All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Spunkygal]

7 minutes ago, lovesnark said:

I can't believe he was allowed to just give these dogs away! The dogs should have been euthanized instead of being passed from one irresponsible moron to another. Not the fault of the dogs, it's the fault of idiot humans. My heart just broke for the defendant and I was very impressed at how well she kept it together when describing what happened.

I think you meant plaintiff. She was strong and I would have been a blubbering idiot. But yes, the dogs should have been put down. I shudder to think what heartache and tragedy they will cause in the future. 

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Good grief, guy says he owns a fleet of trucks - well, at least three different sized trucks - is self employed but needs a translator to converse in English and isn't sure if it was 1, 2 of 3 weeks from the time she offered  him a grand til she gave it to him.

His mental confusion may explain his money troubles, unless he has a good accountant to compensate for it.

 

13 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Poor little guys.  How horrific for their owner!

I am not a big pet person, but I can understand the grief caused by coming home to that spectacle. I also think that the dogs should have been put down, at least the older one who may have done more of the rampage.

The plaintiff amused me with her chutzpah in asking for money to change the carpet in bedrooms where no attack happened, reasoning that the carpet was now mismatched with the room where the killing happened, which she had to recarpet. JJ correctly dimissed that part and gave her only the carpet that was actually bloodstained but it made no difference in the end because of the emotional damage award which brought the total to her maximum. The plaintiff was indeed representative of a type we see on these shows, incapable of admitting that his loving dogs are prone to any form of violence and unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of his own negligence; if he had to get rid of the dogs it was his own damn fault and perhaps he should sue himself for emotional distress. I wonder if he uses the fact he is in a wheelchair as a means to escape blame in similar situations.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Florinaldo

[lovesnark]

11 minutes ago, Spunkygal said:

I think you meant plaintiff. She was strong and I would have been a blubbering idiot. But yes, the dogs should have been put down. I shudder to think what heartache and tragedy they will cause in the future. 

Thank you! I fixed it :) My heart felt nothing but rage at the defendant.  

[augmentedfourth]

No discussion for the grinning idiots who mooched off of Male Grinning Idiot's mother and stepfather for a while? Male Grinning Idiot had one of the most punchable faces I've seen on this show in a while. He also seemed to have trouble keeping his head upright, making me wonder if his idiotic grin had something to do with a large quantity of some sort of substance. However, I nearly fell over in shock when he told JJ he was 37. I guess a life of not working and just mooching off people keeps you young.

 

I agree that JJ whiffed on the e-signature case. If the rental company is coming after the daughter, they must have SOMETHING, otherwise she could just turn around and say "Screw you, you can't make me pay this." And e-signatures have totally been a thing for quite some period of time, in many different iterations. I'm a court reporter by day and trashy smut-writer by night, so I've e-signed tons of things in different ways. In no particular order:

 - One publisher I work with does PDF contracts. As a previous poster described, I made a graphic with my signature and can just stick it in the PDF where required. Done!

 - Every. single. transcript. I produce needs my signature on it. Back in the day, court reporters actually had to whip out a pen and physically sign something (they might still have to in some places), but just about everything's electronic now. In a slightly better version of the first example, apparently there's some company out in California (?) that does something with verifying e-signatures. I forget the exact details, but all I know is that about five years ago, I just had to sign the paperwork my boss gave me (I might have had to have someone else notarize it?), she sent it off, and then they sent her the necessary files and certifications where she can just plug in my signature at the end of every transcript after I email it to her.

 - My boss at another agency wasn't quite as particular. He had me print out my certification page that goes at the end, sign it, re-scan it, and email it to him so he'd have it to add to the transcripts. Hey, whatever works!

 

So yeah, definitely not some crazy new technology or anything. I hope the daughter 1) wins in another court, 2) cuts dear old Dad out of her life, and 3) puts all her personal information on lockdown and constantly monitors it because if it worked once, he will absolutely try it again.

[howiveaddict]

13 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Yep, goes along with her recent reaction to the litigant with the checking account who said she hadn't written any checks in years.... course THAT litigant, IIRC was in court suing jailbird ex (the Marlboro red and weed dude)

I, OTOH, average about 1 check written a year - just easier to buy car tags with a check.

I never got around to even buying checks for my personal account.  I bet JJ  never heard of electronic deposit of checks on a smart phone either.

