All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AZChristian]

41 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

My cynical side says she found out the insurance policy was canceled from her lawyer when he dropped her case.

Because when one is seeking water, one usually goes back to the same well from whence water was drawn before.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Fishy all the way around. She did not prove the dog was out. You can't sue (and win) for walking past a barking dog.  In my world.

Ahh, the dueling Tasha/Tosha case.  Tasha appeared to have more anxiety about what COULD have happened (along with a case of the vapors) I imagine the plaintiff would have been freaked out by a barking dog but that doesn't constitute throwing oneself and one's child across the pavement to escape a non-existence threat. Perhaps if the plaintiff was so nervous/frightened she could have carried a big a$$ stick to whack any wayward dogs with. Years ago I was walking my dog and he was attacked by a neighbor's dog who had broken free of the 10 year old handler (DUH). After that I bought a plunger and unscrewed the rubber part and carried that stick for years when I was out walking around just in case of anything threatening. Call it "mitigation of possible future damages". 

[augmentedfourth]

Yeah, that was a tricky one. I'm not convinced the dog never got out, either by going over or through that fence. On the other hand, I'm also not convinced that things played out exactly like the plaintiff described. And even if they did, legally I'm not sure (and someone more knowledgeable can help me out here) that if the dog was just barking and snapping around her but never actually touched her if she would have a case. In the real world, not in JJ world, that is. After some other people mentioned it, I can totally see her going back to the same attorney who handled the daughter's dog bite case and for whatever reason, he/she said "Nope!" and refused to take it.

 

I actually haven't had a lot of dog bite cases at work, but with one I did, I clearly remember the defendants' attorneys saying that if a kid gets bitten (which was the situation in their case), settle, because regardless of the circumstances, you will not win in court. Apparently juries love the "cute innocent kid/mean vicious dog" narrative, even if the kid's a brat and the dog's never done anything to anyone in its entire life.

 

Not tricky to determine: how horrible the defendant's mustache is. Girl, you're going on TV. Do something about that. And lest anyone think I'm being unnecessarily cruel, I am saying this as someone who starts resembling Sam the Eagle if she doesn't get her eyebrows waxed and shaped once a month.

[Brattinella]

Sam the Eagle! :D

[AuntiePam]

Today's case with the plaintiff truck driver and defendant former girlfriend -- she had found a car to buy -- she need something that could be locked -- and he agreed to go pick it up for her.  So he goes to pick it up, it's been sold, he sees another car, he calls and asks her if she wants it, she says yes, he buys it, she has it put in her name.  Defendant girlfriend says no, she didn't have any money to buy a car.  JJ should have stopped it right there and asked "Did you or did you not say you needed a car that could be locked?"  Unless both of them were scamming, JJ needed to clear that up.  Why would he buy his ex-girlfriend a car?

I didn't like JJ's ruling in the debutante photography case.  Yeah, she got a big discount* but she got nothing of any value.  The video was terrible and the photos were ridiculous.  Defendant got $500 for a couple hours work.  He should at least offer to finish the photos with the background they had agreed on as a matter of professional pride.  Seems like there's not much of that these days.

*And the discount would have been covered when the debs bought the video and the photos -- so he's out nothing. 

[Quof]

Snicker *** Judy said "panties" *** Snicker.

[speac]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

I didn't like JJ's ruling in the debutante photography case.  Yeah, she got a big discount* but she got nothing of any value.  The video was terrible and the photos were ridiculous.  Defendant got $500 for a couple hours work.  He should at least offer to finish the photos with the background they had agreed on as a matter of professional pride.  Seems like there's not much of that these days.

*And the discount would have been covered when the debs bought the video and the photos -- so he's out nothing. 

The contract they showed said the pictures and video would be raw so the plantiff can just take them somewhere and have the footage edited.  The same for the photos, the green screen will allow them to put any background behind the girls, just like they do in movies.  Again the contract said raw so I am sure there were numerous pictures taken, the plantiff just selected ones that weren't as good.  That $400 'class for debutantes' cost those parents megabucks, the plantiff shouldn't have cheaped out on her selection of photographer.

