All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Is it just me, or was Wooly Willy on JJ in the past? Or was that another Wooley Willy?

Oh, I think I know who you mean. There was a litigant who was deadly pale. He looked and dressed like an old-timey undertaker, a vampire or Mandrake the Magician, also with drawn-on beard. I think he may even have had a small handlebar moustache.

[Spunkygal]

4 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Is it just me, or was Wooly Willy on JJ in the past? Or was that another Wooley Willy? He certainly had his facial hair game down with that finely crafted Gorton's Fisherman look. 

There was another Wooly Willy in the past! I seem to remember it was a guy who had a tiff with his former boyfriend. In fact, someone at the time referred to him as Wooly Willy. He was even more Wooly Willy-ish than today's plaintiff. I think he was wearing a pastel colored shirt. Oh darn, now I have to scroll back 1,000 pages to find it.

Yay! Found it on page 120. It was the Vampire in Brooklyn case, but no pic of WW. It was @Brattinella who referred to him as WW. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Spunkygal

[bear1]

There is something that has been bothering me for a while.  How are these people not able to have a pot to piss in and constantly having to borrow money but seem to be able to get their nails manicured every couple weeks? "I have no money but I need my acrylics done"

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, bear1 said:

There is something that has been bothering me for a while.  How are these people not able to have a pot to piss in and constantly having to borrow money but seem to be able to get their nails manicured every couple weeks? "I have no money but I need my acrylics done"

That's what Judge Mathis calls ghetto rich http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghetto rich 

[ElleMo]

On 5/9/2017 at 7:22 AM, Giant Misfit said:

I will say this one thing in the Defendants' favor -- at least the meme wasn't addressing a divisive topic. I mean, is there really someone out there who supports puppy mills? It takes a special kind of sadistic asshole to be offended by an anti-puppy mill meme. 

That said, that case reminds me why I'm so glad to have nuked my Facebook page last year.  While I agree that they shouldn't have used the image with the watermark in any kind of fashion to make any kind of statement, this type of petty nonsense gets escalated to 11 once Facebook gets involved.  

You never know what kind of clients you can get.  This person may end up getting a job with a puppy mill photographing dogs for a brochure or website.  However, being that this was an arrangement between friends and there was no contract detailing exactly what the mom & family were allowed to do with the photos, I think she should have just let it go and just never take free photos again. 

When you do stuff like this, you need to make clear what is acceptable and what is not.  You may have the law on your side, but the problem is that most people don't understand copyright law. The average person really doesn't  even understand what copyrights mean.  Can't tell you how many people have told me that it is ok to put stuff on their site simply because they noted who the author is and I have to explain that plagiarism and copyright infringement are two different things. (not a lawyer, just worked for years in publishing and now do internet marketing.)  I would bet that most people would assume that they have the right to reproduce their own picture no matter who took it.  

[Zahdii]

3 hours ago, bear1 said:

There is something that has been bothering me for a while.  How are these people not able to have a pot to piss in and constantly having to borrow money but seem to be able to get their nails manicured every couple weeks? "I have no money but I need my acrylics done"

Priorities.  The clothes, the alcohol, the partying, the drugs, the expensive hobbies are more important than paying the rent and the utilities, and often more important than feeding the kids.

[funky-rat]

1 hour ago, ElleMo said:

You never know what kind of clients you can get.  This person may end up getting a job with a puppy mill photographing dogs for a brochure or website.  However, being that this was an arrangement between friends and there was no contract detailing exactly what the mom & family were allowed to do with the photos, I think she should have just let it go and just never take free photos again. 

When you do stuff like this, you need to make clear what is acceptable and what is not.  You may have the law on your side, but the problem is that most people don't understand copyright law. The average person really doesn't  even understand what copyrights mean.  Can't tell you how many people have told me that it is ok to put stuff on their site simply because they noted who the author is and I have to explain that plagiarism and copyright infringement are two different things. (not a lawyer, just worked for years in publishing and now do internet marketing.)  I would bet that most people would assume that they have the right to reproduce their own picture no matter who took it.  

