All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Guest]

I was raised in a poor, solid white trash family -- and grew up with that mindset. Until high school, I regularly said, "I seen it" instead of "I saw it" and, in my 20s, couldn't wait to get to H&R Block and get my tax return done so I could get my windfall check and buy dumb shit I totally didn't need. Utilities were always getting shut off, I drove a shitty car for years until my boss at the time gave me a raise only with the stipulation that I buy a reliable car. The only way out of my situation was to be surrounded by other people who weren't like me. Educated, witty people who I admired and emulated over the course of many years. I'm still white trash at heart, but at least I know how to function as a productive member of society and am grateful for the people who I've met in my life that helped me move past bad habits and poor behavior. 

That said, the parade of so-called takers on JJ, in all likelihood, don't have the opportunity -- or intelligence -- to dig their way out of that mindset. Shame isn't going to work for them -- in fact, it could just make them dig in more. She's not taking any moral high ground with her badgering, lecturing, and humiliation. She's just being a rich asshole given every opportunity in life scolding a bunch of poor people who were never given any. Maybe if she came from nothing she'd have some minuscule amount of empathy for other people's plight. But as it turns out, she's merely another "born with a silver spoon in her mouth" shrew who can't comprehend the day-to-day existence of people she herself wouldn't even hire to work in her home. 

Not a day goes by where I don't think to myself how grateful I am to have as much as I do. I keep several of Shelby Lee Adams' books on my coffee table and look at them every day and remind myself that the lives of his subjects could have very easily been my fate, too. And not once do I ever think the people in those pictures could benefit from a lecture about their "poor choices" or how much Judy and Byrd are paying to keep food in their mouths.

Are there scammers? Yup! But, by and large, they are the exception and not the rule. The rich and the poor work the system. And until Judy starts haranguing the rich, I'm not satisfied that picking on the low-hanging fruit serve any purpose at all.

[Brattinella]

3 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

I was raised in a poor, solid white trash family -- and grew up with that mindset. Until high school, I regularly said, "I seen it" instead of "I saw it" and, in my 20s, couldn't wait to get to H&R Block and get my tax return done so I could get my windfall check and buy dumb shit I totally didn't need. Utilities were always getting shut off, I drove a shitty car for years until my boss at the time gave me a raise only with the stipulation that I buy a reliable car. The only way out of my situation was to be surrounded by other people who weren't like me. Educated, witty people who I admired and emulated over the course of many years. I'm still white trash at heart, but at least I know how to function as a productive member of society and am grateful for the people who I've met in my life that helped me move past bad habits and poor behavior. 

That said, the parade of so-called takers on JJ, in all likelihood, don't have the opportunity -- or intelligence -- to dig their way out of that mindset. Shame isn't going to work for them -- in fact, it could just make them dig in more. She's not taking any moral high ground with her badgering, lecturing, and humiliation. She's just being a rich asshole given every opportunity in life scolding a bunch of poor people who were never given any. Maybe if she came from nothing she'd have some minuscule amount of empathy for other people's plight. But as it turns out, she's merely another "born with a silver spoon in her mouth" shrew who can't comprehend the day-to-day existence of people she herself wouldn't even hire to work in her home. 

Not a day goes by where I don't think to myself how grateful I am to have as much as I do. I keep several of Shelby Lee Adams' books on my coffee table and look at them every day and remind myself that the lives of his subjects could have very easily been my fate, too. And not once do I ever think the people in those pictures could benefit from a lecture about their "poor choices" or how much Judy and Byrd are paying to keep food in their mouths.

Are there scammers? Yup! But, by and large, they are the exception and not the rule. The rich and the poor work the system. And until Judy starts haranguing the rich, I'm not satisfied that picking on the low-hanging fruit serve any purpose at all.

Bravo!  Great post!

[momtoall]

6 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

And until Judy starts haranguing the rich, I'm not satisfied that picking on the low-hanging fruit serve any purpose at all.

Exactly!!  People are quick to condemn the "poor scammers" are mostly silently concerning the breaks, buyouts, and bailouts given to the rich.  IMO the money "handed" to the rich cost Byrd more than someone trying to get over on Section 8.