[Mondrianyone]

And why does a business that trains girls to be debutantes, a pretty pointless social construct, qualify for nonprofit status?  I thought you had to be useful to the community in some way to qualify.

Okay, I just Googled it.  Per Wikipedia, a group falls under "category 501(c)(3), whereby a nonprofit organization is exempt from federal income tax if its activities have the following purposes: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals."  I don't see how teaching girls etiquette and how to bow in white gowns does any of those things.

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

I don't see how teaching girls etiquette and how to bow in white gowns does any of those things.

Teaching four girls etiquette and how to bow qualifies for a tax exemption? I'm always amazed at how free and easy governments are with our money. You want to teach a few girls which fork to use? Tax exempt!

[iwasish]

5 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Yeah, that was a tricky one. I'm not convinced the dog never got out, either by going over or through that fence. On the other hand, I'm also not convinced that things played out exactly like the plaintiff described. And even if they did, legally I'm not sure (and someone more knowledgeable can help me out here) that if the dog was just barking and snapping around her but never actually touched her if she would have a case. In the real world, not in JJ world, that is. After some other people mentioned it, I can totally see her going back to the same attorney who handled the daughter's dog bite case and for whatever reason, he/she said "Nope!" and refused to take it.

 

I actually haven't had a lot of dog bite cases at work, but with one I did, I clearly remember the defendants' attorneys saying that if a kid gets bitten (which was the situation in their case), settle, because regardless of the circumstances, you will not win in court. Apparently juries love the "cute innocent kid/mean vicious dog" narrative, even if the kid's a brat and the dog's never done anything to anyone in its entire life.

 

Not tricky to determine: how horrible the defendant's mustache is. Girl, you're going on TV. Do something about that. And lest anyone think I'm being unnecessarily cruel, I am saying this as someone who starts resembling Sam the Eagle if she doesn't get her eyebrows waxed and shaped once a month.

I think what saved the defendant was that she had the fence put up in accordance with what animal control directed. The first dog bite happened in 2015 so it was a newer fence. The girl who was actually bitten didn't seem even interested in being there in court, she certainly didn't appear to have any residual fear of the dog, unlike her mother. The tire under the gate is a common thing I've seen. I think it's used to keep the gates that close on the driveway or front walk from sagging or prop them up if they have sagged. 

Neither side was telling 100 % truth, but I gave the defendant the edge for staying calm where the plaintiff seemed a bit too dramatic for what amounted to  not much more than a good scare.  I don't think the dog got. I think she panicked when she realized her daughter was hurt, she then exaggerated the story to justify her tossing the kid into a brick wall. 

[Toaster Strudel]

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Yeah, she got a big discount* but she got nothing of any value.  The video was terrible and the photos were ridiculous.  Defendant got $500 for a couple hours work.

I know!  Those pictures and videos were shit!  That green screen looked filthy and the lighting looked like it was from a couple of bare bulbs in a basement. She'd have done way better handing a camera and a $20 to one of the debutantes' boyfriends!

[SRTouch]

14 minutes ago, iwasish said:

I think what saved the defendant was that she had the fence put up in accordance with what animal control directed. The first dog bite happened in 2015 so it was a newer fence. The girl who was actually bitten didn't seem even interested in being there in court, she certainly didn't appear to have any residual fear of the dog, unlike her mother. The tire under the gate is a common thing I've seen. I think it's used to keep the gates that close on the driveway or front walk from sagging or prop them up if they have sagged. 

What figured was, like a lot of double gate driveway chain link fences, one of the gates is supposed to have a pole that is lowered into a hole drilled into the driveway. This keeps that gate closed, then the other gate latches to it to keep both shut. When there is no pole, or the hole doesn't hold the pole,  both gates will swing open unless something else holds them shut... like a tire in front of the gate.

14 minutes ago, iwasish said:

Neither side was telling 100 % truth, but I gave the defendant the edge for staying calm where the plaintiff seemed a bit too dramatic for what amounted to  not much more than a good scare.  I don't think the dog got. I think she panicked when she realized her daughter was hurt, she then exaggerated the story to justify her tossing the kid into a brick wall. 