I run in to this a lot.  I'm a hobby photographer.  I enter contests, and I post my work on a photo sharing site, but people think that if it pops up on Google Image Search, then it's OK to right click and put things into videos on YouTube, etc.  It's frustrating, because if any contest were to see my work elsewhere, then it's trouble for me.  I hesitate to use watermarks because they're ugly and detract from the photo, and I hesitate to set the photo sharing site to private because I've gotten money for photos that way, licensing their use.  I'm in a catch 22, and I just have to try to be vigilant.

As for the political statement, I'd be irritated whether it was something I supported or not.  Especially because she didn't ask first.  The post they printed out indicated she'd already done the meme, and asked after the fact.  By then, it had probably already been shared over and over again, and impossible to stop.  And some people do get labeled as a puppy mill when they aren't one.  Mr. Funky's cousin is a reputable breeder.  I would never buy a purebred dog, but she does everything correctly in a clean manner, and her dogs are well cared for.  She's been doing this for years, and is not any type of backyard breeder or puppy mill, but she's been unfairly attacked to the point where she had to take down her business page.  But I agree that either stop doing free photo sessions, or have some sort of specific agreement drawn up.  Otherwise, you're just asking for it.

11 minutes ago, Zahdii said:

Priorities.  The clothes, the alcohol, the partying, the drugs, the expensive hobbies are more important than paying the rent and the utilities, and often more important than feeding the kids.

Don't forget the latest cell phone, and fancy coffee.  Someone once shared an article saying it's not fair to judge lower income people for that because they're allowed nice things too, blah, blah, blah.  Fine.  I don't disagree - everyone should have treats every now and then.  But make sure basic needs are met first.  I use a pre-paid cell phone and have never had any type of manicure or pedicure.  Up until last June, I always drove old cars.  But my bills are paid, and I have food on the table.

[bad things are bad]

May I say "Yay Toaster Strudel Recaps!!!"

That's all

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ElleMo said:

This person may end up getting a job with a puppy mill photographing dogs for a brochure or website.

Then that person is a garbage human.  But, hey, I guess, everyone has a price. 

34 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

And some people do get labeled as a puppy mill when they aren't one. 

.That's true. But the meme in question didn't point the finger at any one individual - it pointed the finger at the puppy mill industry in general which your cousin-in-law doesn't participate.  

I'm not disagreeing that the Defendants had no right to use the image for the purpose they did - they didn't. My point was that the meme itself was only something that only a garbage human would take offense to. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Guest

[AZChristian]

34 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

Don't forget the latest cell phone, and fancy coffee.  Someone once shared an article saying it's not fair to judge lower income people for that because they're allowed nice things too, blah, blah, blah.  Fine.  I don't disagree - everyone should have treats every now and then.  But make sure basic needs are met first.  I use a pre-paid cell phone and have never had any type of manicure or pedicure.  Up until last June, I always drove old cars.  But my bills are paid, and I have food on the table.

And to me, it DOES make a difference as to who is paying the rent, cell phone bills, etc.  If I'm paying my own way, it's no one else's business how I spend whatever disposable income is left over after the basics are covered.  But I think it's understandable for taxpayers (who ARE paying their own way, and doing without luxuries) to be frustrated when people who are paying next to no rent and not working come onto court shows with hair extensions, acrylic nails, etc.  It's a real disincentive to strive to get ahead.  JMO.

[AlleC17]

1 hour ago, Zahdii said:

Priorities.  The clothes, the alcohol, the partying, the drugs, the expensive hobbies are more important than paying the rent and the utilities, and often more important than feeding the kids.

Don't forget loaning money out to someone you have just met.  lol

[funky-rat]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

Then that person is a garbage human.  But, hey, I guess, everyone has a price. 

.That's true. But the meme in question didn't point the finger at any one individual - it pointed the finger at the puppy mill industry in general which your cousin-in-law doesn't participate.  

I'm not disagreeing that the Defendants had no right to use the image for the purpose they did - they didn't. My point was that the meme itself was only something that only a garbage human would take offense to. 

