All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AuntiePam]

Sister-in-law -- I think she said the sick woman was her husband's brother's wife.  Obviously, they weren't close.

[Toaster Strudel]

This case was a sad reminder of people bankrupting themselves for medical treatment.  I am soooo glad to be in Canada.

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

This case was a sad reminder of people bankrupting themselves for medical treatment.  I am soooo glad to be in Canada.

I just watched this case. Just horrible and a good reminder for me not to whine about my problems. I felt awful for that poor woman, not only to be so sick and probably suffering a great deal - as though that's not horrible enough -  but to lose their home as well.  The only good thing is that she seems to have a loving husband to stick by her through all this. I don't have the courage to look up that disease, so thanks to those who did.  

I had to go to the emergency room a couple years back and ended up staying in the hospital for four days. I was given all sorts of tests (CAT scans, etc.) and got wonderful care from doctors, specialists and nurses (not the violent, nightmarish JJ-type "nurses" either) At the end of my stay I walked out, having no clue what any of that might have cost but I suspect it was a lot.  I just had to concentrate on getting well.  If I'd had to think about losing my home and going broke to pay the bill, I just don't know what I would have done. No one should have to lose everything they have to get necessary and urgent medical treatment.

Our health care system in Canada is very far from perfect, but I was grateful to have it then.

[quarkuud]

Yeah, that case just made me sad.  They lost their house and all their savings, and she still wasn't well.  Despite having insurance.  That is just messed up.

[AngelaHunter]

I'm just catching up on this week's cases, so sorry to bring them up. In the case of the dogpark, where plaintiff's greyhound was injured by def's German Shepherd "biting" it: Def. said that anything - his dog's collar or tags, etc, could have hurt the greyhound: He's 100% right when he said their skin is like tissue paper and anything can hurt them. I fostered a greyhound (delightful and sweet dogs, BTW). They have zero body fat, just thin skin over bone and muscle. I was shocked when the dog I fostered got tears in his skin just getting in and out of my car. Greyhounds can run at great speed, up to 70mph and if they hit anything when they're going even half that fast, they are going to get ripped up. I was glad JJ awarded plaintiff nothing. She takes a big chance taking her dog to a dog park and if it's hurt, it's her fault so let her pay for it.  As JJ said, "Put him on a leash and take him for walks." That's what I've always done.

[Silver Raven]

Was it on JJ or People's Court where the people had a dog that was half pit, half Jack Russell?  I can't imagine what that might look like.  I'd hate to think of a pit bull with the energy of a Jack Russell.

[Taeolas]

For what its worth, that 9,999$ case felt fake. Not fake in that the litigants were actors; but fake in that the loan wasn't fully real. Instead they were on JJ in order to get the payout to help with the medical bills. Even though the other side got the 5,000$, I have a feeling it might go back to help with those bills. Neither side seemed to be going at the other as ravenously as we usually see. 

[SandyToes]

Quote

For what its worth, that 9,999$ case felt fake. Not fake in that the litigants were actors; but fake in that the loan wasn't fully real. Instead they were on JJ in order to get the payout to help with the medical bills. Even though the other side got the 5,000$, I have a feeling it might go back to help with those bills. Neither side seemed to be going at the other as ravenously as we usually see. 

You know, I kind of wondered about this myself. And maybe she handed the money right back to him. 

Mr. Toes watched today's cases with me.  That may have to stop. :-/        He's not so tolerant of Cranky JJ. Neither of us was impressed with today's cases.

[Spunkygal]

I think today that JJ needed some of the hemorrhoid medicine she is always talking about! She sure was itchy and cranky!

[Jamoche]

Mom of the bipolar guy who got kicked out of the sober living facility - why do I think that the Aunt Bea hairstyle was carefully chosen to convey a "poor sweet little old lady" image. It's not working. There's something just off about her. JJ (and I) have no reason to doubt the guy's bipolar, but I'm wondering if she's been making excuses for him instead of getting him help all his life.