ITA. For plaintiff to prevail she would have to prove something, and all she proved was that she went to the doctor.

[SRTouch]

36 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Teaching four girls etiquette and how to bow qualifies for a tax exemption? I'm always amazed at how free and easy governments are with our money. You want to teach a few girls which fork to use? Tax exempt!

Well, I agree there are probably better ways to spend tax dollars, but if she gets even 4 girls a year to speak proper English and use good manners even some of the time I don't mind too much.

[Ouisch]

25 minutes ago, iwasish said:

Neither side was telling 100 % truth, but I gave the defendant the edge for staying calm where the plaintiff seemed a bit too dramatic for what amounted to  not much more than a good scare.  I don't think the dog got. I think she panicked when she realized her daughter was hurt, she then exaggerated the story to justify her tossing the kid into a brick wall. 

Sad thing is, Ms. Throw-Her-Baby-Into-a-Brick-Wall was pregnant again. Dunno how many other children she has, but the previous dog bite victim looked to be around 15 or so, and she currently has a one-year-old and now one on the way.  Hopefully she has some other means of support other than lawsuits.

 

(I'm on the fence - no pun intended - about whether or not the defendant's dog actually hopped or scaled the fence. I recall some 20 years ago I was walking my dog....a retired racing greyhound...in our Detroit neighborhood and I heard barking and scratching noises from the other side of a very tall privacy fence. Next thing I knew this Chow Chow [those furry dogs with the purple tongues] jumped over that tall fence and barked and growled at me. I let my dog's leash go and told him to "Run!" [not that he understood me]. I yelled at the Chow and picked a rock up off the ground and threw it at him. He scrambled back over the fence into his yard.)

[Spunkygal]

OMG! That debutante case reminded me of the Wendy Ward Charm School that the Montgomery Ward department store had in the '60s!!! My mom made my sister go. I fought it tooth and nail, pouted, argued and was a general bitch, and mom finally gave in and I stayed home. Anyway, for you young whipper snappers who want to learn how to conduct yourself properly and attract a boy, here you go:

http://www.businessinsider.com/wendy-ward-charm-school-handbook-2014-4

Back to JJ, giving this a 501 c 3 is a slap in the face of the charities who truly deserve that classification. Wish I knew the name of it so I could look it up on Charity Navigator.

[AuntiePam]

23 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Well, I agree there are probably better ways to spend tax dollars, but if she gets even 4 girls a year to speak proper English and use good manners even some of the time I don't mind too much.

Me neither.  At $400 per student, she's not raking it in.   I doubt she's paying herself a big salary.  She'll have to file some kind of report to the Fed showing what she takes in and how she spends the money. 

I remember that episode of The Wire when Dee took his girlfriend to a fancy restaurant.  He didn't want to take off his jacket, and then when the dessert tray came around, he didn't know he was looking at samples.  He was embarrassed. 

Hell, the first time I was invited to a housewarming, I didn't know I was supposed to bring some kind of gift. 

[AngelaHunter]

41 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

Well, I agree there are probably better ways to spend tax dollars, but if she gets even 4 girls a year to speak proper English and use good manners even some of the time I don't mind too much.

Oh, I'm for anything that teaches anyone (including all the adults we see here) proper English and some basic manners, since most people these days seem to conduct themselves will less decorum than wild animals. It's great. I just think it shouldn't qualify as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization. She's hardly saving lives.

[momtoall]

2 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Well, I agree there are probably better ways to spend tax dollars

I'm confused.  Exactly what tax dollars are being spent on this program.  The parents pay for the girls to participate and they were going to pay for their pictures.  Did I miss something about a government grant?

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, momtoall said:

Exactly what tax dollars are being spent on this program. 

Well, I mean indirectly but if they made only 1600$ in a whole year it doesn't matter anyway!

[EtheltoTillie]

7 hours ago, momtoall said:

I'm confused.  Exactly what tax dollars are being spent on this program.  The parents pay for the girls to participate and they were going to pay for their pictures.  Did I miss something about a government grant?

