All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AngelaHunter]

Just started watching the repeats and had to stop. Repulsive, fat-assed Mr. Kiser, forced by JJ to stand in front of 10 million people and admit he was in prison for beating up his mother I mean his girlfriend (must have been some beating)Berdine, who is still standing by her man, and he's fighting to get paid for his old shitbox car. Mr.Kiser - you're my hero! *sigh*

Then the little sad-sack, schmoo-like Ms. Schmidt with her "had came" and "had gaven" and plaintiff with her "That's where I was currently at that time" and oh, hell  - I just couldn't. I try and find the new eps later.

Edited June 6, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Cynna]

8 hours ago, basiltherat said:

I just LOVED the sheer disdain with which Officer Byrd switched the two cameras!  The plaintiff moved Sad Sack defendant in the same month they met!  That's what you get, lady.

I couldn't help looking them up. She's with a new 'forever love!' and he's officially divorced. His ex-wife has a new man, too. What a bunch!

[Intocats]

57 minutes ago, Cynna said:

I couldn't help looking them up. She's with a new 'forever love!' and he's officially divorced. His ex-wife has a new man, too. What a bunch!

I looked them up, too. (Now I know I'm not the only one!) Sad Sack Boyfriend has at least three different Facebook accounts. What a prize!

He needed Ms. Englund to drive him to "spend Christmas with his family"? Must mean either no car or no license (or both). What a loser!

[Brattinella]

Thank you, AngelaHunter, for the schmoo reference!  Instantly pictured in my mind, I looked them up in wikipedia.  GREAT little article there!

[AngelaHunter]

57 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I looked them up in wikipedia.  GREAT little article there!

Oh, that IS great! Li'l Abner was a schmoo conservationist. Who knew?

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Cynna said:

I couldn't help looking them up. She's with a new 'forever love!' and he's officially divorced. His ex-wife has a new man, too. What a bunch!

Look them up in another year and I guarantee they'll be with a whole NEW set of partners. Sad Sack boyfriend gave me a case of the heebie jeebies. How do these mutants find themselves partners?! 

Yesterday I got the rerun of the World's Loveliest Judge Judy Litigant -- the funeral home director who reluctantly sued the alleged murder victim's mother. I forget his name (Monty?) but OMG, what a nice man. 

[ElleMo]

53 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

Yesterday I got the rerun of the World's Loveliest Judge Judy Litigant -- the funeral home director who reluctantly sued the alleged murder victim's mother. I forget his name (Monty?) but OMG, what a nice man. 

Oh, I remember him.  He seemed so sweet. I remember thinking he probably suggested they go on JJ so he could get his money and she wouldn't have to pay.  I wondered about the circumstances - the deceased was killed but didn't qualify for the murder victims fund.  That probably means he was in the process of some crime, like a robbery or a gang shooting or maybe just had a record.  Whatever the reason, I am sure the funeral director found out the circumstances but didn't bring it up.  Most litigants would mention it just to make the other side look bad.

[SandyToes]

48 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

I remember thinking he probably suggested they go on JJ so he could get his money and she wouldn't have to pay.

I thought this, too.  Just so sweet. I thought JJ was pretty grumpy, which made him seem even kinder. Agree with your entire post!

Conversely, the repeat yesterday of the idiot couple who were going to have kids put in foster care, but jumped state lines (ND, Minnesota) so dad could reclaim custody. Yes, she loves her kids!  That's why they pulled the con to get them back with their "no unsupervised visits" dad. Poor kids. I wish we knew what happened after Auntie called CPS.  Was this the one where the mom was ironically staying at "Integrity House?" Gad.  I could have my moms confused.

Edited June 7, 2017 by SandyToes

[Guest]

5 hours ago, SandyToes said:

Yes, she loves her kids! 

I believe in the hallterview, she claimed she would "do anything for her kids." Well, I guess "do anything" means "putting them in foster care." 

Fucking dirtbag. 

[Silver Raven]

6 hours ago, SandyToes said:

the repeat yesterday of the idiot couple who were going to have kids put in foster care, but jumped state lines (ND, Minnesota)

Texas was in there somewhere, too.

[SRTouch]

12 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

Texas was in there somewhere, too.

