I did get a whiff of HUSTLA from the defendant. I'm not sure about the law in JJ's TV courtroom vs. the real world - if you do have a signed contract for something rather egregious, like agreeing to pay $2000+ for a car that's only worth $800, can a judge just toss that out? The plaintiffs even acknowledged that they knew they were paying more than the car was worth due to their inability to get financing elsewhere, and while I'm not disappointed in the judgment because the defendant was obnoxious, I am left wondering if JJ did them a favor based on her dislike of him instead of the law.

[Mondrianyone]

32 minutes ago, Spunkygal said:

I don't get the whole baby doll collecting thing by adult women.

Me either.  It's beyond creepy on at least a dozen different levels.  And they're crazy expensive!  I can think of so many better ways to waste that kind of money.

The program descriptions on the Dish guide have not been matching the actual episodes or dates, so I never know if I'm watching something new or old unless they mention a year.  Today I saw the boat-reupholstery case.  Very weird coincidence.  I really did study upholstery (in adult ed) with a man who'd been taught by the upholsterer who worked on most of JFK's furniture. (Or maybe that's what they all say!)  The master upholsterer often subcontracted jobs out to my teacher.  We got to be pretty good friends, and one day he took me into his storage building, where he kept pieces waiting to be redone.)  He wanted to show me JFK's baby rocking chair, which later belonged to Caroline and JFK Jr.  And I burst into tears.  The only time I've ever cried about a chair.

Anyway, the defendant upholsterer really did do a crappy job, but he and the plaintiff seemed to deserve each other.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I just hope whoever is responsible for writing the episode titles is compensated appropriately. I wasn't able to watch live today, but as soon as I turned on the DVR and saw "The Picasso of Upholstery; Blue Book, Shmoo Book!", I knew I was in for a good 20 minutes. GOLD, I tell you!

I sat blinking, thinking, "We're getting a Shmoo today? Another shmoo?" Yes, the titles are often pure gold, but I also appreciate the camera operators who take pains to show us litigants' worst profiles, flip-flops or skirts that all but reveal huge butt cheeks. Today in the rerun of of the creepy 31-year old man who needs his desperate girlfriend and his daddy to buy him teeth: Camera panned out and nearly behind him to give us a full-length view of his wacky zoot-suit and sneakers.

Quote

if you do have a signed contract for something rather egregious, like agreeing to pay $2000+ for a car that's only worth $800, can a judge just toss that out?

No. Buyer beware. They could throw out an agreement to pay 50% interest if there are payments, but not cancel a deal an adult made on a purchase price.

Edited October 21, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, augmentedfourth said:

All parties in the second case just seemed odd, and I did get a whiff of HUSTLA from the defendant. I'm not sure about the law in JJ's TV courtroom vs. the real world - if you do have a signed contract for something rather egregious, like agreeing to pay $2000+ for a car that's only worth $800, can a judge just toss that out? The plaintiffs even acknowledged that they knew they were paying more than the car was worth due to their inability to get financing elsewhere, and while I'm not disappointed in the judgment because the defendant was obnoxious, I am left wondering if JJ did them a favor based on her dislike of him instead of the law.

I was thinking the same thing. Sure defendant was grossly overcharging, but, like you say, plaintiffs admitted they knew they were being overcharged but were willing to pay because of their terrible credit. Way I see it, the only time a judge should step in and undo a deal is if there was some deliberate fraud - and I didn't see any fraud at first, just a greedy SOB (who, unfortunately was wearing a 2nd Infantry Division ball cap).

Then I noticed that JJ said that his overcharging amounted to usury. Going with that hint, I went back and watched it again. He was selling the car for $1200 cash, but then when they didn't have the cash he graciously sold it to them for $2500. Looked at it that way, I can see why she said it was usurious. I'm guessing she would have told the plaintiff they were foolish had they paid $1200 cash for a car worth $875 and then let the deal stand. But defendant was charging $1300 interest on a $1200 loan... yeah a bit much. Plaintiffs have car 3-4 months and made 3 payments totally $1100. Then car was repossessed before next payment was due (according to plaintiff). After defendant took back the car, he sold it for parts for additional $300. So he ends up making $1400 on the $900 car.