[Maharincess]

One dog case she tell the person that when you go to a dog park you assume the risk that an off leash dog could hurt your dog and the plaintiff got nothing.  2 days later pretty much the same thing happened and she told the defendants that even though they were at an off leash dog park they should have had the dog under their control and ruled the exact opposite of the first case.  Huh?  It seems like she decides the cases on who she does and doesn't like and not the actual law.  

I may be wrong because I missed a bit of the second case but it seemed like she contradicted herself in a big way. 

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm just catching up on this week's cases, so sorry to bring them up. In the case of the dogpark, where plaintiff's greyhound was injured by def's German Shepherd "biting" it: Def. said that anything - his dog's collar or tags, etc, could have hurt the greyhound: He's 100% right when he said their skin is like tissue paper and anything can hurt them. I fostered a greyhound (delightful and sweet dogs, BTW). They have zero body fat, just thin skin over bone and muscle. I was shocked when the dog I fostered got tears in his skin just getting in and out of my car. Greyhounds can run at great speed, up to 70mph and if they hit anything when they're going even half that fast, they are going to get ripped up. I was glad JJ awarded plaintiff nothing. She takes a big chance taking her dog to a dog park and if it's hurt, it's her fault so let her pay for it.  As JJ said, "Put him on a leash and take him for walks." That's what I've always done.

I've actually never been around a greyhound, but I had heard they were prone to cuts and scratches because of thin/tender skin. Something else I've, and maybe you know more than I, is that they tend to take off and run for the joy of running, and can be hard to catch.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, Taeolas said:

For what its worth, that 9,999$ case felt fake. Not fake in that the litigants were actors; but fake in that the loan wasn't fully real. Instead they were on JJ in order to get the payout to help with the medical bills. Even though the other side got the 5,000$, I have a feeling it might go back to help with those bills. Neither side seemed to be going at the other as ravenously as we usually see. 

I thought the same thing. How do you not know your sister in law is going through all that when your husband, his sister, works with/for her husband? I agree it was a loan, what with the memo on the payment check and all, but I seriously doubt they would have followed through with a small claims case had the money been coming out of brother in law's pocket.

[Jamoche]

48 minutes ago, Maharincess said:

One dog case she tell the person that when you go to a dog park you assume the risk that an off leash dog could hurt your dog and the plaintiff got nothing.  2 days later pretty much the same thing happened and she told the defendants that even though they were at an off leash dog park they should have had the dog under their control and ruled the exact opposite of the first case.  Huh?  It seems like she decides the cases on who she does and doesn't like and not the actual law.  

I may be wrong because I missed a bit of the second case but it seemed like she contradicted herself in a big way. 

As soon as I hear the word "dog" - unless it's "returning Baby Boy to his rightful owner" - I am out. Either the litigants or JJ are going to piss me off.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, Maharincess said:

One dog case she tell the person that when you go to a dog park you assume the risk that an off leash dog could hurt your dog and the plaintiff got nothing.  2 days later pretty much the same thing happened and she told the defendants that even though they were at an off leash dog park they should have had the dog under their control and ruled the exact opposite of the first case.  Huh?  It seems like she decides the cases on who she does and doesn't like and not the actual law.  

I may be wrong because I missed a bit of the second case but it seemed like she contradicted herself in a big way. 

Nope you got the gist of it. Part of it may be that in the first case the dogs were running free and not really close to the owners, while in today's case one owner was 200 yards away while the little dog's owner was right there. The first was sort of oops the dogs were running and collided. Today a dog attacked, the owner and her bf got them separated, then it got away from the bf and attacked again and bystanders had to help restrain the German shepherd while the gs's owners' are still running across the field. It definitely didn't help that their defense wasn't that they were in a dog park and plaintiff assumed some risk, no they argued that it was a case of mistaken identity. Good grief, dude, if you're denying it was your dog, and you even have a witness buddy ready to say your dog was with you the whole time, don't go on and on about how you were two hundred yards away and you saw wifey take off running with your baby in her arms. I know what you're saying, though, and wonder if there was something in those park rules that plaintiff brought but were never put into evidence, or if it was like I said, JJ just threw out their mistaken identity defense and ruled.