Oh yeah, pretty good way to get around the family court/CPS. Why I understood it, Dad court ordered no unsupervised visits in ND after "excessive corporal punishment" of the 11 year old daughter. Mommy heads south to sponge off her mommy, so protective order in ND is allowed to expire. Mommy spouts nonsense about Texas CPS going to take kids away because she has epilepsy. Sure, doesn'the CPS automatically take away kids from a single epileptic parent (who if I understood correctly is living with her mother and the kid's grandmother). Mommy calls sister in Minn, gives her guardianship papers, and sis steps up, flies the kids up and prepares to raise them (her adult son also steps up, and kicks in money for the tickets). A week later, Daddy shows up with a sheriff at sister's house, demanding HIS kids. So, seeing as how ND dropped the protective order prohibiting dad from being alone with the kids when Mommy moved to Texas, Dad goes back across the border with custody. As JJ said, if only the parents spent as much time and effort into sonething productive. Sis, the aunt who stepped up and was looking out for the kids calls ND CPS and alerts them to Daddy's end run to reclaim the kids. Initially CPS takes all the kids, but daddy regains custody of the two sons - leaving 11 yo daughter in foster care. Hopefully, at some point, ND CPS will realise the girl has an Aunt across the border in Minn who is willing to take in the child. Unfortunatelly, these are not rich peolle, they had to scramble to come up with the $700 for plane tickets, so the girl may well age out of the system. And Mommy concludes her hallterview with how much she loves her children, they are NOT pawns... yeah, right.  ?

Added comment: I meant to also point out Mommy was granted custody of the kids in ND... SO WHY THE HELL did she allow her daughter to go into foster care in ND?

Case made me mad the first time, and watching it again did not lessen the feeling if disgust I feel for loving parents.

Edited June 8, 2017 by SRTouch
Comment added

[Florinaldo]

On 2017-06-07 at 8:19 AM, ElleMo said:

Oh, I remember him.  He seemed so sweet. I remember thinking he probably suggested they go on JJ so he could get his money and she wouldn't have to pay.

I had the same impression; he did come across as a nice person.

However, color me insensitive but I could not muster much sympathy for the defendant. She is the one who created the mess with her insistence that her dead son got a "proper" burial, instead of the cheap alternative the funeral director had proposed. Of course she fully knew that she did not have the "proper" money for that service, but she went on anyway, relying instead on an assistance program, which is never guaranteed in advance. I would not be surprised to learn that she knew the true circumstances of the son's death and that they would make him inadmissible to a subsidy. Instead she preferred to try and mooch the system as well as the funeral director; she displayed a very self-satisfied smile at some points in her testimony that really put me off.

Perhaps she wanted to save appearances in her community by having a big ceremony, with other people footing the bill of course.

[Bobby88]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I had the same impression; he did come across as a nice person.

However, color me insensitive but I could not muster much sympathy for the defendant. She is the one who created the mess with her insistence that her dead son got a "proper" burial, instead of the cheap alternative the funeral director had proposed. Of course she fully knew that she did not have the "proper" money for that service, but she went on anyway, relying instead on an assistance program, which is never guaranteed in advance. I would not be surprised to learn that she knew the true circumstances of the son's death and that they would make him inadmissible to a subsidy. Instead she preferred to try and mooch the system as well as the funeral director; she displayed a very self-satisfied smile at some points in her testimony that really put me off.

Perhaps she wanted to save appearances in her community by having a big ceremony, with other people footing the bill of course.

The minute it came out that the assistance program declined the defendant's request, I immediately thought that the son had been killed during the commission of a crime such as a drug deal or that he was assaulting someone and was killed in self-defense. And like you, I suspect that the defendant knew all along what really happened to her son.

I get the impression that his death was one of those situations where it was BLATANTLY obvious around town what happened to him and that the funeral fund basically declined her on the spot. Now I kind of want to know more about this case.

[Brattinella]

Someone who would insist on a "proper funeral" (read: expensive) when she knew DARNED GOOD AND WELL she could never pay for it is kind of despicable in my book.

[bear1]

Joseph "Jody" Dick needs to brush his tuft. It is sticking up in the back. And where is the plaintiff's neck? Reminds me of Jabba the Hut.

[peacockblue]

2 hours ago, bear1 said:

Joseph "Jody" Dick needs to brush his tuft. It is sticking up in the back. And where is the plaintiff's neck? Reminds me of Jabba the Hut.

