All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Watermelon]

I don't think I've ever been to a salon where the chair were bolted down.

 

when I was a shampoo girl the salon chairs certainly moved. It wasn't the easiest thing to do, but it was possible. 

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I had a hard time listening to her talking out and with her "attitude." I've never sat down in a salon chair, but if she was ever my barber I think I'd get up and leave with half a hair cut rather than listen to her.

I had a hard time believing she runs a salon with that super-cheap, sparkly, dynel (?) wig she was wearing.

 

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I don't remember what he wanted, but the number that comes to mind is $750 per chair.

Yes, that was amount he thought he was owed - and I assume his wife agreed -  for something he got for free. It's like these people who sue for the retail value of a brand-new item that they bought for a sharply discounted price. Why shouldn't they all get something for nothing.  

[Brattinella]

I think every salon and barber shop I've been to had the stylist's chairs bolted down.  They have to be steady and able to spin.  Shampoo chairs are moveable, though.

[Watermelon]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

I think every salon and barber shop I've been to had the stylist's chairs bolted down.  They have to be steady and able to spin.  Shampoo chairs are moveable, though.

I'm talking about the stylists chairs. They were rounded on the bottom, I guess to keep them stable. They turned. 

[Ilovecomputers]

On 1/6/2017 at 4:13 PM, AuntiePam said:

Judy Judy Judy!  In the salon rental case, she gave plaintiff the rent he was owed, but gave him nothing for the salon chairs that the defendant absconded with.   JJ says the chairs were old and because plaintiff hadn't purchased them in the first place -- they came with the building, which was an inheritance from plaintiff's mother-in-law.  Judy!  The chairs still had to be replaced, and they weren't defendant's chairs!  So now it's okay to steal something because it's old, or because it was inherited? 

Right!  JJ's position seemed to be that because they had inherited the chairs, rather than purchased them, they had no value. Huh?  If I inherit a diamond ring, by her logic, it has no value. 

Her decisions just seem to be more bizarre and embarrassing. 

[AuntiePam]

The plaintiff in today's $500 gift/loan case -- is that what they mean by "resting bitch face"?  I hope she watches the show.  Maybe if she sees what she looks like with her mouth turned down, she'll use some new muscles.  Because gah.

The defendant in the lease takeover case was sure pretty.  Gorgeous skin.  If it's makeup, good job! 

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 11:13 AM, Ilovecomputers said:

JJ's position seemed to be that because they had inherited the chairs, rather than purchased them, they had no value. Huh?  If I inherit a diamond ring, by her logic, it has no value. 

Okay, this may sound wrong and I admit I'm far from being an authority on the law but we've heard often enough that court is about making people "whole" by putting them in the position they were in before being ripped off/scammed/damaged. Since plaintiff paid nothing for the chairs, wouldn't he be enriched by being paid cash for them now? If some bequest in the will was violated, shouldn't he have gone back to probate court or whatever? I could be dead wrong, but that's just how I see it.

[arejay]

On 12/16/2016 at 9:03 PM, WaitForMe said:

 

Is one's brother's cousin not one's own cousin?

[AZChristian]

11 minutes ago, arejay said:

Is one's brother's cousin not one's own cousin?

Best I could figure, they only shared one parent, and the cousin was on the side of the non-related parent.  At least they didn't identify as "god-cousins."

[SRTouch]

23 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, this may sound wrong and I admit I'm far from being an authority on the law but we've heard often enough that court is about making people "whole" by putting them in the position they were in before being ripped off/scammed/damaged. Since plaintiff paid nothing for the chairs, wouldn't he be enriched by being paid cash for them now? If some bequest in the will was violated, shouldn't he have gone back to probate court or whatever? I could be dead wrong, but that's just how I see it.

I keep coming back to the plaintiff wanted $750 per chair for 15 year old chairs for which he provided absolutely no proof of value. Hey, they were probably great chairs to have still been in use all these years later, but how was a court supposed to value them. Thinking on it a couple days, maybe the thing to have done was a little "rough justice" like MM, and given a couple hundred bucks just to show that defendant should NOT have taken them. Of course, I think the main objection we all have is it was a typical ruling where JJ did her thing and left us wondering.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, arejay said:

Is one's brother's cousin not one's own cousin?

On this show, you can never assume that. Street cousins, god cousins, cousins by marriage or divine right - who knows?

I haven't watched today's eps yet, but I accidentally recorded "Hot Bench" so watched it. The case was way more interesting that what the TPTB on JJ pick out for us. No cell phone/boyfriend/girlfriend/pregnant/utilities/rent/incarcerated BS. I liked it. Or, I "like-ded" it.

Edited because I lose the ability to spell after my 2nd glass of wine.