No, I get that.  I was just stating why I wouldn't be happy about it from my perspective.  Some of the people who have attacked her for no reason are whackadoodles, and I'd think "Great.  Here we go again".  Or think about how his cousin (who I really like) would feel if she saw my name attached to something like that.  That's all.  I think we can all agree that puppy mills are not a good thing at all.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, funky-rat said:

No, I get that.  I was just stating why I wouldn't be happy about it from my perspective.  Some of the people who have attacked her for no reason are whackadoodles, and I'd think "Great.  Here we go again".  Or think about how his cousin (who I really like) would feel if she saw my name attached to something like that.  That's all.  I think we can all agree that puppy mills are not a good thing at all.

Yep, I think everyone can agree that puppy mills are bad. I do draw a line that some people forget, though, between those in it for greed, and those who can't see the harm they're doing. Don't know if I'm making sense, but I'm thinking of those cases on the various animal cop shows where people have animals in deplorable conditions, but honestly think the animals are doing fine. The true mill breeders (not just puppies), who keep animals caged and pump out as many litters as possible are despicable. OTOH I feel for the hoarders who have their animals taken.

[patty1h]

Oops, wrong forum.

Edited May 10, 2017 by patty1h
Moved to Peoples Court

[Hellohappylife]

"She called Toyota" I almost fell off my couch laughing at today's episode. Even though I feel bad for her kids. 

This lady has some serious issues!  She has 2 school aged children,2 cars, & gets paid 4,000 a month,but can't can't manage to rent a place of her own? Who in their right mind goes looking for a driveway to rent? She may as well just moved to a trailer park. Sell the other car,cancel your storage unit. These kids have cellphones but no beds of there own. Truly sad. 

[Toaster Strudel]

Dodger - A custody fight over some boring dog.  The plaintiffs had been wrongfully evicted, along with their 5 children.  They couldn't keep the dog because the motels weren't dog friendly... they left the dog with the defendant and sometimes with a kennel.  There was some allegation that the dog was matted and had overgrown nails at some point.  The defendants said the "kennel" was some old lady that brought them the dog along with hot dogs and luncheon meat.  Since the plaintiffs only rarely visited the dog... JJ shouted "get another dog!" and that was it.  The female plaintiff looked like she was about to explode the whole time, but she was just a wet firecracker.  One gavel.

Delicious Sticker - The plaintiff's blotchy grey foundation was super distracting!  That shade was all wrong!  And if you are going to put the wrong shade... at least apply it evenly!  Her baby ate a sticker at a daycare that got stuck on his palate and the hospital had to take it off.  Rimmel makes a really cheap $10 foundation that's really opaque, there's really no excuse.  She only had a $200 copay and couldn't prove that subsequent fever and other medical issues down the road were related to the sticker incident.  After she puts on the foundation, she should apply some compact powder for a nice matte finish.  Don't forget to apply on neck and chest if exposed.  One makeup tip.
 

[Toaster Strudel]

Everything But The Kitchen Sink - Let's see what we got here... a plaintiff named "Jinky," workman's comp to the tune of $4,400 a month, living in cars, renting a driveway, a broken lamp, a strangely well paid mover, a married boyfriend, calls to Family Services, Las Vegas, drugs, a video of a confrontation, nasty emails, surgery while living in a motel, gross financial mismanagement and a situation that makes no sense at all.  If you're getting $4,400, that should cover a lot of living expenses, however, the plaintiff was living in her car... she couldn't rent an apartment because she has two cars?  Urgh?  Then when she moves out of the plaintiff's house, she pays the mover $300 and she lets him have all the stuff because she has no place to store it... yet sues for some cheap broken lamp?  The defendant was vigorously nodding in the positive when drugs were mentioned.  The plaintiff's affect was very flat. Three gavels because there's something for everyone!

[BubblingKettle]

I couldn't help but be entertained by a member of the audience during the Jinky case. His dapper style initially caught my eye. As the case proceeded, I noticed that his face was so expressive and hilarious. I hope he becomes a regular. 