I thought she looked like a real life "Cathy" The comic strip character 

Edited June 8, 2017 by peacockblue

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, peacockblue said:

I thought she looked like a real life "Cathy" The comic strip character 

I'm afraid bear1 got it right. I was so hoping Jabba's little, snappy witness would keep shouting out so Byrd could pick him up by his collar and the seat of his pants and rush him out the door, like in an old comedy movie. However, I wish we could have found out what caused the big rift and rage between Jabba and Dick. I'm sure that would have been more interesting than the rest of the case.

My FF button got a workout today. Are we being punished for something? The reruns were appalling: Latasha, the clothes designer (if what she was wearing was a sample of her design I see why she's attached like a lamprey to Mom and her money)because it was hideous.  Crocodile tears, toothless litigants, murdered English, 3 cases of "Miss Judy" and omg. New eps -  the Minnesota goofballs (not talking about the other MN goofball -  Ski-doo fool with the giant wife repeat) with shifty, slimy, watery-eyed lying plaintiff and ghastly, overly-bleached, rough looking defendant, insistent upon showing JJ and us her leathery, tatted and sagging cleavage.

Ms. Anastasio (or something like that) owned a home with a "guest house" (except def said it was a room he needed because he's still homeless and at the end said they all got kicked out for not paying rent) had a 14 year old autistic son and thought it a good idea to let def, a belligerent, nasty and ignorant bum, knock her up. Both of them were such liars they got the boot empty-handed.

[SandyToes]

44 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

shifty, slimy, watery-eyed lying plaintiff and ghastly, overly-bleached, rough looking defendant, insistent upon showing JJ and us her leathery, tatted and sagging cleavage

Okay, was this the convoluted case about evictions and unregistered cars being towed and impounded? 

JJ agreed with the eviction - I was only half listening, but "ghastly... "def rambled on about a parade of people through "her" house?  Pixie? Pinkney? That case?  Why the heck was she awarded $5K???  

Saw an oldie yesterday with Mr. Toes featuring a "student" who "borrowed" her friend/cousin/sister car money from her windfall school refund, and now wanted it back. JJ kept trying to get her to admit it was Byrd's tax money  in question, but no.  I think the fluorescent lavender lipstick cost her the case before she even opened her mouth.

[AuntiePam]

4 hours ago, bear1 said:

Joseph "Jody" Dick needs to brush his tuft. It is sticking up in the back. And where is the plaintiff's neck? Reminds me of Jabba the Hut.

I didn't notice the tuft -- the bald spots on top caught my attention.

Even though plaintiff started her testimony with a lie, I think JJ may have given her the short end of the stick.  You don't determine the value of work by looking at a list of the tasks involved.  Defendant did a lot of the work but we don't know the value of the work he did, so I don't know how JJ arrived at her calculation of damages.  It sounded to me like more than $1335 of work was left to do.

[AngelaHunter]

16 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

It sounded to me like more than $1335 of work was left to do.

Who knows? It wasn't itemized so we have no idea what he charged for the jobs in that big block of writing. I guess JJ had to calculate using the price of the work outside that he did itemize. When I had my property landscaped I had the landscaper write the cost of each job, so there would be no problem for either of us.

28 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

Okay, was this the convoluted case about evictions and unregistered cars being towed and impounded? 

Yes. No idea who these Pixies or Pinkeys were, except I think one of them is her daughter and daughter's boyfriend/baby daddy. Defendant is keeping the offspring so I thought daughter must be a druggie or a drunk. (Is that right? I get mixed up with so many grannies getting paid to take care of their own grandchildren) Could be that the place was already trashed, since plaintiff bought a short sale, and now he's trying to get def to pay for renos. I really coudln't figure it out, but the whole crew sounded like really bad news.  I think this case was much longer than what we saw. Honestly, the way some people live their lives still astounds me.

[momtoall]

Really didn't understand JJ's hostile attitude towards the plaintiff's witness in the construction case.  She's always yelling at litigants they need to have an "expert" to testify about what the defendant didn't do properly.  The plaintiff brought an expert and JJ wouldn't let him complete a sentence.  I've been having problems with my DVR so maybe I missed a part of the case that would clarify her hostility.

[AuntiePam]

momtoall, he spoke without being asked -- that's all JJ needed.  I'm not sure she knew that he was the person who finished the job. 

The plaintiff was plainly intimidated, and unprepared.  I couldn't understand why it was so important for JJ to see receipts for lumber purchased after December 16.  And we never found out why the contractor didn't finish the job.  Did he quit or did plaintiff let him go?

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, SandyToes said:

Okay, was this the convoluted case about evictions and unregistered cars being towed and impounded? 