 

10 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

With the website down, I was busting yesterday when JJ dismissed a case because of the e-signature and lack of a "real" signature. Hello?? aren't there people who look at these cases and let her know about technology innovations that have happened since 1950? Clearly that guy used his daughter's identity and signed the lease online. And now the leasing company is coming after her. Someone at that show needed to correct what happened. 

Maybe her assistants are as old as her and as technically behind as she is. Or it goes over her head when someone tries to explain technical things to her.

[Florinaldo]

13 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

Maybe her assistants are as old as her and as technically behind as she is. Or it goes over her head when someone tries to explain technical things to her.

Or a combination of both...

 

Using e-signatures is still considered iffy by many because someone could argue that anyone could have copied that image and stuck it into a document or contract. Unless you use a certifying service, which many people decide not to bother with because there is always the possibility of it being hacked. Then again, even real signatures can be forged.

In our company, for small contracts or agreements we do use e-signatures if requested, but we always document it with follow-up correspondence so the client or freelance confirms they were indeed the ones who signed electronically. For big-money contracts or long term projects, we still prefer a paper copy that was executed in the traditional way, for now anyway.

That case was rather messy with missing information and confusion about who signed what, when and how. Plus probable obfuscation on the part of the father.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Florinaldo

[Zahdii]

13 hours ago, lovesnark said:

I can't believe he was allowed to just give these dogs away! The dogs should have been euthanized instead of being passed from one irresponsible moron to another. Not the fault of the dogs, it's the fault of idiot humans.

It's more than that.  Owner of killer dogs stuck them with his father, who insisted they be moved after the dogs got out once and was apparently smart enough to know not to tempt fate again.  But only one dog was 'rehomed' and for all we know that dog was actually sent to a friend of the original owner.  But the second dog was "given" to his little brother as a graduation gift.  How thoughtful.  All new graduates want to start out trying to find their first real job, and presumably a place to live, and having a killer dog to take care of just makes it all that much easier. 

Little brother would be better off if he has the dog put down and claimed it got out again and got hit by a car.  Then tell big brother that he obviously isn't worthy of such an honor and refuse to take any more dogs off of big bros hands.

[SRTouch]

19 hours ago, lovesnark said:

I can't believe he was allowed to just give these dogs away! The dogs should have been euthanized instead of being passed from one irresponsible moron to another. Not the fault of the dogs, it's the fault of idiot humans.

Hmmmm, while I agree the dogs should have been taken, I'm not nearly as quick to decide they need to be euthanized. I think a responsible owner, who could provide a secure kennel/yard... these dogs may live out the rest of their lives without another incident. Ah, but responsible owners, who provide secure housing/exercise/training/socialization are extremely rare on court tv. Which is why I agree with the way some jurisdictions classify dogs as dangerous and/or aggression and set a limit on number or severity of incidents.

This defendant obviously didn't learn anything from the incident. I hope animal control in their jurisdiction has the power to force him to change how he contains his other dogs - IIRC he had 5 total, so 3 remain in a yard that the two escaped from... He's a breeder, so the number will fluctuate, and of course he has unneutered males who will go a little crazy when they sense a female in heat.... whether it be defendant's dog or a neighborhood dog down the street. And, dogs don't consider size, so his 60 pound pit might just view the chihuahua as a potential mate or challenger. 

added: heck just getting his dogs neutered would cut down on their aggressive tendencies and urge to escape (pretty sure I remember both attackers were male). May hurt his back yard breeding operation, though.

Quote

My heart just broke for the plaintiff and I was very impressed at how well she kept it together when describing what happened.

 

Yes, as I said, truly a pet owner's nightmare... it's been 4 years since I came home and found my Sammy Girl (cat) had died in her sleep. I still get a little teary eye.... and I didn't have to replace bloody carpet ?

Edited January 27, 2018 by SRTouch
Added comment

[AngelaHunter]

Dog cases: La la la, I can't hear you! 

While relaxing with a nice glass of vino, I watched the repeat of the two ridiculous old bags who ended up rolling around on the floor, grabbing each other's buns and waist-length flowing hair (Ladies, that is not a face-flattering look). I was trying to imagine myself getting into a fistfight with one of my old friends, and it really did give me a giggle. Stupid old bats should be grateful and happy they can still move that fast, instead of engaging in such outrageous behavior. 

Then we had the rerun of Lumbra, the Cartoon Lady (in her little black cocktail dress, her collegen-plumped lips and cat's eye glasses), vs. her former lovah-boy, Bagner. So enamoured was she that she was happy to start giving this shrimpy, homely, lozenge-headed, brokeass and useless momma's boy money two weeks after she met him. No matter how often we see this scenario, it never fails to astonish me that any women could sink to such a level of desperation and let the whole world know their sad state. 