[AngelaHunter]

Just watched the motor-mouthed Ms.Henderson - single mother of an infant who gets her rent paid by the taxpayers and who thinks her best course of action is to have another baby. She trashed the landlord's place, left a filthy disgusting mess, destroyed the carpets, stole all the furnishings, and "chopped up" the kitchen counter. Why would she do that? Well, she didn't know any better.  I can understand that. Before someone told me not to, I too chopped up the counters when I used to rent. Hey, live and learn. About the landlord, she says "he's a very slumlord." Well, he is NOW, after you turned his lovely place into a slum. But who cares? She just goes to the next place where her rent will continue to be paid no matter what she does, because TPTB at Sec8 don't want to hear or know about such things.

[Florinaldo]

On 2017-07-01 at 5:20 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Weird. Yes, plaintiff was bamboozled, but she signed the paper agreeing to that so she's out of luck.

Or perhaps she was working from the delusion many people have regarding investments in that they come with guaranteed returns and profits. Which they do not, especially for small new businesses. It's a risk investors must assume. But when the returns don't start coming in, these people magically turn the risk into a loan. Unless the fledgling business owner was confident (or foolish) enough to guarantee profits in writing, it is similar to buying a lottery ticket. The person selling the stocks probably hyped the health and prospects of the scheme; that is his job, he sells. The duty of the buyer would have been to be wary or to have a better understanding of how investing works. Plus she signed a document and she cannot go back on her signature simply the whole enterprise has now petered out.

[Florinaldo]

8 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

I like that she understands she is a judge and she has to enforce the law

But is she really enforcing the law? She seems very selective about which statutes and principles apply in her court. She often says that she does not care about the laws and regulations in effect in the particular jurisdiction litigants come from: "not in this courtrroom" as she likes to say. Beyond some basic foundations, she applies the law as she would like it to be, selecting the bits and pieces closer to her heart and mindset, not as it is.

[Mondrianyone]

14 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

 "not in this courtrroom" as she likes to say.

Actually, what she usually says is "This is my playpen," which kind of tells you all you need to know in the end.

I don't really know why I watch this, but I do.

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

She has been dismissing a bunch of cases in the episodes I have caught up on lately. 

I get the feeling that if she gets a gut feeling that it's a fake case so scammers can scam her, she dismisses the case.  They still get a free trip to L.A., a night in a hotel, and food . . . but they don't win the WHOLE lottery.

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Or perhaps she was working from the delusion many people have regarding investments in that they come with guaranteed returns and profits. Which they do not, especially for small new businesses.

At least half of small new businesses last even a couple of years. If anyone asks you to invest in their new, small business, you better know the risks - know that you can lose every cent. I worked in the stock market my whole life. I rarely ever bought stocks myself but always held to the rule that you don't gamble what you can't afford to lose. Over the years I saw many people like the plaintiff, crying, "He/she told me I'd get all my money back and make a lot more!" Odds of that happening are very low.

[nora1992]

13 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Or perhaps she was working from the delusion many people have regarding investments in that they come with guaranteed returns and profits. Which they do not, especially for small new businesses. It's a risk investors must assume. But when the returns don't start coming in, these people magically turn the risk into a loan. Unless the fledgling business owner was confident (or foolish) enough to guarantee profits in writing, it is similar to buying a lottery ticket. The person selling the stocks probably hyped the health and prospects of the scheme; that is his job, he sells. The duty of the buyer would have been to be wary or to have a better understanding of how investing works. Plus she signed a document and she cannot go back on her signature simply the whole enterprise has now petered out.

But I had the feeling the defendant had no intention of ever repaying a cent of the plaintiff's money, and deliberately cobbled together an "investment agreement" instead of an IOU.  Defendant still gets the money, but never has to pay it back. 

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, nora1992 said:

But I had the feeling the defendant had no intention of ever repaying a cent of the plaintiff's money, and deliberately cobbled together an "investment agreement" instead of an IOU.  Defendant still gets the money, but never has to pay it back. 