JJ agreed with the eviction - I was only half listening, but "ghastly... "def rambled on about a parade of people through "her" house?  Pixie? Pinkney? That case?  Why the heck was she awarded $5K???  

JJ agreed with the eviction only temporarily. Plaintiff painted a pretty damning picture of defendant, and most of what what defendant said early on seemed to confirm it-  druggie daughter, cops called over domestic disturbances, inoperable cars up on jack stands, people living in trailer, on and on. At first JJ was all, yeah, I would have evicted her. But then we learn some of what plaintiff was complaining about had as much to do with his friends as hers - yep, dude was slippery and playing fast and loose with the truth. Both were more than a little trashy. Oh, and some judge somewhere must not have thought she was all that bad. She was evicted, but the next week she was back in court and eviction was overturned and she was allowed back into the house. I think JJ believed he dumped out her belongings and pawed through them, and some of what he claimed was damage caused by her occurred after he started demolition to renovate the place. By far the biggest thing, the jerk acting like JJ was suffering a senior moment and insisting she had the abatement order was right there in front of her... nope, not there no matter how much he insisted and acted like she was feeble minded for not seeing it - it's right there in front of you! Open your eyes! Can't you see it? His insistence was more than a little insulting, and she got pissed - resulting in defendant getting more than she otherwise would have. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, bear1 said:

Joseph "Jody" Dick needs to brush his tuft. It is sticking up in the back.

I actually thought had he taken a moment to brush his hair he could've been kinda good looking. I know, I have no standards. 

7 hours ago, momtoall said:

Really didn't understand JJ's hostile attitude towards the plaintiff's witness in the construction case.

My own hostility towards him came from that godforsaken outfit of his -- it looked like he was auditioning for a back up dancer for Morris Day and the Time. My god, that shirt and the jacket! And I don't know if anyone else noticed, but it seemed like he had on pointy crocodile shoes, or possibly some sort of cowboy boot? Either way, it was a whole lotta look best left behind in the dustbin labeled "1987." 

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

yep, dude was slippery and playing fast and loose with the truth. Both were more than a little trashy.

You're too kind - they were a lot trashy but I tip my hat to the Plaintiff for being the trashiest just because he seemed so shady. And in a case where the Defendant was warehousing what seemed like an entire houseful of people who had mutual restraining order against one another, that's saying something. 

[DoctorK]

Quote

I couldn't understand why it was so important for JJ to see receipts for lumber purchased after December 16

I think this was because the plaintiff was complaining that she paid the defendant for all of the materials that were required for the whole job, but that it wasn't all delivered. If that was true, she would have had to buy the missing materials after the 16th.

[Florinaldo]

In the construction case, the defendant alleged defamation and loss of business. Usually, JJ asks for proof of lost business. The guy said customers cancelled work and it sounded like he might have proof. It might not have been convincing or relevant but we'll never know because JJ shut him down with a curt "that's the nature of social media!". Did she make new case law by her ruling, finding an Internet exception to libel laws?

The plaintiff certainly seemed like a vindictive person who would pursue a contractor with her venom because she had second thoughts about the work agreed too and wanted to avoid paying for work done.

8 hours ago, SRTouch said:

By far the biggest thing, the jerk acting like JJ was suffering a senior moment and insisting she had the abatement order was right there in front of her... nope, not there no matter how much he insisted and acted like she was feeble minded for not seeing it - it's right there in front of you! Open your eyes! Can't you see it? His insistence was more than a little insulting, and she got pissed - resulting in defendant getting more than she otherwise would have. 

She may well have been suffering a senior moment and got offended that a litigant woudl ask her to actually lower herself to perusing documents submitted to her. 

[Quof]

Quote

Did she make new case law by her ruling, finding an Internet exception to libel laws

No, she pointed out that the Plaintiff posted on social media that the Defendant didn't finish the job, which was true.  That's always a full defence to claim for libel.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Quof said:

No, she pointed out that the Plaintiff posted on social media that the Defendant didn't finish the job, which was true.  That's always a full defence to claim for libel.

I was not talking about her criticizing him on social media, in language allegedly much harsher than what you couch it in. My point was that she did not pursue his statement that customers cancelled business.

 

ETA: I may well be mistaken, but the way I understand it, libel or slander can result in monetary compensation if damages, like lost business or other financial harm, can be proven.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Florinaldo

[Brattinella]

It bothered me because JJ usually just LATHERS over reading someone's FB for evidence, why didn't she even bother to look?  There may have been some damning evidence there!  I truly think she has lost some of her marbles and needs to retire.  How much money does she NEED?