[ITALIA]

3 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Dodger - A custody fight over some boring dog.  The plaintiffs had been wrongfully evicted, along with their 5 children.  They couldn't keep the dog because the motels weren't dog friendly... they left the dog with the defendant and sometimes with a kennel.  There was some allegation that the dog was matted and had overgrown nails at some point.  The defendants said the "kennel" was some old lady that brought them the dog along with hot dogs and luncheon meat.  Since the plaintiffs only rarely visited the dog... JJ shouted "get another dog!" and that was it.  The female plaintiff looked like she was about to explode the whole time, but she was just a wet firecracker.  One gavel.

Delicious Sticker - The plaintiff's blotchy grey foundation was super distracting!  That shade was all wrong!  And if you are going to put the wrong shade... at least apply it evenly!  Her baby ate a sticker at a daycare that got stuck on his palate and the hospital had to take it off.  Rimmel makes a really cheap $10 foundation that's really opaque, there's really no excuse.  She only had a $200 copay and couldn't prove that subsequent fever and other medical issues down the road were related to the sticker incident.  After she puts on the foundation, she should apply some compact powder for a nice matte finish.  Don't forget to apply on neck and chest if exposed.  One makeup tip.
 

DODGER - The plaintiffs = trailer trash LOSERS. SO happy they lost. They didn't deserve to get their dog back. Thumbs up for Judge Judy.

[SandyToes]

If Dodger's parents are so hard up they can't find a place to live with their five children, how the heck can they afford a dog?  Oh, wait.  Jump up 9 or 10 posts to nails, coffee, cell phones, etc.   And @AlleC17, get with the program!  It's "Borrowed someone some money."  Come on!   ;-)

"Jinky."  There you go.  All you need to know. 

Nice job today, @Toaster Strudel!  Make up tip! hee!!

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, Zahdii said:

Priorities.  The clothes, the alcohol, the partying, the drugs, the expensive hobbies are more important than paying the rent and the utilities, and often more important than feeding the kids.

Don't forget about the extensive/expensive tats, which it seems that even those who are getting food stamps have galore. Oh, and babies. The poorer they are, the more babies they squeeze out.

[SandyToes]

Ok, today's repeat featured roly poly Mr. Lopez.  Wracking my brain to figure out which cartoon character he reminds me of. Anyone?

Gomez Addams?

Edited May 11, 2017 by SandyToes

[27bored]

Did this motherfucker just say "leave hoodboogers alone"?

Edited May 11, 2017 by 27bored

[Toaster Strudel]

JJ's America Is A Rough Place - This case is a slimy limo company owner suing a red head female driver for damage to his vehicles, while being counter-sued by her husband because the sneaky owner docked his pay for his wife's damages.  The owner was pretty slippery.  The drivers had no benefits and were contractual, but the contract did not specify the amount of deductible they'd have to pay in case of an accident.  Therefore, cunning owner could change it anytime.  Even more puzzling, shady owner stated that it was his decision whether to make an insurance claim or not, in which case (if I understand correctly) the driver might have to pay more than the deductible!  I think that's unfair because it doesn't place a ceiling on the driver's responsibility and the driver is not the one making the decision or not.  When the red headed wife was sacked for (perhaps) having too many accidents, wretched owner decided to deduct the amount (50%!!!) from her husband's paycheck.  His employment was conditional on paying that huge percentage.  The corrupt owner viewed this as an "agreement" but I view it as blackmail and coercion.  The husband was sacked too when he complained, rightly, that taking money from a person's paycheck to pay someone else's debt was illegal, he got canned too.  But in JJ's dog-eat-dog America, the wicked employer can do whatever the hell he wants with total impunity.  Not cool.  One gavel for every damaged vehicle, so, three gavels.

[Guest]

I've given myself a sabbatical of sorts from the court shows this past month. 

Today I watched the mess that was limo driver vs. bad driver. 

After I finish my whiskey sour I'm going to decide whether I'm extending the sabbatical or making more whiskey sours.

The saga continues.... 