I agree that there was something fuzzy about the whole deal and the defendant came across as not entirely competent as a businessman. However, she did sign the document in question. Why don't people take the elementary precaution of confirming in writing what they agreed upon or at least the content of their discussion (e-mail makes it so easy today); I do that after just about every meeting I take instead of relying on the changing memory of colleagues, partners or clients (and also mine). A short message mentioning "loan" would have helped her case.

Either she did not understand the concept of "investment", or she thought that risk goes only one way, up; stock value can fluctuate downwards even in the case of big companies like Apple or Ford for example, but people seldom think about that or they do not look at things over the long term.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Florinaldo

[tvfanatic13]

On July 2, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Giant Misfit said:

I was raised in a poor, solid white trash family -- and grew up with that mindset. Until high school, I regularly said, "I seen it" instead of "I saw it" and, in my 20s, couldn't wait to get to H&R Block and get my tax return done so I could get my windfall check and buy dumb shit I totally didn't need. Utilities were always getting shut off, I drove a shitty car for years until my boss at the time gave me a raise only with the stipulation that I buy a reliable car. The only way out of my situation was to be surrounded by other people who weren't like me. Educated, witty people who I admired and emulated over the course of many years. I'm still white trash at heart, but at least I know how to function as a productive member of society and am grateful for the people who I've met in my life that helped me move past bad habits and poor behavior. 

That said, the parade of so-called takers on JJ, in all likelihood, don't have the opportunity -- or intelligence -- to dig their way out of that mindset. Shame isn't going to work for them -- in fact, it could just make them dig in more. She's not taking any moral high ground with her badgering, lecturing, and humiliation. She's just being a rich asshole given every opportunity in life scolding a bunch of poor people who were never given any. Maybe if she came from nothing she'd have some minuscule amount of empathy for other people's plight. But as it turns out, she's merely another "born with a silver spoon in her mouth" shrew who can't comprehend the day-to-day existence of people she herself wouldn't even hire to work in her home. 

Not a day goes by where I don't think to myself how grateful I am to have as much as I do. I keep several of Shelby Lee Adams' books on my coffee table and look at them every day and remind myself that the lives of his subjects could have very easily been my fate, too. And not once do I ever think the people in those pictures could benefit from a lecture about their "poor choices" or how much Judy and Byrd are paying to keep food in their mouths.

Are there scammers? Yup! But, by and large, they are the exception and not the rule. The rich and the poor work the system. And until Judy starts haranguing the rich, I'm not satisfied that picking on the low-hanging fruit serve any purpose at all.

Thanks for the post Giant! Congrats to you. 

[AZChristian]

33 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

Repeats: Is it bad that I want the defendant on today's repeat Grindr 23 year old college kid with the smirky innocent act to one day soon be paired up with old lady innocent act Cynthia Martinelli? How I wish those two could do a double tag team bamboozle on each other and then have no recourse whatsoever. 

Sure.  Every 23-year-old guy on earth goes on Grinder just to find friends.  Especially friends in their 40s who are a soft touch when they can't pay their rent, etc.

[AngelaHunter]

28 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

Repeats: Is it bad that I want the defendant on today's repeat Grindr 23 year old college kid with the smirky innocent act to one day soon be paired up with old lady innocent act Cynthia Martinelli?

That would be entertaining. Cynthia would grind him down to a weeping nub. He was a slimy little creep, but plaintiff is a mature adult who knows just what he's getting into. Did he think some silly 23 year old smirking little twerp found him irresistable for his fame, his stunning good looks or hot bod? What else would anyone less than half his age want of him but money? Do men look for true, forever love on Grindr?  If I got a toyboy on some lurid hookup site, I think I might have an inkling of what he wants.

I fell asleep after that, and awoke to the circus sideshow of the couple suing the def for some renovations that weren't done and tools thrown out the window and CPS called but I couldn''t concentrate beyond thinking that these are the people breeding the next generation.

[Jamoche]

How do you have time to remove the door lock that you put in but not to put back in the original? It's maybe one extra minute to slap it in and replace the screws.