[bad things are bad]

Quote

No idea who these Pixies or Pinkeys were

I thought it was "Pixley" which I found amusing as that was the Big City in the world of Green Acres

And now I hear Melania's voice singing "New York is where I'd rather stay..."

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

libel or slander can result in monetary compensation

Yes, it can. If I were to announce, hand out flyers or post, "Florinado is a heroin addict (or prostitute or whatever)" you could sue me for slander/libel. But if I said, "When I saw Florinaldo, he/she seemed to be high on drugs" that would not be slander/libel, because it's just my opinion and I'm speaking only for myself and what I perceived or saw with my own eyes.

[Jamoche]

On 6/8/2017 at 11:57 AM, Brattinella said:

Someone who would insist on a "proper funeral" (read: expensive) when she knew DARNED GOOD AND WELL she could never pay for it is kind of despicable in my book.

Also despicable - the ads that run during JJ and on the nostalgia channels about how terrible it would be to have a cheap funeral. If my family were that hard up, I'd rather they remember me by using my money to help themselves out - as it is, my beneficiaries could afford something ridiculous and I'd still rather they not spend it on that.

The rerun I got has the Tivo description "four dogs in a fight". Nope.

[Brattinella]

2 hours ago, Jamoche said:

Also despicable - the ads that run during JJ and on the nostalgia channels about how terrible it would be to have a cheap funeral. If my family were that hard up, I'd rather they remember me by using my money to help themselves out - as it is, my beneficiaries could afford something ridiculous and I'd still rather they not spend it on that.

The rerun I got has the Tivo description "four dogs in a fight". Nope.

My family has been instructed repeatedly to spend as little as possible upon my demise.  Drop me in the ocean or whatever, and go have a party.

[AngelaHunter]

The only repeat I watched (I had not seen it) was dopey plaintiff fighting over the non-existent registration for a 600$ car with vile, grotesque, nasty beast, Ms. Crooker, she of the "he knew fullhandedly" fame.

4 hours ago, Jamoche said:

the ads that run during JJ and on the nostalgia channels about how terrible it would be to have a cheap funeral.

Lovely. I think when I stopped watching all ads was years ago when they were forever blaring that nasty Christmas one - showing people opening their gifts and curling up their lips/rolling their eyes in disgust and disappointment. Spending tons of money you don't have on expensive junk no one needs is the only way to show your love!

[Schnickelfritz]

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The only repeat I watched (I had not seen it) was dopey plaintiff fighting over the non-existent registration for a 600$ car with vile, grotesque, nasty beast, Ms. Crooker, she of the "he knew fullhandedly" fame.

Actually, she said "full-headedly", which she then clarified for the judge as meaning, "he knew ahead of time". And that folks is today's vocabulary lesson from a Judge Judy litigant.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Schnickelfritz said:

Actually, she said "full-headedly",

You're right! Thanks for correction. "Full-headedly" is even better. In the five minutes between the time I turn off the TV until I post here, I seem to forget many of the pearls that emerge from  the litigants' mouths. I often write them down, but had no pen this time.:p

On another note, I see our forum has become snazzier!

[Brattinella]

2 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

On another note, I see our forum has become snazzier!

I just logged on and stuff is missing.  Did you change your "forum theme"? 

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, Brattinella said:

I just logged on and stuff is missing.  Did you change your "forum theme"? 

I didn't change anything. I just got here and noticed a few small changes, like hearts next to the notification at the top where it shows someone liked your post and things like that.

What's missing for you?

[Brattinella]

There are no doodads to quote a post or like a post, etc. 

There is only one notification area at the top, it is missing messages (and possibly something else). 

The icons for those things that ARE still present are only placeholder icons, not the actual thing (like a heart, flag, etc) 

The font is smaller and harder to read but I will fix that with the theme I guess.

[SRTouch]

37 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

There are no doodads to quote a post or like a post, etc. 

There is only one notification area at the top, it is missing messages (and possibly something else). 

The icons for those things that ARE still present are only placeholder icons, not the actual thing (like a heart, flag, etc) 

The font is smaller and harder to read but I will fix that with the theme I guess.

Yep, noticed the font change right away - too small for this old dude's eyes. ? Never messed with theme changes, but after your post simple to change font back to something easier on my eyes.