Hmmm if this was TPC it we'd call this "rough justice".  JJ wants to undo the deal. She awards plaintiffs $800 of the $1100 they paid. They're out $300 for the time they had possession of the car. Defendant ends up with $600 - $300 from plaintiffs and $300 for selling the car a second time. Confused? I sure am. This was a convoluted case, but I think I understand the ruling, now.

Edited October 21, 2016 by SRTouch
Posted before it was finished

[Ilovecomputers]

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I sat blinking, thinking, "We're getting a Shmoo today? Another shmoo?" Yes, the titles are often pure gold, but I also appreciate the camera operators who take pains to show us litigants' worst profiles, flip-flops or skirts that all but reveal huge butt cheeks. Today in the rerun of of the creepy 31-year old man who needs his desperate girlfriend and his daddy to buy him teeth: Camera panned out and nearly behind him to give us a full-length view of his wacky zoot-suit and sneakers.

No. Buyer beware. They could throw out an agreement to pay 50% interest if there are payments, but not cancel a deal an adult made on a purchase price.

I missed this show but I hope to catch it on reruns.  Angela, you make me laugh.  Your name rings a bell.  Are you a former TwoP-er (as I am)?

Edited October 21, 2016 by Ilovecomputers
punctuation

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Your name rings a bell.  Are you a former TwoP-er (as I am)?

Yes, I am! Sorry, your handle isn't familiar to me, but I have no memory to speak of.

[Sarcastico]

Quote

Me either.  It's beyond creepy on at least a dozen different levels.  And they're crazy expensive!  I can think of so many better ways to waste that kind of money.

When this case first aired last season, someone here said that the women who collect them often take them out in public as if they were real infants, in strollers or whatnot.  It was more than I needed to know.  It's strange, but this case reminded me of the woman a few years back who took her dead dog to the taxidermist.  She was suing the taxidermist, because the stuffed dog's legs weren't pliable enough for the dog to sit on her motorcycle. She wanted to take the stuffed dog with her when she got onto her bike. 

Edited October 21, 2016 by Sarcastico

[Zahdii]

26 minutes ago, Sarcastico said:

It's strange, but this case reminded me of the woman a few years back who took her dead dog to the taxidermist.  She was suing the taxidermist, because the stuffed dog's legs weren't pliable enough for the dog to sit on her motorcycle. She wanted to take the stuffed dog with her when she got onto her bike. 

Just what I want to look over and see when I'm at a stoplight.  A woman with a dead dog in the bike lane.

[Jamoche]

2 hours ago, Sarcastico said:

When this case first aired last season, someone here said that the women who collect them often take them out in public as if they were real infants, in strollers or whatnot.

And leave them in carseats in their hot locked cars, prompting cops and other helpful people to break the windows to get the "baby" out, often enough that you get lots of hits for "baby in car turns out to be doll". With all the car death stories I would not want to be the person who thought they'd found a dying baby, and think the doll owner's having their car damaged is the least thing they deserve. You can't have it both ways - either put the doll away when it's in the car, or keep up the pretense and take it with you.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

this case reminded me of the woman a few years back who took her dead dog to the taxidermist.

I remember that. It still makes me shudder.

Quote

someone here said that the women who collect them often take them out in public as if they were real infants

It's a sad mental illness, but when I think of someone who has a hunk of silicone molded into the form of a woman and calls it his "wife", the dead-looking fake babies and stuffed dogs don't seem so bad. It's all relative, I guess.

Quote

get lots of hits for "baby in car turns out to be doll".

Not sure I want to read that. Oh, hell. Why not?

[patty1h]

The woman who rented her condo to the Section 8 tenant and wanted money for new carpet, etc. was scary.   She seemed aggravated as soon as the cases started, then she's telling the defendent's daughter to butt out, and then yelling "your honor, your honor!" after JJ decided the case - all the signs of a hot head.  