Edited January 10, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

Today's cases were super boring. Oh, look! Another dog park attack case! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As for the "It Was a Gift, Part 59843495287495287," I really wish JJ would lecture people on what constitutes "harassment." Because someone trying to collect a debt you owe them is not harassment. That's like me suing American Express for "harassing" me every month by sending me a bill. 

[AngelaHunter]

22 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

Because someone trying to collect a debt you owe them is not harassment. That's like me suing American Express for "harassing" me every month by sending me a bill. 

But they are harassing you, and you should follow the JJ-Theory that when anyone harasses you to pay money you owe them, you may then feel you don't owe the money anymore!

[AuntiePam]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I keep coming back to the plaintiff wanted $750 per chair for 15 year old chairs for which he provided absolutely no proof of value. Hey, they were probably great chairs to have still been in use all these years later, but how was a court supposed to value them. Thinking on it a couple days, maybe the thing to have done was a little "rough justice" like MM, and given a couple hundred bucks just to show that defendant should NOT have taken them. Of course, I think the main objection we all have is it was a typical ruling where JJ did her thing and left us wondering.

I keep coming back to the chairs too.  Maybe JJ would have listened if plaintiff had priced secondhand chairs instead of new ones.  ?? 

[AZChristian]

Is there a Blue Book for 25+ year-old salon chairs?  I'm pretty sure those people were given what the chairs were worth . . . Ah-Zero.

[Trini]

Skipped the dog case. Gift vs. Loan: been there, done that. Using Craigslist to find some to take over your car payments? Seems the perfect way to end up on Judge Judy!

[SRTouch]

3 minutes ago, Trini said:

Skipped the dog case. Gift vs. Loan: been there, done that. Using Craigslist to find some to take over your car payments? Seems the perfect way to end up on Judge Judy!

Oh yeah, she found a winner, didn't she? Hey, can't afford your car lease, so just run anot ad on craigslist. Then she finds a homeless woman who lives in the car with her kids, makes the payments late and runs up the miles. That's a question I wondered about. Here's this homeless woman, living in a leased car with her kids, who can afford gas to run up the miles over and above the amount allowed on the lease? Uh, something doesn't smell right.

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Is there a Blue Book for 25+ year-old salon chairs?  I'm pretty sure those people were given what the chairs were worth . . . Ah-Zero.

If they weren't worth anything, why did defendant bother to take them?  They weren't in storage -- she'd been using them.  It's going to be harder to rent that space as a salon if a renter has to provide her own chairs. 

I do get your point, but  those salon chairs were used in a business, and if they were bolted to the floor, they were fixtures.  I wish we knew more about the chairs, but JJ didn't care.

I'll stop beating this dead horse now.

[Ilovecomputers]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, this may sound wrong and I admit I'm far from being an authority on the law but we've heard often enough that court is about making people "whole" by putting them in the position they were in before being ripped off/scammed/damaged. Since plaintiff paid nothing for the chairs, wouldn't he be enriched by being paid cash for them now? If some bequest in the will was violated, shouldn't he have gone back to probate court or whatever? I could be dead wrong, but that's just how I see it.

IIRC, the plaintiff inherited the chairs from his late mother, and he and his wife repurposed them into salon chairs by reupholstering them and converting them into chairs with shampoo bowls, etc.  I don't think JJ asked for receipts or pictures or anything.  Years ago I purchased a condo that hadn't been updated since the 70s.  If I had inherited the condo, I would have done the same thing:  Over time I replaced the shag carpet and avocado colored appliances, and when I sold it a few years later I made a very nice profit.  In the same way, and in my opinion, the plaintiff should have realized some value for his sweat equity.  But it is, after all, JJ's playpen, it's sushi day, she has bigger fish to fry--have I forgotten anything :)

[Ilovecomputers]

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Oh yeah, she found a winner, didn't she? Hey, can't afford your car lease, so just run anot ad on craigslist. Then she finds a homeless woman who lives in the car with her kids, makes the payments late and runs up the miles. That's a question I wondered about. Here's this homeless woman, living in a leased car with her kids, who can afford gas to run up the miles over and above the amount allowed on the lease? Uh, something doesn't smell right.

If a woman is homeless, how does she afford car payments?  You're right, there was definitely something odd about that story.  Something about the plaintiff made JJ act as if JJ had a bur under her tail.  Sheesh.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Ilovecomputers

[Ilovecomputers]

Off topic:  I recognize many of you as former TWOP-ers.  May I see a show of hands?  Nice to see you all.

[AngelaHunter]

13 minutes ago, Ilovecomputers said:

IIRC, the plaintiff inherited the chairs from his late mother, and he and his wife repurposed them into salon chairs by reupholstering them and converting them into chairs with shampoo bowls, etc.

Okay, I obviously missed that part because I somehow thought that def. had redone the chairs.