[DoctorK]

Quote

(if I understand correctly) the driver might have to pay more than the deductible

That is not the way I heard it. The deductible is $1,000 (some fuzziness on whether the defendant knew the amount), in case of a chargeable accident, the driver is responsible for the deductible amount. If the owner decides to do some (note that he sends out bodywork) of the work in-house to avoid having his premiums going through the roof if he files a claim, he maintains the driver is still liable for the deductible amount and the owner pays the cost of in-house work and the bodywork so he doesn't have to file the claim (and have his rates raised). This sounds reasonable to me, but it was clear JJ despised him from the first words of the case; even if she accepted the process I just described, she would have ruled against him because "Aha! Gotcha! You didn't actually pay the deductible since you didn't file a claim." The only things I fault the owner for is not having the deductible amount clearly stated to the drivers, plus his unlikely claim the some of the vehicles remained unmoved and untouched for days at a time. If he decides to change to a higher or lower deductible, he needs to inform his drivers, then they have the option of agreeing or quitting.

Last case I saw today, I couldn't follow it, I was completely mesmerized by the female plaintiff's coat. Was that squirrel skins? Cat skins? Dog skins?

[Toaster Strudel]

A Thud And A Scream - Defendant bumps two leashed dogs crossing the street, resulting in one fatality.  The dead dog being a Yorkie, JJ's well of sympathy was exceptionally deep.  I don't know how much our honorable heroine pays for her Yorkies but she seemed to think that the $1200 requested by the plaintiffs was a huge bargain.  One gavel.

Yabadabadoo! - The best thing about this case was the Flintstones themed wardrobe of the defendant.  Wilma's hairstyle, only in black, and a fur jacket inspired by Barney's dashing prehistoric outfit.  This lawsuit was about car payments and JJ's favorite, "emotional distress" for which he has such a soft spot - not.  Flintstones plaintiff bought a dinosaur-mobile under her name for her asshole fiancé to drive.  Not the usual $800 beater that is the meat and potatoes of so many cases, but a real car that cost real money and probably ran reliably - and wasn't powered by human feet sticking out under it.  After the couple split each going into their own caves, the defendant stopped making payments, leading to possible repo.  The plaintiff went to pick up the car on a rainy day and her degenerate of an ex took the windshield wipers out because they were 'old' like it would be safer to drive without them.  The jerk also kept the remote and most of the keys.   When JJ adjudicated, the plaintiff lustily shouted out: "Amen! Judge Judy is good!" In the hallterview, the idiot ex-fiancé said the consecrated words of the guilty party "it is what it is" - Three gavels.

[Spunkygal]

2 hours ago, 27bored said:

Did this motherfucker just say "leave hoodboogers alone"?

I'm glad his next victim was with him in court. Not that she will take heed and run for the hills, though. She'll be a plaintiff soon.

[Schnickelfritz]

2 hours ago, 27bored said:

Did this motherfucker just say "leave hoodboogers alone"?

If she's a hood booger, what does that make him? He's the one claiming they were supposed to get married.

What's the male equivalent? Or is he implying that he was a choir boy and had no idea that she was that way?

What a charmer.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:

The best thing about this case was the Flintstones themed wardrobe of the defendant.  Wilma's hairstyle, only in black, and a fur jacket inspired by Barney's dashing prehistoric outfit.

I was thinking more like a Little Richard wig and fur vest, a la Sonny Bono in the 1968  "I Got You, Babe" era. Anyway, Noretha was so pissed off at def for dumping her for a new squeeze that she made the payment for his Dodge Avenger in Oct. That'll teach him a lesson! Yes, I too always take the windshield wipers off my car in heavy rain, if they're old. Makes sense. That's as far as I got.

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I'm going to decide whether I'm extending the sabbatical or making more whiskey sours.

I'm thinking I may need to upgrade from wine to whiskey sours myself if I want to continue watching this.

I mean, this trainwreck came after the repeat of the dough boy with the ludicrous handle of "Ricardo Buffington" and his squat, cane toad of a Smother Mother - 15 years Ricardo's senior -  who threw a drunken young girl off a party bus and left her alone at 2:30a.m. because, well, Mamma also got drunk with the kiddies. Luckily for Ricardo and his mommy, the girl managed to not get raped and/or murdered. At least I assume she didn't. Don't know if those two bothered to find out.