If it's a nonprofit, the organization does not pay taxes on the money it takes in (either from fees or charitable contributions). So the government collects less tax rather than spending tax dollars. However, the administrator is supposed to spend it all on the expenses of running the organization. They're supposed to zero out, essentially, hence the meaning of nonprofit. Also she can't pay herself a fee or salary out of the proceeds without having to pay personal income tax on that money. People who donate to a nonprofit can deduct the contribution on their taxes. The people who pay fees for classes get something in return and cannot deduct for a charitable contribution. And for the final part of the rant, yes, as someone suggested, it is questionable whether the IRS should grant tax-exempt status to a silly organization like this (there is a process where you have to submit info about your organization and its goals), but they're not too strict, I suppose, if it has some sort of educational purpose. And the group is so small the total amount is small potatoes to the IRS. 

[Guest]

Finally saw the dog non-attack case  and am firmly in the camp that neighbor lady with the worst case of the vapors I've ever seen was making shit up and hoping for another payday. The Defendant seemed like a nice lady and did all the right things to remedy the wrong of the first (legit) dog attack - rehomed the dog, put up the fence -- and seemed truthful in her testimony. I didn't understand why the Plaintiff would throw a one-year old aside --  throw the water container (is that what she had - I couldn't figure out what she was saying about going to the truck/car and getting water) at the dog to distract him and pick up the small child! 

(Wasn't there a more recent case of someone else trying to fake double dip on a legit dog bite claim? That drunk lady who came over to the plaintiff's house at like 1 in the morning and the dog was in the garage or something?)

As for the Plaintiff's upper lip grooming habits, I couldn't get Eddie Murphy's Aunt Bunny out of my mind. To this day, one of my all-time favorite comedy bits (NSFW):

[SRTouch]

14 hours ago, speac said:

The contract they showed said the pictures and video would be raw so the plantiff can just take them somewhere and have the footage edited.  The same for the photos, the green screen will allow them to put any background behind the girls, just like they do in movies.  Again the contract said raw so I am sure there were numerous pictures taken, the plantiff just selected ones that weren't as good.  That $400 'class for debutantes' cost those parents megabucks, the plantiff shouldn't have cheaped out on her selection of photographer.

Yeah, I think you nailed the problem. Once upon a time I was into photography, this was back when I was stationed in Germany. I hauled around a suitcase full of different lenses and 3 camera bodies... and FILM. Remember when you had different speed film for different lighting conditions? Anyway, I might go through a roll of film and only get one or two good shots - and that was mainly shooting static shots. Throw in people walking around, blinking, etc, yeah, you can't judge the final product looking at the raw shots. I do think the photographer should have completed the portrait shots and replaced the green with the backdrop plaintiff picked out, because if I heard right she paid for that.

[khyber]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Teaching four girls etiquette and how to bow qualifies for a tax exemption? I'm always amazed at how free and easy governments are with our money. You want to teach a few girls which fork to use? Tax exempt!

Yeh its a load of crap. I actually volunteer with 2 legit 501(c)(3) orgs and I hate to see scams like this.

 

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by khyber

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

do think the photographer should have completed the portrait shots and replaced the green with the backdrop plaintiff picked out, because if I heard right she paid for that.

I would agree with that, if the plaintiff had not forbidden the photographer to put the pictures online (which he had to do to complete this task).

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Okay, I just Googled it.  Per Wikipedia, a group falls under "category 501(c)(3), whereby a nonprofit organization is exempt from federal income tax if its activities have the following purposes: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals."  I don't see how teaching girls etiquette and how to bow in white gowns does any of those things.

You should start watching Toddlers and Tiaras with me. Those nutjobs consider pageants a "sport" (and they say it out loud). 

[califred]

Our robotics team is non profit but it is also without a doubt educational.

[EtheltoTillie]

5 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I would agree with that, if the plaintiff had not forbidden the photographer to put the pictures online (which he had to do to complete this task).

The plaintiff really obstructed his ability to do the job.  Moreover, JJ did not do a good job of explaining that to her.  She just said, "Don't hire him again." 