As for former TWoP-ers? *raises hand*

9 hours ago, Trini said:

Using Craigslist to find some to take over your car payments?

I see I'm  going to need to watch this one. Did we get the mandatory wail of, "I truuuusted her!" because who wouldn't trust a total stranger?

[AlleC17]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, I obviously missed that part because I somehow thought that def. had redone the chairs.

As for former TWoP-ers? *raises hand*

I see I'm  going to need to watch this one. Did we get the mandatory wail of, "I truuuusted her!" because who wouldn't trust a total stranger?

Strangely enough, we didn't.  :-)  Defendant actually paid all that had been agreed upon (sometimes late though), but plaintiff wanted to change the agreement to charge her for the mileage overages.  Because she went over the allotted mileage per her lease, plaintiff had to purchase the car.

[ElleMo]

1 hour ago, AlleC17 said:

Strangely enough, we didn't.  :-)  Defendant actually paid all that had been agreed upon (sometimes late though), but plaintiff wanted to change the agreement to charge her for the mileage overages.  Because she went over the allotted mileage per her lease, plaintiff had to purchase the car.

 

 

That part kills me.  I want money because I had to purchase the car! What?  She didn't have to purchase the car; she could have paid the overage on the miles and returned the car.  Then could have sued for the extra charges.  However, the mileage contract was between her and the car company; not between the plaintiff & the plaintiff and she can't start charging for it just because she wants to.

 

14 hours ago, SRTouch said:

 Here's this homeless woman, living in a leased car with her kids, who can afford gas to run up the miles over and above the amount allowed on the lease? Uh, something doesn't smell right.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

If a woman is homeless, how does she afford car payments?  You're right, there was definitely something odd about that story.  Something about the plaintiff made JJ act as if JJ had a bur under her tail.  Sheesh.

 

1

It is a lot cheaper to pay to lease a car than to pay rent.  If the defendant was telling the truth, it is a sad story.

Unless I missed something, at no point did the plaintiff or defendant mention how many miles were on the car when defendant first got the car or when it was taken back.  I am not convinced that the all the miles on the was the defendant's fault.  Plaintiff had been driving the car around for a while before subleasing. Maybe she put a lot of miles on it so it was close to the limit before the defendant even got the car.

Edited January 10, 2017 by ElleMo

[Cobalt Stargazer]

How the hell can you get a divorce from someone you aren't married to?

[AZChristian]

Laws in Texas recognize common law marriage without licensing or ceremonies. It's as binding as traditional marriage.

[Jamoche]

How many times did the neglectful karate instructor say "I'd like to mention"?

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, Jamoche said:

How many times did the neglectful karate instructor say "I'd like to mention"?

What I don't get is that he preferred to be seen - no doubt by everyone in his area who has kids - as someone who would look at his watch, declare it's lunchtime, tell the little kids to chill, take off in his car and leave them (and you know it's not the first time) rather than just give back the lousy 400$. He did concede that maybe plaintiff was right and he shouldn't do that. Should he need to be told? Mind-boggling. As so many losers say, "Wowww!"

[Watermelon]

On 1/10/2017 at 9:53 AM, Ilovecomputers said:

If a woman is homeless, how does she afford car payments?  You're right, there was definitely something odd about that story.  Something about the plaintiff made JJ act as if JJ had a bur under her tail.  Sheesh.

Car payments are usually cheaper than rent. She probably works, just not enough to afford an apartment.

[califred]

my car payment is infinitely less than my mortgage payment.

I didn't get episodes yesterday bc of the farewell speech.  It will be interesting to see if I get yesterday's or today's today.

[Quof]

Time share/adoptive mother is a F'ing professor. That's right, she has advanced degrees.  I can't imagine listening to a lecture in that whiny voice.   And I'm sure she could swallow the couple hundred dollars worth of air miles.

Quote

The defendant in the lease takeover case was sure pretty.  Gorgeous skin.  If it's makeup, good job! 

For someone who should be working all the hours she can in order to put a roof (and not a car roof) over the head of her children, she clearly spends a lot of time watching YouTube makeup tutorials on contouring. 

[AuntiePam]

Was anyone else suspicious in today's loan case?  The one where the employee loaned his boss $9,999?  JJ asked him why that odd amount, and he said something about he wanted to make it less than $10K in case he had to sue in small claims court.

Isn't there a dollar figure that triggers oversight by a bank, to guard against money laundering?  It's either $9,999 or $99,999.

Anyway, my other suspicion about the loan was because of defendant's wife teensy tiny nose.  That nose was not God-given.  I thought for sure the loan was to repair a bad nose job. 

[Quof]

Well, $10,000 is the amount you have to declare when crossing an international border, so I expect it does trigger some investigation.