Did notice while checking out changing the theme that there is a note that if your icons are not acting right you may be able to fix it my switching back and forth between themes or clearing your browser cache of temp Internet files. The font thing was my big complaint, so I had already played with the theme before hitting any icons, so I may have inadvertently fixed the problem before I knew it existed ?

[Brattinella]

Thanks, SRTouch!  I was able to save the larger font, too.  Much easier on this old lady.  But my like icon and flag icon and all other icons are still gone.  I would add a like to YOUR post, but, um, no heart icon.  Sorry! :)

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Thanks, SRTouch!  I was able to save the larger font, too.  Much easier on this old lady.  But my like icon and flag icon and all other icons are still gone.  I would add a like to YOUR post, but, um, no heart icon.  Sorry! :)

I have all the icons I had before, so not sure what's wrong with yours? Maybe ask a mod about it?  Or try clearing your cache, as SRTouch mentioned?

[Brattinella]

I've been trying to fix this all day, AngelaHunter.  The mods have been very helpful, but the icons only work in Chrome, not Firefox.  I think I had this icon problem the last time he updated, too.

[AuntiePam]

2 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I've been trying to fix this all day, AngelaHunter.  The mods have been very helpful, but the icons only work in Chrome, not Firefox.  I think I had this icon problem the last time he updated, too.

I'm using Firefox and the icons are working -- better than before, actually.  I hope it can be fixed for you.

[Brattinella]

33 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I'm using Firefox and the icons are working -- better than before, actually.  I hope it can be fixed for you.

Thank you!  He DID fix it, perfectly!

[Florinaldo]

On 2017-06-09 at 3:27 PM, AngelaHunter said:

If I were to announce, hand out flyers or post, "Florinado is a heroin addict (or prostitute or whatever)" you could sue me for slander/libel.

Since factual truth is an absolute defence in cases of alleged libel or slander, who knows you might get away with it as far as damaging my reputation.  ;-)

I still would have to prove we lost contracts or customers because of it, as the defendant discussed above said but JJ would not look at his sugested evidence, perhaps because usually people making such claims have nothing to back it up.

On 2017-06-09 at 7:12 PM, Jamoche said:

Also despicable - the ads that run during JJ and on the nostalgia channels about how terrible it would be to have a cheap funeral. If my family were that hard up, I'd rather they remember me by using my money to help themselves out - as it is, my beneficiaries could afford something ridiculous and I'd still rather they not spend it on that.

One solution for that: funeral pre-arrangements. I have already signed all the papers for exactly what I want with our local funeral cooperative (I do not know if such entities exist down in the US) and it's reflected in my will and is known to all. My estate could certainly afford paying for all the fancy doodahs and services in those ads, but I think funeral ceremonies in general are a total waste of money that could be spent more usefully elsewhere (so absolutely no ceremony or event in my case; straight to the crematorium). I find particulary ridiculous the idea of publishing slick glossy magazine-style "memorial brochures" about the deceased to be distributed among those attending the funeral, which is being pushed in some of those ads.

There is such a societal fixation on the idea of a "proper funeral" as the litigants said in the case discussed above, that it is sadly not very surprising that in this as in other aspects of their lives, some people on TV court shows are ready to spend for services or products they cannot afford, and then find themselves in litigation over the consequences of their silly life decisions

[KittyMom4]

Quote

.  And the plaintiff annoyed the hell out of me with her won't stay in place bangs. I hate when women get talked into getting bangs that they have to continuously adjust. So annoying.

One of my pet peeves as well! My hairdresser keeps trying to get me to do 'side bangs', unfortunately my hair is fine so unless I hairspray them until they feel like cardboard, they are never going to stay to the side, they are just going to droop into my eyes. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

This defendant, ya'll, I swear. No insurance, no registration, no driver's license, and he got into a wreck with the lady plaintiff while driving his daughter to school.

[Brattinella]

2 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

This defendant, ya'll, I swear. No insurance, no registration, no driver's license, and he got into a wreck with the lady plaintiff while driving his daughter to school.

Had to love that guy!  "I was on my way to get insurance/tags/license when I got in the wreck."  JJ: No, you were taking your daughter to school!

[AZChristian]

Today we have a woman with 4 kids who moves into a rental property with her 4 kids.  Her husband moves in a couple of months later.

JJ:  How long have you been married?

Def:  10 years.

JJ:  Why didn't your husband move in when you did?

Def:  He was working out of town.

My guess . . . he was making license plates.