[Jamoche]

Whoa, party bus chaos: 20 year old defendant rents a party bus with his 22 friends, all of whom are over 21. Because people old enough to think spending hours on a bus just drinking is fun hang out with people still a year away from being legal all the time. His mom gets in a fight with one of his friends - oh, no, just a friend of a friend despite him hand-delivering all 22 invites - at 2:30AM, so they make the party bus driver (who's only 22 himself) kick her out at whatever random location they happen to be at. He's being sued because she tossed a bottle at the bus after being kicked out and broke a window. The mother of this 20 year old sees no problem with that, but then she's 35. Yeah, I won't even lay odds that she "just wanted to be the cool mom" - ie, acted no older than her child for most of her life. And the look on her face as JJ reads her the riot act - it's all "wtf? how is this a problem?"

Oh, and of course they counter-sued because it "wasn't the bus they wanted". But it was good enough to party on from 9PM to well after 2AM. JJ barely touched on the "bought the steak" theme, she was so pissed off.

Seriously, what's the deal with party busses? Driving around randomly for hours with a bunch of drunk near-teens? Sounds like a way to avoid liquor laws and noise ordinances, and a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.

That was the second case. Third one barely has time to get started. "You said in your answer that plaintiff didn't give you $420 and you don't know why he's harassing you for the playstation. Now you say he did give you the money and you didn't give him the Playstation. Judgement for plaintiff." And the halterview: "I think it was just a misunderstanding at the end of the day". Take note of this dude and never ever trust him.

[stephinmn]

Toaster Struedel! Glad you and the new kidney are doing well! 

I love you guys. Seriously. I now watch JJ on the DVR after work and wonder what y'all are thinking, and then looking for Toaster's recap!

[Guest]

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

This sounds reasonable to me, but it was clear JJ despised him from the first words of the case; even if she accepted the process I just described, she would have ruled against him because "Aha! Gotcha! You didn't actually pay the deductible since you didn't file a claim."

I kept waiting for her to bring that up. The contract (such as it was) said they'd have to pay the insurance deductible. But, technically speaking, if there is no insurance claim, there is no insurance deductible. That should have been specifically spelled out in the contract. I'm fairly certain, combined with his in-house mechanic, he's not paying anywhere near $1000 for minor scratches and dings. If I were the driver, I'd just keep ramming into shit to make sure my $1000 was money well spent. 

And good lord, I just watched the Woolly Willy "assault" case. Not only was WW setting his ex-boyfriend up, he totally faked that "assault." He sounded like Ned Flanders screaming on that video. Frankly, I could make a video of that with me pretending my cats were assaulting me -- all I would have to do is put the phone in their face and then start some high-pitched screaming, start shaking the camera around and then fall to the ground and turn the camera off. What a nutcase.

[Toaster Strudel]

Tax Helter Skelter - The defendant vandalized the plaintiff's place of business from which she'd been fired.  It looked like the handiwork of Charles Mason and his followers!  JJ didn't care since the plaintiff not longer operated at that location.  There were some accusations of stealing money that I didn't totally understand.  The vandalism had some excitement potential, but overall this case was very limp.  One gavel.

Facebook Mechanic - Another bore!  Some guy needs a new motor and takes his car to a mechanic he finds on Facebook, the car comes back dirty.  Maybe I missed something between naps? Probably, but I wasn't going to rewind! One gavel.

The second show has a theme... "non-refundable deposits"

Kitchen Harley - Plaintiff needs money and sells his Harley.  But he also wants a kitchen reno... so he trades with the plaintiff and changes his mind on the reno, and won't return the $2000 deposit.  At some point the plaintiff borrows the bike for a weekend, but the bike wasn't running so he has it fixed for $417.00.  He sues for that amount, and the deposit.  He gets the deposit but not the $417 as punishment for wanting to ride the bike one weekend.  That's JJ's America! Two gavels.