[califred]

It's $10000 in cash and has been since I worked in a bank in 1995

[Quof]

Quote

That nose was not God-given.  I thought for sure the loan was to repair a bad nose job. 

You could see a bandage over the bridge of her nose, so you may be right.

[quarkuud]

I thought the $9999 was due to IRS gift limits, personally.  Can't figure out why he wouldn't just say that on TV, though, it isn't particularly sketchy to do so.

[Spunkygal]

Why didn't JJ ask Defendant to show proof of how much wife's treatment was, along with appropriate medical description of treatment? She just took his word for it. 

[Toaster Strudel]

Wegener's granulomatosis is a horrible and debilitating auto-immune disorder and one of the symptoms is nasal and facial destruction.  It was not a bad nose job, it was Wegener's.  It causes leg gangrene, eye tumors, kidney failure...

Edited January 11, 2017 by Toaster Strudel

[Rabbittron]

I laughed so loud i scared my cats and dogs when smug said he was watching a stupid show Judge Judy.

[Quof]

Well now I feel like a horrible person....

[Mondrianyone]

It's not only international transactions and gifts, it's any deposits or withdrawals or checks written/cashed in the amount of $10,000 or more--or multiple deposits, etc., totaling more than that amount--due to the Bank Secrecy Act, designed to find money-laundering schemes.  I remember being advised to be aware of the issue when I had to do some large transaction (I can't remember what it was), but I think banks are allowed to make exceptions for regular customers (and financial institutions).  Either that or I have a very honest face.

[Brattinella]

6 minutes ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Wegener's granulomatosis is a horrible and debilitating auto-immune disorder and one of the symptoms is nasal and facial destruction.  It was not a bad nose job, it was Wegener's.  It causes leg gangrene, eye tumors, kidney failure...

I looked it up earlier, and the pictures are horrible.  That poor woman didn't have a nose job.  Terrible disease!

[Brattinella]

4 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

I laughed so loud i scared my cats and dogs when smug said he was watching a stupid show Judge Judy.

That guy was SO smarmy, and smirking when it was HIS dog (mastiff) that ran out of his yard and attacked the other dog (boxer).  I just HATED that greasy smirky jerk.

6 minutes ago, Quof said:

Well now I feel like a horrible person....

Honest mistake. :)

[Mondrianyone]

2 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I looked it up earlier, and the pictures are horrible.  That poor woman didn't have a nose job.  Terrible disease!

So did I.  It's beyond horrible.  And while the disease destroys you physically, the treatments destroy you financially.  Another reminder never to get sick in America unless you're a billionaire.

[Tesla]

2 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

So did I.  It's beyond horrible.  And while the disease destroys you physically, the treatments destroy you financially.  Another reminder never to get sick in America unless you're a billionaire.

I am struggling now because I spent a month in the hospital with severe pre-eclampsia before my daughter was born in September and she spent a month in the nicu.  The hospital stay ate up my pto and I had to take 2 months of unpaid maternity leave and wound up with 18k in medical bills after insurance.  I am relatively healthy, I can't imagine something like this.  We would be wiped out financially.  I felt so bad for them.  This country is terrible about health care costs (and maternity leave for that matter).

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I laughed so loud i scared my cats and dogs when smug said he was watching a stupid show Judge Judy.

That wormy, smarmy, oily, tiny little creep - his type always makes me wish Byrd could be given permission to beat the shit out him, which I'm sure he'd like to do.

His girlfriend, dumb as fence post:

JJ: "He's smug. Do you know what 'smug' means?"

Dumb stupid girl: "No, sir."

As IF she'd know the meaning of any word not used in text-speak. The humane society in her area is not being responsible and not doing their job properly, if they'd give her an animal. Personally, I wouldn't give her one of my plants to take care of - her and her revolting, narrow, ball-less little consort.

[Eliza422]

1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Wegener's granulomatosis is a horrible and debilitating auto-immune disorder and one of the symptoms is nasal and facial destruction.  It was not a bad nose job, it was Wegener's.  It causes leg gangrene, eye tumors, kidney failure...

I did look it up after the case, and on Wikipedia the first pic they show is the nasal degeneration that happens, and it was exactly what that poor woman looked like.

[speac]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

I looked it up earlier, and the pictures are horrible.  That poor woman didn't have a nose job.  Terrible disease!

It was one of the reasons I really wondered about how the female plantiff could claim she didn't know her relative was sick. 

[AuntiePam]

Well damn, now I feel like an ass too.  Terrible disease.  Terrible that we have to beggar ourselves to pay for necessary medical treatment.

[Brattinella]

17 minutes ago, speac said:

It was one of the reasons I really wondered about how the female plantiff could claim she didn't know her relative was sick. 

Wasn't she her SISTER?!  How could she not know??