Of course the real answer is that you tossed the original.

[califred]

My episodes both say new, are these both repeats? 

[DoctorK]

califred - I get the show on a feed from Cox cable which I believe determines "new" versus "old" and they really suck at it (as they do with almost every element of a service provider). I have learned to distrust every part of their program information.

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, califred said:

My episodes both say new, are these both repeats? 

My DVR is set to record first-run only, so I assume these are new to TV. 

Except that they're old cases -- I recognized that cute blonde in the audience from a couple years ago, and one case involved a lease signed in 2013.

Do they save un-aired cases for the summer doldrums?

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

I wasn't absolving the older guy in the Grindr case, I know he went in looking to groom someone. I just couldn't take the dipshit defendant and wish JJ had really, really, super really embarrassed him for his smirky innocent routine. I can't stand people like him and wish he would have been crying by the end of the episode.

Isn't "grooming" more a case of befriending someone (usually a child) to suck them into your web?  I think what we had here was more like a john and a prostitute.  They both knew what they wanted . . . but the one who got "groomed" was the john.  

[Silver Raven]

There was a rerun this morning where a woman was suing her ex to get a dog back.  The guy was a nervous wreck, and JJ kept browbeating him.  That's not the way to get the guy to calm down. She wound up ruling for the plaintiff, but gave her money instead of the dog.

[AngelaHunter]

I feel like I should be compensated for the few minutes of my life I wasted watched "John Hall III", who I"m sure is doing his lineage proud, vs Servario and their big laptop/phone kerfuffle. I can almost overlook John III's dumb stupid behavior. He is only 21. But Servario is 27 years old, and  when you're in your teens or twenties, six years is a big deal. Anyway, both numbnuts think JJ believes that Servario sleeps in his shoes and hat, as he was wearing them when John III awakened him to accuse him of having romantic (or whatever) texts on his phone from some other boys.  I think John III( who apparently is very jealous!) just wanted a new computer so they cooked up this dumb scheme to get on JJ and get it paid for there. Don't think so.

Kudos to Byrd, who actually took time from his crosswords to pay attention to these dipshits and their silly, dreary video. Quel bore.

[Quof]

Aw, Timothy Anderson, clean cut young man whose nicely remodelled house was wrecked by deadbeat tenants. Judy even compliments him on being so organized, with before and after pictures, and awards him the full amount claimed.

Then he had to go and ruin it by quoting Rihanna/Kanye lyrics:  "All of my kindness, was taken for weakness."

[Cobalt Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Quof said:

Aw, Timothy Anderson, clean cut young man whose nicely remodelled house was wrecked by deadbeat tenants. Judy even compliments him on being so organized, with before and after pictures, and awards him the full amount claimed.

Yeah. At the risk of sounding like a filthy elitist (as if there's another kind) at the very least the defendant violated the terms of her lease by having four dogs instead of the two he was allowing, and I don't believe her son's claim that they "didn't have the resources" to look after the place at all.

[Brattinella]

12 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Yeah. At the risk of sounding like a filthy elitist (as if there's another kind) at the very least the defendant violated the terms of her lease by having four dogs instead of the two he was allowing, and I don't believe her son's claim that they "didn't have the resources" to look after the place at all.

No, they were just pigs.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Then he had to go and ruin it by quoting Rihanna/Kanye lyrics:  "All of my kindness, was taken for weakness."

I am pretty sure that this quote is not original with Rihanna/Kanye.

[Brattinella]

That house really did look gorgeous in the before pictures. 

[Guest]

All I could think with the deadbeat tenant case was, oh great -- two lucky blind people got dogs that crew "trained." Hope they saved up enough money to fix their homes.

I honestly don't know how anyone could let a house get that filthy. 

[configdotsys]

Both of the cases today drove me nuts with people not only treating someone else's property so poorly but how do you live in filth? Clutter I understand. Pack rack-ish I can get. Baby toys all over and in disarray at certain times of the day. But filth? Dog shit? Piss smells that push through rugs, pads and into the floors, rancid things that bring bugs? Who thinks this is okay to see and deal with on a daily basis? I remember watching an episode of Prison Wives a while back and while they were talking to the subject of the documentary in her rented house, there were roaches walking on the counter behind the coffee pot. She had a bunch of dogs too. That has stayed with me until this day. Ugh!