[Ilovecomputers]

I am very close to not being able to watch JJ anymore because of her behavior. She knows everything, and I mean everything!  She knows the cost to repair automobiles, she is an expert on animal behavior, and because her own small dogs don't hop fences, no dog ever hopped a fence. (I have seen dogs climbing chain link fences.). She talks over people, and she seems to have already decided the cases based on the summaries she reads before hearing any testimony.  I dread cases involving written contracts because I know she'll draw a contract in the air and say everything in the contract is contained within that paper--she does that ad nauseum.

Saw Willie Nelson suing for a loan made to his wife. Because she is opposed to annulments, she acted like it was beneath her to hear it. 

That is the bottom line really:  She gets paid big bucks, so, Judy, show some respect for people or get your producers to find cases that are more compelling to you. Respect is a two-way street. 

[Mondrianyone]

5 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I would agree with that, if the plaintiff had not forbidden the photographer to put the pictures online (which he had to do to complete this task).

I was wondering about this.  Does anyone know why he would have to post the photos online in order to edit in the fake background?  I don't remember the programs he mentioned, but I'm assuming one or more of them works by delivering the product to a website--unlike, say, Photoshop, where you buy the software and do the editing on your own computer (or at least that's how it worked last version of Photoshop I used, the Jurassic version).  And if he did have to post them online, couldn't he post them on a private site, so no one could see them until they'd been edited?  A lot of the photo stuff seemed confusing to me.

[Brattinella]

17 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

I was wondering about this.  Does anyone know why he would have to post the photos online in order to edit in the fake background?  I don't remember the programs he mentioned, but I'm assuming one or more of them works by delivering the product to a website--unlike, say, Photoshop, where you buy the software and do the editing on your own computer (or at least that's how it worked last version of Photoshop I used, the Jurassic version).  And if he did have to post them online, couldn't he post them on a private site, so no one could see them until they'd been edited?  A lot of the photo stuff seemed confusing to me.

I would guess that he can't afford to buy the software, so he uses an online tool to edit his photos.

[Mondrianyone]

That makes sense.  I still don't understand, though, why they'd have to be posted publicly before they could be edited.  That seems completely illogical to me.  But so do lots of things.  ;o)

[Cynna]

On 2016-11-28 at 2:06 PM, AuntiePam said:

It does look awful, but what can she do about it?  She can't bleach it, can she?  If she shaves, it'll come back like copper wire. 

 

On 2016-11-28 at 7:32 PM, Giant Misfit said:

Dermaplaning (aka face shaving)! You can do it yourself with a Tinkle razor (a pack of three costs about $5 on Amazon.)

I have white-blonde hair and have always had 'peach fuzz' on my face. Never really a problem, but I've seen it in certain lights, and some of my highlighting makeup looks awful with it. So I used a 'Tinkle' type razor a few times, and finally just grabbed my husband's Mach thang; once a month I run it over my face (dry) and that keeps the fuzz at bay. Nothing grows in thicker at all, that's an old wives' tale. Very pro-shave here. ;)

[Jamoche]

7 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

That makes sense.  I still don't understand, though, why they'd have to be posted publicly before they could be edited.  That seems completely illogical to me.  But so do lots of things.  ;o)

Seems weird to me - I've used the really cheap online editing sites a couple of times and they always have preview modes.

[Silver Raven]

16 minutes ago, Cynna said:

grabbed my husband's Mach thang

Is that what the kids are calling it now?

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, Ilovecomputers said:

I am very close to not being able to watch JJ anymore because of her behavior. She knows everything, and I mean everything!  She knows the cost to repair automobiles, she is an expert on animal behavior, and because her own small dogs don't hop fences, no dog ever hopped a fence. (I have seen dogs climbing chain link fences.). She talks over people, and she seems to have already decided the cases based on the summaries she reads before hearing any testimony.  I dread cases involving written contracts because I know she'll draw a contract in the air and say everything in the contract is contained within that paper--she does that ad nauseum.

Saw Willie Nelson suing for a loan made to his wife. Because she is opposed to annulments, she acted like it was beneath her to hear it. 

That is the bottom line really:  She gets paid big bucks, so, Judy, show some respect for people or get your producers to find cases that are more compelling to you. Respect is a two-way street. 