Edited January 13, 2017 by SRTouch
Were not we're

[Mondrianyone]

German shepherds are quite well known for being identity thieves.  It's practically a breed characteristic.

[AngelaHunter]

After yesterday's depressing case, I so appreciated today's Boat Cover kerfuffle. I started laughing and couldn't stop for the whole thing.  I started off by marvelling that the two goof ball litigants, fighting over an old boat cover - plaintiff from Australia and the def. from South Africa - managed to find their way to Minnesota, of all places. The true MN resident, Mr. Koflaffle (or something like that) with his unruly Julius Cesar hairdo and his, "That question is misleading" ramped up the amusement factor. What put it over the edge was the defendant's witness, looking like a grinning ventriloquist's dummy and who immediately popped her hand back in the air each time JJ told her to put it down - three times total. "Get out!" she was told and we were then treated to watching her Walk of Shame, going the wrong way. This is another case I must save for those times when I need a laugh.

45 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Something else I've, and maybe you know more than I, is that they tend to take off and run for the joy of running, and can be hard to catch.

Re: Greyhounds. Yes, once they're up to speed, there's no catching them and they can crash into anything in their path which is why a net is used at those disgusting dog races. They're sighthounds and will chase anything that moves so must be walked on leash. This is what they are bred and born to do, with everything sacrificed for speed, and they are not candidates for a dog park, IMO.  Most dogs aren't because their owners are usually ultra-clueless about dog behavior.

47 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

I've actually never been around a greyhound, but I had heard they were prone to cuts and scratches because of thin/tender skin.

It's not just cuts and scratches. They have zero body fat - just thin skin stretched tightly over bone and muscle. It's as the def said, their skin is like "wet paper mache" it rips so easily. I was shocked the first time I saw it, but then I knew why my ex-racing dog was covered in scars - the edge of my car seat tore his skin. Plaintiff wasn't awarded any money because she had no vet report and no proof that def's dog attacked hers. When I heard it was a greyhound, I believed him that his dog didn't bite but merely collided.

[SRTouch]

11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

After yesterday's depressing case, I so appreciated today's Boat Cover kerfuffle. I started laughing and couldn't stop for the whole thing.  I started off by marvelling that the two goof ball litigants, fighting over an old boat cover - plaintiff from Australia and the def. from South Africa - managed to find their way to Minnesota, of all places. The true MN resident, Mr. Koflaffle (or something like that) with his unruly Julius Cesar hairdo and his, "That question is misleading" ramped up the amusement factor. What put it over the edge was the defendant's witness, looking like a grinning ventriloquist's dummy and who immediately popped her hand back in the air each time JJ told her to put it down - three times total. "Get out!" she was told and we were then treated to watching her Walk of Shame, going the wrong way. This is another case I must save for those times when I need a laugh.

Ah ha, glad I saw this. Somehow I skipped today's new case and went straight to the 45yo halfway house dude that has mommy in court suing on his behalf. After that I went back and watched yesterday's,  got disgusted with Smug bf mastiff case, which is still on pause, and might have deleted today's new episode without checking.

[AngelaHunter]

12 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

might have deleted today's new episode without checking.

Oh, I hope not. It was hysterical, well, to me it was but I'm easily amused. I was only disappointed that JJ gave Charlie McCarthy the boot without letting us hear what pearls of wisdom she was dying to impart.

[SRTouch]

28 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, I hope not. It was hysterical, well, to me it was but I'm easily amused. I was only disappointed that JJ gave Charlie McCarthy the boot without letting us hear what pearls of wisdom she was dying to impart.