[poeticlicensed]

Timothy Anderson v. trashy tenants is reason #684 why I will never be a landlord. That home and yard were beautiful and they totally trashed it. We didn't have the resources to get up off our asses and let the dogs pee outside. Disgusting. 

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, poeticlicensed said:

Timothy Anderson v. trashy tenants is reason #684 why I will never be a landlord. That home and yard were beautiful and they totally trashed it. We didn't have the resources to get up off our asses and let the dogs pee outside. Disgusting. 

But, your honor, they had a doggy door!!!!

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I am pretty sure that this quote is not original with Rihanna/Kanye.

Heh, nope. It's been attributed to Al Capone, although no one knows for sure if he actually said it. Wherver it came from, neither of those revered bards orginated it.

“Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I am kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.”
― Al Capone

Thanks for the comments about the filthy house. I haven't watched it and now I'll be sure never to do so.

[Spunkygal]

If I had a rental property, I would schedule a visit with the tenants at least twice a year. If the property was in another town, I'd have a management company or friend or someone visit it. 

[cinsays]

I only half watch this show anymore.  Judy's arrogance and dismissal of amounts she feels too small to worry her rich brain with annoys me to no end, so I don't enjoy it like i used to.

She really needs to just retire to one of her many estates and let someone fair and fun to take over.

I think it was yesterday that I caught a show where someone brought the actual receipt as evidence of what an item cost and wanted to recover on its loss.  

But she did not consider looking at the receipt.  She, instead,  told the plaintiff that what she needed to see is evidence of what they had to pay to replace the item. 

Has it not been her practice forever to do just the reverse?  She doesn't care what it costs to replace something because it was purchased sometime before and prices go up.

Or, maybe I am losing it.

[WaitForMe]

20 minutes ago, cinsays said:

I only half watch this show anymore.  Judy's arrogance and dismissal of amounts she feels too small to worry her rich brain with annoys me to no end, so I don't enjoy it like i used to.

She really needs to just retire to one of her many estates and let someone fair and fun to take over.

I think it was yesterday that I caught a show where someone brought the actual receipt as evidence of what an item cost and wanted to recover on its loss.  

But she did not consider looking at the receipt.  She, instead,  told the plaintiff that what she needed to see is evidence of what they had to pay to replace the item. 

Has it not been her practice forever to do just the reverse?  She doesn't care what it costs to replace something because it was purchased sometime before and prices go up.

Or, maybe I am losing it.

This. Every word. (Except the part about you losing it?).

[Sarcastico]

Quote

I feel like I should be compensated for the few minutes of my life I wasted watched "John Hall III", who I"m sure is doing his lineage proud, vs Servario and their big laptop/phone kerfuffle.

This was the strangest case in ages.  Do any of you still have it saved?  Right after the opening credits, there was a brief preview clip of the case, as there always is.  And John Hall III was wearing a jacket and tie. And Judy said, "I think the two of you should go back...." But during the case he was dressed casually.  And Judy never uttered that line.  So was this a 2-parter? Did she adjourn the case, and did they came back another day?  With more evidence, and with their stories better coordinated? Did the director/producer/editors just drop the first part? And if so, why? And she didn't really give a judgment, merely saying, "We're done here."  So I assumed that neither of them got anything, and that Judy believed that the boys made it up simply to get a new laptop and/or a free trip to L.A.

BTW, even though I'm gay and live in NJ and they are gay in live in NJ (about 40 minutes away by car), I don't know them. Honestly.  Though I have the feeling we've frequented the same clubs in Asbury Park.

As I said, if any of you still have it saved, can you go back and look at the intro and the first few minutes of the case?

Edited July 5, 2017 by Sarcastico

[WhoaWhoKnew]

I cannot believe how badly that woman, her children, and dogs completely destroyed that house. I mean, you have to work to cause that much damage. I clean my place about once every two months and it' s still presentable.