This.  100 per cent.  She is becoming intolerable.  She makes up her mind ahead of time, checks the documents in her office first, and then brings up the ONE document they didn't bring.   She isn't cute anymore, just annoying and obnoxious.

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, califred said:

Our robotics team is non profit but it is also without a doubt educational.

Remember computer users groups? Way way back, computer enthusiasts used to get together and talk about how to do neat stuff with their Commodore, Atari, Apple, Vic  20 etc system. Big thing was how to put a line in your autoexec.bat and config.sys file on your 8088 ibm compatible computer so you could change the font and color on your monitor screen. Ah, the days when we thought 640k RAM and 3 1/2" floppy was big time. Anyway, I belonged to a commodore users group that was organized as a nonprofit. A big thing in our group was someone typing in a program from the Compute Gazzette. Spend hours typing in code, saving it to your cassette tape drive, then praying it would compile and actually run. Then, if you had a copy of the magazine, you could legally copy the program from someone who successfully typed it in. I remember early on you typed in the whole program without knowing if it would work, then later some bright soul added checksums, which helped you find that colon that was supposed to be a semi colon, or whatever. Finally, before all the little computer companies disappeared, you could buy the magazine with a floppy which had a working copy of that month's programs

Edited December 1, 2016 by SRTouch
Autocorrect

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

I was wondering about this.  Does anyone know why he would have to post the photos online in order to edit in the fake background?  I don't remember the programs he mentioned, but I'm assuming one or more of them works by delivering the product to a website--unlike, say, Photoshop, where you buy the software and do the editing on your own computer (or at least that's how it worked last version of Photoshop I used, the Jurassic version).  And if he did have to post them online, couldn't he post them on a private site, so no one could see them until they'd been edited?  A lot of the photo stuff seemed confusing to me.

Don't know, but a photographer friend came up with a theory. He wondered if perhaps the plaintiff overheard the photographer telling parents where he would be post the edited photos online so that they could look them over and possibly buy prints from him. He wondered if maybe plaintiff pitched a fit, saying she had paid for the raw photos, so she deserved a cut of whatever was made after editing. My friend's theory... when plaintiff demanded a cut photographer just gave her everything and walked away. Like I said, I don't know, but that makes as much sense as anything else.

[WaitForMe]

3 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

I am very close to not being able to watch JJ anymore because of her behavior. She knows everything, and I mean everything!  She knows the cost to repair automobiles, she is an expert on animal behavior, and because her own small dogs don't hop fences, no dog ever hopped a fence. (I have seen dogs climbing chain link fences.). She talks over people, and she seems to have already decided the cases based on the summaries she reads before hearing any testimony.  I dread cases involving written contracts because I know she'll draw a contract in the air and say everything in the contract is contained within that paper--she does that ad nauseum.

Saw Willie Nelson suing for a loan made to his wife. Because she is opposed to annulments, she acted like it was beneath her to hear it. 

That is the bottom line really:  She gets paid big bucks, so, Judy, show some respect for people or get your producers to find cases that are more compelling to you. Respect is a two-way street. 

Wow!  I totally agree! She's gotten worse; treating people like shit. Some probably deserve it though. Her judgments have been questionable as far as I'm concerned. . JMHO.  

[EtheltoTillie]

On October 25, 2016 at 7:16 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I loved this case, so much I had to pause it and go get a snack. So nice it wasn't about idiots playing house, cell phones, drunken fistfights or dogs.

Rocky's wig was delightfully bad. I enjoyed him saying his wife isn't going to work, but even more liked the fact he has proof he needs,  but not with him. Yeah, that always flies.

Umm, when she started on the hair, makeup and weird facials for little girls, it kind of lost me. Her fiance, however, who has a big mouth in spite of the fact he didn't put a penny into this thriving business (that no one wants) brought me right back. This isn't the first case we've seen of someone buying a business and apparently thinking all you do is sit back and watch the money roll in. Surprise - you actually have to get off your ass and work hard.