Yep, definitely better than loser dog owner cases... figured out how I managed to skip over it - it must have been while I was fixing dinner

[Jamoche]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

It's not just cuts and scratches. They have zero body fat - just thin skin stretched tightly over bone and muscle. It's as the def said, their skin is like "wet paper mache" it rips so easily. I was shocked the first time I saw it, but then I knew why my ex-racing dog was covered in scars - the edge of my car seat tore his skin. Plaintiff wasn't awarded any money because she had no vet report and no proof that def's dog attacked hers. When I heard it was a greyhound, I believed him that his dog didn't bite but merely collided.

Wow, I had no clue; I'd be so worried if I had one. I had a cocker spaniel and their skin is like a loose dog suit over the dog - it's barely even attached to the muscles underneath, so the one time she got bit at the dog park (normal rough-housing, no aggression on either side) it was just this tiny hole that barely even bled.

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

she got bit at the dog park (normal rough-housing, no aggression on either side) it was just this tiny hole that barely even bled.

Sometimes you have to be careful of punctures wounds from bites, no matter how small. When my big dog got attacked from the rear, I saw only small holes and hardly any blood but the damage under the skin was massive. He needed to have surgery and drains put in and it took forever to heal.

 

ETA: Oops, I guess this discussion should have been in off-topic. Sorry, everyone!

Edited January 13, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

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. 

Tesla, I'm so glad you are okay and hopefully your baby too. My super healthy daughter developed severe pre-eclampsia and within two days was in the hospital having an emergency c-section - she was in ten days, the baby was 35 weeks along and was in the NICU 2 weeks (ventilator and all) . Everybody was eventually okay but definitely a scary time and something that sneaks up on healthy women. 

I'm glad to be back reading all the snark, y'all. My afternoons have been interrupted by the whole Fort Lauderdale shooting deal - every day an update and more video. It's freaky to realize how many times I've been there picking up family members and friends. 

And in JJ life-learning lessons, my new neighbor wanted to bring his pit bull over to meet my eleven year old pug ("He just wants to say hello!") I wisely said NOOOOOO!!! as my dog tends to get a little too anxious and didn't really want to see her decapitated by a dog whose head is the size of a Buick. Who says you don't learn anything by watching TV?!?!

[Jamoche]

Lots of short cases today - first two I wasn't paying much attention to, third one has an absolute winner of a drunk truck-rolling mom:

Daughter: I'm 35, I think Mom is 56?

JJ: OK, twenty years older...

Mom: *snorts* I'm 52.

 

 

Hey, mom? Here's something you should've been told back when you were 17 (and probably just as drunk back then): Grow up.

[AngelaHunter]

The announcer never disappoints me:

"John says that Tammy got DRUNK and loaned the car to her mother, who was also DRUNK."

[AuntiePam]

I felt sorry for the plaintiff who sued his ex-fiance for return of a basketball hoop and an engagement ring.  JJ was only interested in catching him in a fib about his work history, and all the poor guy could do was stand there and wonder why he signed up for a televised beatdown.  Of course the ex still has the ring.  Plaintiff wouldn't have sued if he had the damn ring, and even if the ex didn't wear it all the time, you can bet she knows where it is.  The ex claims he took all the "jurry" with him -- he says he didn't -- and JJ asks him "What about the watch you have on?"  I'm going WTF?

Do basketball hoops really cost almost $500?

[Rabbittron]

1 minute ago, AuntiePam said:

I felt sorry for the plaintiff who sued his ex-fiance for return of a basketball hoop and an engagement ring.  JJ was only interested in catching him in a fib about his work history, and all the poor guy could do was stand there and wonder why he signed up for a televised beatdown.  Of course the ex still has the ring.  Plaintiff wouldn't have sued if he had the damn ring, and even if the ex didn't wear it all the time, you can bet she knows where it is.  The ex claims he took all the "jurry" with him -- he says he didn't -- and JJ asks him "What about the watch you have on?"  I'm going WTF?

Do basketball hoops really cost almost $500?

It cost me about 425 for a really good basketball hoop and pole and base.