I don't even want to know what that place smelled like.

[AZChristian]

7 minutes ago, WhoaWhoKnew said:

I cannot believe how badly that woman, her children, and dogs completely destroyed that house. I mean, you have to work to cause that much damage. I clean my place about once every two months and it' s still presentable.

I don't even want to know what that place smelled like.

They didn't have the resources to clean, but they sure had resources to buy food.  I am NOT fat shaming; I'm simply making a conclusion based on what was obvious.

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, Sarcastico said:

As I said, if any of you still have it saved, can you go back and look at the intro and the first few minutes of the case?

I have it and will take a look for you. I normally FF through intros and such, so didn't see that part.

 

18 minutes ago, Sarcastico said:

Judy believed that the boys made it up simply to get a new laptop and/or a free trip to L.A.

That's what I got from this case.

[WhoaWhoKnew]

I was very surprised she didn't tell those boys to "GO HOME AND TRY TO CONVINCE ANUTHA JUDGE!" 

[Sarcastico]

Thank you to anyone who can check.  I was drinking last night, but not that much.

[cinsays]

2 hours ago, WhoaWhoKnew said:

I was very surprised she didn't tell those boys to "GO HOME AND TRY TO CONVINCE ANUTHA JUDGE!" 

What I don't understand is why they were on the show.  From what I have read, the cases are found by her crew who look for interesting cases and then they talk to them about coming to the show.  So, they are supposedly passing the smell test that these people do.  Surely they should be able to judge when the participants in the case are people who are just coming on to be seen on tv and/or have a free trip, and maybe get the verdict money to split between them.  Why waste our time, her precious time, with these cases???!!

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Sarcastico said:

Thank you to anyone who can check.

So, I took a look for you, before I started drinking. The previews show the plaintiff in the same outfit he had on during the case - short-sleeved shirt, with a black t-shirt under it. On the long, semi-sideview shot, the strip of black t-shirt did look something  like a tie. I rewound and watched a couple of times just to be sure.  So - same outfit in previews as in case.

 

3 hours ago, WhoaWhoKnew said:

I was very surprised she didn't tell those boys to "GO HOME AND TRY TO CONVINCE ANUTHA JUDGE!" 

I wasn't surprised. When a case is so obviously fake and that fake so stupidly done, they aren't going to any other court and aren't even worth the extra words.

[Florinaldo]

22 hours ago, Quof said:

Aw, Timothy Anderson, clean cut young man whose nicely remodelled house was wrecked by deadbeat tenants. Judy even compliments him on being so organized, with before and after pictures, and awards him the full amount claimed.

A first he came across as cold and uncaring, but in the end I admired his composure having to deal with such disgusting people.

I was a bit surprised that he won, considering he came into JJ's court with two strikes against him: he's young and, more importantly in her eyes, he's male. But the proof of filth, neglect and damage was overwhelming; he was also very organized and coherent (I detest litigants who rifle through their papers or endlessly scroll through their e-mails and texts to find one crucial document; the time to organize your evidence is before the hearing dammit!).

The defendants are training dogs for blind people? I would not trust them to train a pet rock to stay still.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I was a bit surprised that he won, considering he came into JJ's court with two strikes against him: he's young and, more importantly in her eyes, he's male.

I just watched this and wasn't surprised. People who are serious, clear and concise and come with actual evidence (evidence actually with them today!)usually win, no matter their sex or age.

 

AZChristian

Quote

They didn't have the resources to clean, but they sure had resources to buy food.

That massive porker had the gall to sit there as we all saw the filthy hovel they left behind and say they had no "resources"? To cut the grass? To take those poor unfortunate dogs out? Walk the dogs! You might lose at least one of those chins, boy. There are no excuses under the sun for how def and her revolting children left that property.

I have to say that "Guide Dogs of America" (('m assuming that's who gave these losers a puppy) need to more thoroughly check out to whom they are giving puppies which will eventually aid blind people. They are supposed to be taught - at the very minimum - to go outside to relieve themselves. Nice job, you nasty slobs.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

People who are serious, clear and concise and come with actual evidence (evidence actually with them today!)usually win, no matter their sex or age.