Parvottweiler - Backyard breeder sells one of nine puppies to the plaintiff, but the puppy (and two others) die, presumably of Parvo.  Let's just say that the backyard breeder isn't an assiduous vet client, she uses the Humane Society.  I wonder who docked the puppies' tails.  The defendant doesn't want to return the deposit because she offered another puppy from her diseased litter.   Today I learned a new $50 word: "neglective." One gavel.

[AngelaHunter]

Thank you Toaster Strudel. Now I know when to start the FF.

5 minutes ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Today I learned a new $50 word: "neglective."

Oh good. I can add it to the list along with yesterday's TPC's "previant" and "derogative."

It's been a good week.

[Spunkygal]

21 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Thank you Toaster Strudel. Now I know when to start the FF.

Oh good. I can add it to the list along with yesterday's TPC's "previant" and "derogative."

It's been a good week.

Hey! Don't forget "hoodbooger!"

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Spunkygal said:

Don't forget "hoodbooger!"

I haven't seen whatever case involves such a thing, and think maybe I'd rather not.

[Jamoche]

Finally figured out that I'm getting the second (by TS recap order) new episode in the afternoon one-hour block that used to be two reruns, with the other new one at its normal 7:30 time. So I did see just enough of that 33% mortality rate backyard breeder to reconfirm my vow never to watch a JJ dog dispute (other than "reunite with the owner the dog loves" stories, like Baby Boy).

Not seeing what JJ is getting at with the building being unoccupied - if she hadn't fixed it up before being billed by the landlord, she sure as hell would've had to pay for it at the end of her lease.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Jamoche

[Spunkygal]

10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I haven't seen whatever case involves such a thing, and think maybe I'd rather not.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. It ain't a THING, it's a PERSON! As in "that hoodbooger wants back the money she borrowed me." Or, "I used to get it on with that hoodbooger." Or, "she's a skanky hoodbooger." See what you missed?

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, Spunkygal said:

Tsk, tsk, tsk. It ain't a THING, it's a PERSON!

Ah, I see. So now I have no choice but to watch.

[AuntiePam]

On 5/12/2017 at 6:22 PM, Toaster Strudel said:

Tax Helter Skelter - The defendant vandalized the plaintiff's place of business from which she'd been fired.  It looked like the handiwork of Charles Mason and his followers!  JJ didn't care since the plaintiff not longer operated at that location.  There were some accusations of stealing money that I didn't totally understand.  The vandalism had some excitement potential, but overall this case was very limp.  One gavel.

 

It was one of those cases where neither party had clean hands.  Plaintiff (who looked like she had a Golden Retriever on her head) kicked defendant partner out and took client files.  Defendant then vandalized the office.  JJ wasn't going to reward either one of them.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Plaintiff (who looked like she had a Golden Retriever on her head)

A Labradoodle? Anyway, bonus in this ep in that we actually heard a litigant say "Crocodile tears" (maybe she reads this forum!) when she snarked at the def. Other than that, I have no idea what either of them was squawking about. It was nice to listen to litigants who didn't murder and bury the language, but the only person I believed was def's witness.

[Guest]

On 5/12/2017 at 7:22 PM, Toaster Strudel said:

There were some accusations of stealing money that I didn't totally understand. 

I didn't understand ANYTHING about that case but big shout out to the Defendant's witness, Mildred who not only had one of the nicest outfits I've ever seen on this show but also that ridiculously cool name. 

[AngelaHunter]

You might think of accountants as very low-key and mild-natured, but underneath those dry exteriors they're cutthroat savages! The tax preparer I had for years decided to retire early to spend time with her very elderly parents, and sold - for 20,000$ - her large client list to another tax lady, who contacted me. I began going to her and then - surprise - two years later I get a form letter from the original tax lady, announcing she was back in business and ready to see me (and everyone else on the list she sold). When I brought my tax papers to my new tax lady, I just casually mentioned the letter. New tax lady went off on such a venomous tirade (justifiably) that I'm pretty sure she would have loved to vandalize former tax lady's office or maybe even burn her house down. It's backstabbing and intrigue in the dog eat dog world of accounting!