I was a month late in watching this case but it was a real howl, so I had to look at what the posters have said. That wig was atrocious. The counterclaim seemed to be about how the former owner was conducting parties and not turning over the proceeds. Maybe hustlahs on both sides.

[AuntiePam]

JJ was right in today's sick puppy case, but I wanted to hear more about how the defendant faked her death so she could avoid the plaintiff.

JJ could have done a better job explaining things to the plaintiff:  "Even if defendant knew the puppy was sick when she sold it to you, there was no written guarantee, so you have no case."  She just kept repeating that plaintiff had had the puppy for one, two, three days before taking it to a vet, and she seemed to think there was something shady about a transaction that took place on a Saturday night.  Saturday night!  The horror!  I wonder if she'd be more sympathetic if he'd said he picked up the puppy after church on Sunday.

I don't think plaintiff in the other case understood "jurisdiction".  You can't get support and visitation orders in small claims court.

[SandyToes]

Missed the new shows today, but did see another "not married, therefore can't help you" case earlier.  Woman just would not give it up! Credit cards in her name, baby daddy ran up expenses and skipped out.  Gee. Guess who's on the hook. The only thing missing was, "You picked him!"  The other case was a friend helping out another friend by cashing bogus checks.  Def. had no ID. No visible means of support (in both senses of the word), and fiancée lived 10 states away.  Cozy!   Plaintiff in that case did get to work in the phrase "flim-flam" so that was fun.

 

I think several of us would agree about her being harsh and judgmental and just plain wrong lately. I got all fired up again yesterday about the right turn on red case from last week. I was turning left (from my green-lighted left turn lane) and thought what if I had wanted to get into the gas station (burger joint/bar/grocery) located on the opposite corner? Since, according to JJ and "the rules" I'm not allowed to turn into the outside lane, and then into the parking lot. I must stay in the inside lane, and then make a series of U-turns?  Or go down a block or two to switch lanes and then cut back through the neighborhood and/other parking lots?  Yes, normally, one should turn into the inside lane. But she had a GREEN light and the defendant had a RED light.  Argh.

I do think sometimes she knows far more about the cases/litigants than we do. I'm guessing production staff often scopes out facebook pages, arrest records, etc.

Edited December 1, 2016 by SandyToes

[Mondrianyone]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Don't know, but a photographer friend came up with a theory. He wondered if perhaps the plaintiff overheard the photographer telling parents where he would be post the edited photos online so that they could look them over and possibly buy prints from him. He wondered if maybe plaintiff pitched a fit, saying she had paid for the raw photos, so she deserved a cut of whatever was made after editing. My friend's theory... when plaintiff demanded a cut photographer just gave her everything and walked away. Like I said, I don't know, but that makes as much sense as anything else.

Your friend's theory is for sure better than anything I can come up with!  That's probably very close to the truth of what otherwise seems like a head-scratcher.  (I've been to debutante school, so of course I personally don't scratch my own head.  I have people for that.  But you know what I mean.)

21 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

JJ was right in today's sick puppy case, but I wanted to hear more about how the defendant faked her death so she could avoid the plaintiff.

I couldn't believe that one was allowed to just slide by!  And not only her own death but, according to plaintiff, her kids' deaths as well!  I once quit a job and answered my phone in Spanish whenever they called to find out where I was, but that's the closest I ever came to pretending I didn't exist.  And I was a lot younger then.  And had no kids.  And harmed no puppies.  But seriously, she faked her whole family's death to avoid responsibility for a sick dog?  Come on, Judy, think of your audience!

[califred]

Was the last name of the defendant in dog case Pawnshop?

[AngelaHunter]

40 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

The other case was a friend helping out another friend by cashing bogus checks.  Def. had no ID. No visible means of support (in both senses of the word), and fiancée lived 10 states away.  Cozy!  

Plaintiff had only seen the def. as she (P) ran in and out of her house between her two 7day/week jobs, but expected to get paid back from someone who doesn't work and has FOUR kids? No ID - it takes 6 - 8 weeks to get it. How long has she lived there? Thirty years, but someone stole her wallet or she fell in a hole or whatever. Being poor doesn't automatically mean that a person is deserving of handouts and charity. "I couldn't give her what I don't have," she said, as though that was an excuse to not pay back someone who was way too kind to her and she didn't even give a shit. Glad to hear in the hall that the plaintiff learned her lesson about helping out societies' parasites.