I did say that he presented his case cogently and that certainly compensated for his gender and age shortcomings. But that does not always work with JJ once she has taken a dislike to a litigant.

[pagooey]

10 hours ago, AZChristian said:

12 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

Timothy Anderson v. trashy tenants is reason #684 why I will never be a landlord. That home and yard were beautiful and they totally trashed it. We didn't have the resources to get up off our asses and let the dogs pee outside. Disgusting. 

But, your honor, they had a doggy door!!!!

Evidently THE DOGS likewise did not have the resources to get up off of their own furry asses and exit to do their business!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, pagooey said:

Evidently THE DOGS likewise did not have the resources to get up off of their own furry asses and exit to do their business!

Yes, the defs seem to feel that puppies should housetrain themselves. Just cut a hole in the door for them and tell them, "You guys know what to do!" This is why I never got a puppy and adopted adult dogs (and even they had an accident or two at first which was my fault). You have to take them out multiple times per day until they get the idea and I cannot imagine anyone in that household heaving themselves from sofa or bed to do that.  "Oops, Mom! Spot just crapped on the floor again and I don't have the resources to pick it up." "Oh, well - just leave it there, son. Not our house so who gives a diddly-squat?"

I never understand people who can't even begin to take care of themselves, but think getting a bunch of animals or having babies is just a great idea.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Y'know, I don't make 34 million dollars a year, and while I sometimes feel sorry for the litigants who appear on the show, I way more often wonder how the hell any of these people get out of the house in the mornings. Eight out of ten times JJ deals with people who are getting various benefits (section 8, food stamps, disability, what have you) and seventy percent of the time those people seem able-bodied, just too lazy to do much of anything for themselves. Is Her Honor an elitist? Yeah, probably, but then I guess I am too, and I'm not rich. Hard to hold it against her when I'm usually left wondering what base stupidity these folks get up to when they aren't on camera trying to look moderately presentable.

I'm late to the party as usual, but we have litigants on this show coming on who don't have two nickels to rub together, but damn if they don't have a big screen TV and an Ipad and a laptop. I have a 32 inch color TV I bought at Wally World and a laptop I bought there for $250 six years ago and my Ipad looks like a preschool device but I do pay all my own bills EVERY MONTH ON TIME, and I actually have car insurance ALL THE TIME. (not only the day after I have an accident). So while I do feel sorry for some of the people who actually have mental problems or the grandmothers trying to raise abandoned grandkids, there's a whole cross section of people living with poor decisions on a regularly scheduled basis who expect, no, DEMAND some kind of handout if their poor decisions blow up in their collective faces. 

 

Saw the rerun with the limo owner suing the kooky ex-limo driver lady with the orange-ish bad dye job who looked like a cartoon character. I cant imagine her pulling up to my house on my wedding day and wanting to get in that vehicle. 

[Sarcastico]

Quote

On the long, semi-sideview shot, the strip of black t-shirt did look something  like a tie.

As Bart Simpson once said, "There's your answer, Fishbulb."

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I have a 32 inch color TV I bought at Wally World and a laptop I bought there for $250 six years ago

I have a 37", but it was a Xmas gift 5 years ago. I have no tablet and just got a phone last year.

 

10 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I do pay all my own bills EVERY MONTH ON TIME, and I actually have car insurance ALL THE TIME. (not only the day after I have an accident).

Me too! My car is even registered and I actually have a license that has never been revoked, suspended, expired or non-existant.

 

10 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

but damn if they don't have a big screen TV and an Ipad and a laptop

And a Tempurpedic bed and a big fishtank, etc. Are you referring that couple recently, who were "practically homeless" and nearly had to live in their car,  yet were suing for their 60" TV, among a bunch of other electronics (adding up to 5K, IIRC) they supposedly left in an empty apartment with a broken window?

 

22 minutes ago, Sarcastico said:

As Bart Simpson once said, "There's your answer, Fishbulb."

Glad I could help with that, Sarcastico!