[funky-rat]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 10:00 AM, AngelaHunter said:

You might think of accountants as very low-key and mild-natured, but underneath those dry exteriors they're cutthroat savages! The tax preparer I had for years decided to retire early to spend time with her very elderly parents, and sold - for 20,000$ - her large client list to another tax lady, who contacted me. I began going to her and then - surprise - two years later I get a form letter from the original tax lady, announcing she was back in business and ready to see me (and everyone else on the list she sold). When I brought my tax papers to my new tax lady, I just casually mentioned the letter. New tax lady went off on such a venomous tirade (justifiably) that I'm pretty sure she would have loved to vandalize former tax lady's office or maybe even burn her house down. It's backstabbing and intrigue in the dog eat dog world of accounting!

That's low.  But you'll find that in any profession that relies on having a client base.  Someone is always ready to try to steal them away from you.  My husband just left sales (despite him being excellent at it - he's staying with the same company because he loves the company) because he's been burned one too many times, including by a small-time operator he used to supply product to who asked him for advice on a number of occasions, and then turned around and stole some of his customers by undercutting him heavily, and bad-mouthing him all over the place.  To add insult to injury, he never badmouthed them, but one time simply responded to a question that was asked of him about that customer - all he said was "I used to supply them but I don't anymore".  The customer said that he wasn't interested in using the service of the customer who backstabbed him because he was loyal to my husband's company.  Apparently that equaled slandering them, and they complained to his corporate office.  Thankfully, they believed him and told the small-time supplier to take a hike and not ever ask them to supply them again.  But not everyone has the luxury of an employer who backs them. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, funky-rat said:

Someone is always ready to try to steal them away from you.

For sure. We need to follow the astute hallterview advice of many a litigant (usually those who have borrowed money and refused to pay it back): "Don't trust nobody!"

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

For sure. We need to follow the astute hallterview advice of many a litigant (usually those who have borrowed money and refused to pay it back): "Don't trust nobody!"

It is what it is!

[patty1h]

Oh. joy - a whole half hour of JJ dedicated to testosterone and dog poop.

[shksabelle]

Slightly OT. I Just watched Hot Bench for the first time. The accents; dear lord, the ACCENTS. JJ sounds like Queen Elizabeth by comparison. 

[Toaster Strudel]

A Virtuous Slob - Ah! The classic shitty dog owner that pretends not to notice when he dog is stopping, taking a shit on the grass where people and children walk on, and vigorously wiping the ground.  What a great tool a cell phone can be to perpetrate that obvious charade?  You can bet that disgusting clod did it often, he looked so slick and practiced while doing it in the video.  I can't blame Retired Cop for being furious, since he lived closer to the impromptu dog toilet than the dirtball defendant.  The plaintiff wanted to give him righteous hell, but I didn't like the way he was polishing the turd to make it look like he was calm and rational.  The buffoon had the audacity to respond "What's it to yah?" so his little dewy eyed, pure and virtuous, poor little rabbit demeanor in the court room didn't fly with me.  When he explained that he would groom the dog outdoors in a public place and would gather the fur in a ball and take it home to put in the garbage, the whole Strudel clan burst out into laughter, we had to pause.  Yeah sure, you routinely leave animal stools in everyone's way but you're fastidious with hair!  Hahahaha kill me now.  JJ saw through it too, exclaiming: "You're the kind of guy that doesn't pick up after his dog." Yes ma'am, that's exactly what this swine is.  The plaintiff brought him a bag to pick up that day's leftover turd, and yesterday's, but the defendant's stupid dog bit the plaintiff.  I get that the dog was defensive, but the defendant was probably pretending that the dog wasn't aggressive and probably was delighted when he bit. My speculation here.  I was afraid the whole time that JJ would dismiss the plaintiff's case because he should have known better than to stick around a agitated dog, but dammit it's still the owner's responsibility.  I was relieved when JJ awarded him more than his insurance deductible.  And the Oscar goes to the defendant in the hallterview: "I try to be a good neighbor" - no you don't, jerkwad.  You're the worst kind of neighbor. 4 blood-boiling gavels.