[Jamoche]

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I felt sorry for the plaintiff who sued his ex-fiance for return of a basketball hoop and an engagement ring.  JJ was only interested in catching him in a fib about his work history, and all the poor guy could do was stand there and wonder why he signed up for a televised beatdown.  Of course the ex still has the ring.  Plaintiff wouldn't have sued if he had the damn ring, and even if the ex didn't wear it all the time, you can bet she knows where it is.  The ex claims he took all the "jurry" with him -- he says he didn't -- and JJ asks him "What about the watch you have on?"  I'm going WTF?

Do basketball hoops really cost almost $500?

Was that the one where she was grilling him about when he went on disability, financial aid, and so on? I noped out of that; come on, JJ, temporary disability is a thing! Two years ago I broke my ankle and had to go on temporary disability because that's what my company was set up to do for extended injury/illness absences. Now I'm unemployed - not on unemployment though I could be if I wanted to. So what would JJ think of that, huh? You can't just look at the current state of a person and go "oh, that temp disability was bogus"; that's the whole point of it being temporary - you get better!

[AZChristian]

8 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

The ex claims he took all the "jurry" with him -- he says he didn't -- and JJ asks him "What about the watch you have on?"  I'm going WTF?

 

I've seen watches that look just like that on the sale table at Macy's for $39.95.  JJ inferred it was expensive.  I thought it screamed "CHEAP" through the TV screen.

[Ilovecomputers]

Quote

I've seen watches that look just like that on the sale table at Macy's for $39.95.  JJ inferred it was expensive.  I thought it screamed "CHEAP" through the TV screen.

C'mon, have you forgotten that JJ is an expert jewelry appraiser, and with her eagle eyes she is able to evaluate watches, diamond rings, etc. without a loupe at a distance. 

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I've seen watches that look just like that on the sale table at Macy's for $39.95.  JJ inferred it was expensive.  I thought it screamed "CHEAP" through the TV screen.

Which makes think about how long it's been since I've had a watch... which brings to mind how cell phones replaced my watch... hey, WTF, how come I never got a Dick Tracy watch/video phone???

[AuntiePam]

9 hours ago, Jamoche said:

Was that the one where she was grilling him about when he went on disability, financial aid, and so on? I noped out of that; come on, JJ, temporary disability is a thing! Two years ago I broke my ankle and had to go on temporary disability because that's what my company was set up to do for extended injury/illness absences. Now I'm unemployed - not on unemployment though I could be if I wanted to. So what would JJ think of that, huh? You can't just look at the current state of a person and go "oh, that temp disability was bogus"; that's the whole point of it being temporary - you get better!

Different case.  This plaintiff said he worked 40-60 hours a week in defendant's store while they were together.  They lived in an apartment above the store.   JJ decided not to reimburse him for the basketball hoop because he was living rent-free in the apartment for a couple months after the breakup.  Plaintiff said he paid rent, JJ asked how much, he said $200, defendant said no, it was $500 a month -- which was all quite weird.

[SRTouch]

5 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Different case.  This plaintiff said he worked 40-60 hours a week in defendant's store while they were together.  They lived in an apartment above the store.   JJ decided not to reimburse him for the basketball hoop because he was living rent-free in the apartment for a couple months after the breakup.  Plaintiff said he paid rent, JJ asked how much, he said $200, defendant said no, it was $500 a month -- which was all quite weird.

Yep, sort of hurts you in the credibility contest when you say you paid this much rent, and the other side argues you paid twice that much. Then when JJ starts thinking who she should believe, did this guy work 40-60 hours in the family store like he says, or 25 like the defendant said... well you don't look good. Defendant says she hasn't seen the engagement ring since you cleaned out the jewelry drawer, and your best evidence that she has the ring is a blown up, undated, picture of her wearing the ring which could have been taken two years ago when you proposed... dude, I don't have much hope for your case. But... I do think JJ may have been a little fast discounting his $500 basketball hoop claim. The way she dismissed the claim she sounded like $500 was beneath her and not worth her time considering it. Ah well, maybe it was bought as much for her daughter as his son back when they were living together.

Edited January 14, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Plaintiff said he paid rent, JJ asked how much, he said $200, defendant said no, it was $500 a month -- which was all quite weird.