Then, she really went ballistic in the hallterview.   All kinds of venom was spewed - she's going to report the woman to Section 8, and other ill will, all for not getting a 15 year old carpet replaced.  Her promise that "it's on and popping" bodes ill for that poor ex-tenant.  I think a restraining order is in someones future.

[AuntiePam]

patt1h, scary woman!  I don't know what she expected.  JJ let her keep the $1800 security deposit and gave her an additional $500+.  That's enough to replace some carpet and cover the HOA fines. 

What did she think the deposit was for anyway? 

It was nice of defendant's daughter to stand up for her mom, but I couldn't help but think that this isn't the first time she's had to do that. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

The woman who rented her condo to the Section 8 tenant and wanted money for new carpet, etc. was scary.

Holy... she's not having no baby on no stained carpet! If you don't want your 15-year old carpet stained (and I'm sure Travion, or whatever, his baby mama and baby kept it in it's original pristine condition) don't rent your place to a woman who appears to be debilitated and who has pets. I certainly wouldn't.

No, owner didn't "only" get $525 (which def certainly owed for allowing her dogs to use other peoples' property as a bathroom) - she got $2300, counting the deposit she kept - more than enough to patch up her place. She's going to call Sec8? What a waste of time that will be. We've seen young, able-bodied people on it for years and years. What does she think they'll do to def. who seemed to be obviously in need of some sort of assistance?

In the (ugh!) dog case, I have no idea if the plaintiff's dog had the hernia before the attack or not, but def. didn't help herself by being mouthy, nasty and rude in her replies.

[AuntiePam]

48 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

In the (ugh!) dog case, I have no idea if the plaintiff's dog had the hernia before the attack or not, but def. didn't help herself by being mouthy, nasty and rude in her replies.

And that stupid statement that the injured dog had been sedated for nine days so plaintiff couldn't have walked to the mailbox with the dog.  What did that have to do with anything?

[DoctorK]

Quote

but I couldn't help but think that this isn't the first time she's had to do that. 

I agree, and if she wants to stand up for her mom, practice in the mirror to not smile and smirk. I also think if the defendant clearly let her damn dog shit all over the common areas, then she proably also let it shit and piss on the carpets. I think the defendant is an irresponsible person, and I didn't buy the daughter's teary defense. I also didn't like the plaintiff, but I understand her being pissed off.

Edited October 22, 2016 by DoctorK

[califred]

first I had the dueling witness kick out that was filled with vitriol and anger and then the evil landlord.  15 yr old carpet needs to be replaced anyway.  They should not be living next door to each other.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

• How did I miss the dead dog with the unbendable legs case?
• Section Eight Landlord went all Patricia Bean on the hallterview. She was so cray-cray. And I admit the defendant was a bit of a Shleprock standing there like somebody had beaten her. 
• BTW none of this is quotes but somehow this fakacta system won't let me post correctly. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Quote

• How did I miss the dead dog with the unbendable legs case?
• Section Eight Landlord went all Patricia Bean on the hallterview. She was so cray-cray. And I admit the defendant was a bit of a Shleprock standing there like somebody had beaten her. 
• BTW none of this is quotes but somehow this fakacta system won't let me post correctly. 

I hear you Itshellopattiagain. 

I crafted (what I thought was) a witty post about Stuffy the taxidermist dog and a riding helmet, hit the submit reply button and nothing.

It's probably floating around here somewhere - maybe on the Say Yes to the Dress or Poldark forum.  Who knows?

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I hear you Itshellopattiagain. 

I crafted (what I thought was) a witty post about Stuffy the taxidermist dog and a riding helmet, hit the submit reply button and nothing.

It's probably floating around here somewhere - maybe on the Say Yes to the Dress or Poldark forum.  Who knows?

The best way to find those posts that are in limbo is to repost them - it will post right away...3 or 4 times ?