For the other "no visible means of support," at least pull that elastic top up a little higher, FFS. I can pretty much guarantee that no one wanted to see her cleavage.

[ElleMo]

4 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

That makes sense.  I still don't understand, though, why they'd have to be posted publicly before they could be edited.  That seems completely illogical to me.  But so do lots of things.  ;o)

 

It makes no sense.  He could download freeware like Gimp to do the background.  It's actually a pretty easy edit to make if you have a green screen.

And yes, any online photo software should have a privacy option.  It could be that the person doesn't want anything uploaded at all.  A woman I knew in GIrl Scouts did not want me to upload photos to Shutterfly even though it was only to my account so I could print photos. 

[NYCFree]

19 minutes ago, califred said:

Was the last name of the defendant in dog case Pawnshop?

After the announcer said it, I paid closer attention when Officer Byrd said the name.  I think it was something like Ponsop.  This immediately became my second favorite Byrd name announcement.  My all time favorite was when he was reading the case and said something like "your honor, this is case number 507, Smith versus.......................Honkey". There was such a long pause between the party names, and his voiced raised at the end, like it was a question.  I really wish I had saved the case, just for those few seconds.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, SandyToes said:

I got all fired up again yesterday about the right turn on red case from last week. I was turning left (from my green-lighted left turn lane) and thought what if I had wanted to get into the gas station (burger joint/bar/grocery) located on the opposite corner? Since, according to JJ and "the rules" I'm not allowed to turn into the outside lane, and then into the parking lot. I must stay in the inside lane, and then make a series of U-turns?  Or go down a block or two to switch lanes and then cut back through the neighborhood and/other parking lots?

Nah, pull over, park the car, jay walk, and go to the convenience store or whatever... note: will not work for gas stations

Edited December 1, 2016 by SRTouch
Spelling

[Mondrianyone]

33 minutes ago, califred said:

Was the last name of the defendant in dog case Pawnshop?

I heard it as "Pawnshop," too, so I made it a point to read her ID next time it came up.  It's Ponchot.  Which if it were up to me I'd pronounce "PonSHOW," since it looks French.  But they were saying "Pahnchaht"--to rhyme with john-shot.  I can't remember her first name, though.

[Guest]

Her name was Brandi Ponchot. (Not like I remember, I'm watching it now!) 

2 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

JJ was right in today's sick puppy case, but I wanted to hear more about how the defendant faked her death so she could avoid the plaintiff.

I couldn't believe that one was allowed to just slide by!  And not only her own death but, according to plaintiff, her kids' deaths as well!

I can't believe this either! I mean, I know JJ doesn't want to hear all the extraneous nonsense, but how often is an accusation like that thrown out on this show? That demands to be explored! I guess JJ isn't particularly interested in entertaining us -- just berating more people with her closed mind. 

As far as I'm concerned, if you're buying a puppy from fucking Craigslist, you get what you deserve. There are zero reputable breeders using Craigslist to sell their dogs. I actually didn't care about either of their stories -- I think they're both goons. The only creature I felt sorry for in the entire matter was the puppy. 

[EtheltoTillie]

3 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

As far as I'm concerned, if you're buying a puppy from fucking Craigslist, you get what you deserve. There are zero reputable breeders using Craigslist to sell their dogs. I actually didn't care about either of their stories -- I think they're both goons. The only creature I felt sorry for in the entire matter was the puppy. 

And don't forget, he picked the puppy up at a Walgreen's!  A fact he repeated more than once.  Sure, I'd do all my puppy meet and greets in the middle of a busy drugstore, between the cold remedies and the adult diapers   And there was a fire sale on the puppy.  $100 off if you buy in the next 10 minutes.  What the heck?  The closest I came to this was I bought a used barbecue grill on Craigslist and met the seller in the Ikea parking lot off I91 in New Haven, Connecticut.  But the barbecue grill could not get parvo.