I just tried to watch this, although listening to plaintiff as he strugged to try and get one coherent and intelligible thought to travel from his brain to his mouth was extremely annoying and frustrating. I really didn't give a shit about his basketball hoop or her engagement ring or lack of jurry and had to turn the whole thing off. The only thing that caught my attention were what appeared to be the licorice curls on the def's head. I like licorce!

[configdotsys]

On 1/10/2017 at 9:56 AM, Ilovecomputers said:

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

::raises hand::

On 1/10/2017 at 10:05 AM, 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?

I watched the salon episode today and it was the defendant that had the chairs reupholstered and cleaned up. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

41 minutes ago, configdotsys said:

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

Guilty as charged lol!

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, configdotsys said:

I watched the salon episode today and it was the defendant that had the chairs reupholstered and cleaned up. 

I know I promised to stop beating this dead horse, but we only have defendant's word for that.  JJ never asked her about it, and she didn't ask plaintiff to confirm or deny it either.  JJ was focused on not reimbursing a plaintiff for something that was "old".

Similarly, in the car case from Friday, the one where the druggie mechanic "lost" plaintiff's car.  Plaintiff paid $5K for an older car, and Byrd gave the KBB value as $3250.  JJ ragged on plaintiff for overpaying for the car.  However, we could see in the KBB that if the car was in the top condition, the value was $6250.  JJ never asked plaintiff about condition or mileage -- she was only concerned with year, make, model. 

[AZChristian]

Another former TWoP participant here, although I left a year or so before it went belly-up. Didn't want to devote the time required to figure out what was going to displease the mods on any given day.

[SRTouch]

5 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I know I promised to stop beating this dead horse, but we only have defendant's word for that.  JJ never asked her about it, and she didn't ask plaintiff to confirm or deny it either.  JJ was focused on not reimbursing a plaintiff for something that was "old".

Similarly, in the car case from Friday, the one where the druggie mechanic "lost" plaintiff's car.  Plaintiff paid $5K for an older car, and Byrd gave the KBB value as $3250.  JJ ragged on plaintiff for overpaying for the car.  However, we could see in the KBB that if the car was in the top condition, the value was $6250.  JJ never asked plaintiff about condition or mileage -- she was only concerned with year, make, model. 

Yep, girl started to talk about the extras, the rims, tires etc, and JJ wasn't hearing it. Hey, I've seen folks put all kinds of extra goodies onto what would otherwise be junkers. Nowadays, you can put a high quality stereo and a couple TVs, rims and tires into a car and you have twice the value in extras as the car itself. Heck, I even have floormats.

[Jamoche]

20 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I know I promised to stop beating this dead horse, but we only have defendant's word for that.  JJ never asked her about it, and she didn't ask plaintiff to confirm or deny it either.  JJ was focused on not reimbursing a plaintiff for something that was "old".

Similarly, in the car case from Friday, the one where the druggie mechanic "lost" plaintiff's car.  Plaintiff paid $5K for an older car, and Byrd gave the KBB value as $3250.  JJ ragged on plaintiff for overpaying for the car.  However, we could see in the KBB that if the car was in the top condition, the value was $6250.  JJ never asked plaintiff about condition or mileage -- she was only concerned with year, make, model. 

Yeah, never take your well-preserved classic car to JJ. KBB has my model Miata at a mere $1,000 - but actual sales are in the $5K range.

ETA - another TWoP refugee :)

Edited January 15, 2017 by Jamoche

[DoctorK]

Quote

Didn't want to devote the time required to figure out what was going to displease the mods on any given day.

Another TWOP refugee here. TWOP was pretty zealous on "boards on boards" and stuff that leaned towards a chat group environment. On the other hand, the "without pity" was pretty safe from SJWs. People go on these shows voluntarily, if they come across as complete slack jawed idiots, that is their problem and many of them deserve to be called out on their dysfunctional life style. As always, YMMV.

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Yep, girl started to talk about the extras, the rims, tires etc, and JJ wasn't hearing it.

I watched that yesterday. That defendant  - I guess people don't realize when they've made caricatures of themselves? I thought maybe his name would be Daryl and he'd introduce his other brother, Daryl as his witness.

Yes, most people on this show rave about how their ancient car - in this case a 15 year old Pontiac -  is worth way more than the KBB because it was all tricked out, pristine, show-room condition. Says who? The person trying to get more than it's worth. Maybe it has a new sound system, but what if the engine is ready to die? We saw someone who put 1K rims on a 21 year old beater. 

 

11 hours ago, DoctorK said:

On the other hand, the "without pity" was pretty safe from SJWs.

 Pretty safe, yes. It was also a haven totally devoid of illiterate, annoying trolls and the people who can't help feeding them.

[wallysmommy]

My niece has my hand-me-down 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix -- it was top of the line sans turbo when I bought it in 2004 for $21000 ($7000 off sticker).  She now has 180,000 miles on it and will drive it until the wheels fall off.  It's probably worth about $2000 now because the body might not be in pristine condition, but it runs great.  No one in their right mind would pay $5000 for it, but then, who said JJ litigants are in their right mind.  

My mom just started watching JJ, and her comment was "these are some of the stupidest people I've ever seen."  

[Spunkygal]

3 minutes ago, wallysmommy said:

My niece has my hand-me-down 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix -- it was top of the line sans turbo when I bought it in 2004 for $21000 ($7000 off sticker).  She now has 180,000 miles on it and will drive it until the wheels fall off.  It's probably worth about $2000 now because the body might not be in pristine condition, but it runs great.  No one in their right mind would pay $5000 for it, but then, who said JJ litigants are in their right mind.  

My mom just started watching JJ, and her comment was "these are some of the stupidest people I've ever seen."  

Tell your mom to stick around. Not only are they stupid, but many are morally bankrupt.

[wallysmommy]

She was appalled at family members suing each other over $200.   She and I go back and forth with money all the time.  We would never dream of suing each other because we love and respect each other.  Those seem to be traits missing in JJ land.

[SandyToes]

3 hours ago, wallysmommy said:

her comment was "these are some of the stupidest people I've ever seen."  

Sometimes that's the best part when I'm feeling down on myself. "At least I'm not THAT bad!"    Other times, of course, it nearly drives me to tears thinking that this represents the current state of humanity. That's what the wine is for.  Cheers to Mom!

[Trini]

Another former TWoPper here, ::waves::

On 1/12/2017 at 8:27 PM, Jamoche said:

As soon as I hear the word "dog" - unless it's "returning Baby Boy to his rightful owner" - I am out. Either the litigants or JJ are going to piss me off.

Yeah, I've been skipping dog cases lately. But y'all let me know if another 'Baby Boy' situation shows up!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Trini said:

Yeah, I've been skipping dog cases lately. But y'all let me know if another 'Baby Boy' situation shows up!

Yep, yep. But the greyhound vs. German Shepherd case was okay. Both litigants sounded like normal people and didn't do anything outrageous to their dogs. Plaintiff just needs to learn a little more about the breed she chose and to stop being so lazy and take her dog for walks.

ETA: Before I forget, another thing litigants do that I find increasingly annoying: Using "whenever" when they mean, "When."

Edited January 15, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Brattinella]

OH MY GOD.  "Whenever we got there.."  That grates SO BAD.  Who taught them that??

[AngelaHunter]

31 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

"Whenever we got there.."  That grates SO BAD. 

JJ: "So what happened when you went to her house at five o'clock?"

Idiot: "Whenever I went there at five o'clock... "

HATE. I think the only thing I might hate more is the dread, "I seen." Or maybe it's, "Me and her went. "

Didn't any of these people get past third grade, or read a book, (Haha! Yeah, I know. Silly me!) or watch a television show that wasn't imbecilic reality crap or Springer-type talk shows? Or maybe I'm just a pedantic old crab who should understand that our language is fluid.