[Brattinella]

18 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Dog cases: La la la, I can't hear you! 

While relaxing with a nice glass of vino, I watched the repeat of the two ridiculous old bags who ended up rolling around on the floor, grabbing each other's buns and waist-length flowing hair (Ladies, that is not a face-flattering look). I was trying to imagine myself getting into a fistfight with one of my old friends, and it really did give me a giggle. Stupid old bats should be grateful and happy they can still move that fast, instead of engaging in such outrageous behavior. 

Then we had the rerun of Lumbra, the Cartoon Lady (in her little black cocktail dress, her collegen-plumped lips and cat's eye glasses), vs. her former lovah-boy, Bagner. So enamoured was she that she was happy to start giving this shrimpy, homely, lozenge-headed, brokeass and useless momma's boy money two weeks after she met him. No matter how often we see this scenario, it never fails to astonish me that any women could sink to such a level of desperation and let the whole world know their sad state. 

I don't remember this one, but I DID find Lumbra on thedirty.com

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

I don't remember this one, but I DID find Lumbra on thedirty.com

Oh, my. I didn't find her, but had to stop scrolling. I just took a bath and didn't want to have to take another one. That site is so disgusting, so revolting, you'd almost think it was run by Harvey Levin.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, my. I didn't find her, but had to stop scrolling. I just took a bath and didn't want to have to take another one. That site is so disgusting, so revolting, you'd almost think it was run by Harvey Levin.

the search terms I used were Lumbra Bagner.  It was the first link that came up.  There are some terrible things being said about her.  Disgusting website.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Brattinella said:

the search terms I used were Lumbra Bagner.  It was the first link that came up. 

Found it, thanks. Although really sickening, nothing much surprising there, judging from her appearance on this show. I see I'm not the only one who noticed the botoxed "Duck lips" although I was too much of a lady (Ho ho!) to mentioned the massive butt implants or whatever she has jammed in there. Janky mason, folks. Janky in the extreme.

[Guest]

On 1/26/2018 at 10:28 AM, funky-rat said:

We use a specific piece of software to do it, and it says right on it that it's legally binding.  I've only had one customer refuse to do it, saying it was their policy because e-signatures are too easily manipulated, but they fail to understand that fraud is fraud, and in that case, they wouldn't be liable, but he didn't want to hear it, and got really upset. 

Could this have been JJ with a tissue over the phone trying to sound like a man? Because in my head it totally is. 

And I would like to curse JJ for making me feel not bad for a human being confined to a wheelchair in re: killer dog "breeder" case. That guy was a straight-up garbage human who hit all my check boxes: filthy backyard breeder, likely supplier of fighting dogs, irresponsible homeowner who wouldn't pay his share of obvious damages without being sued to do so. I can say with a 99% degree of certainty those dogs are still getting bred and being trained to hurt and kill other animals. I loved how he acted all, "Oh, they're [the dogs] a recognized breed" like the next stop on his journey was the Westminster Kennel Club show at Madison Square Garden and not down the street to some filthy, blood-stained basement to bet $20 on one of his former puppies. 

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

That guy was a straight-up garbage human who hit all my check boxes: filthy backyard breeder, likely supplier of fighting dogs, irresponsible homeowner who wouldn't pay his share of obvious damages without being sued to do so. I can say with a 99% degree of certainty those dogs are still getting bred and being trained to hurt and kill other animals.

I could not help wondering if the people to whom he "gave" the dogs live outside his county or city, which means it was a way to take them out of the jurisdiction of local Animal Control. He could then still be involved with their raising and training, by proxy, without legal worry.

[27bored]

The e-sig daughter’s case seemed legitimate, but JJ’s write checks at the supermarket ass can’t be bothered to figure things out. That said, she seemed a little hysterical, which is probably why she couldn’t get her case to work. I literally said, wow, she’s a big baby”. Just get all their paperwork and re-file your suit. 

[SRTouch]

7 minutes ago, 27bored said:

The e-sig daughter’s case seemed legitimate, but JJ’s write checks at the supermarket ass can’t be bothered to figure things out. That said, she seemed a little hysterical, which is probably why she couldn’t get her case to work. I literally said, wow, she’s a big baby”. Just get all their paperwork and re-file your suit. 

Very true of both these litigants. Pops acted like he won something. Nope, a win would have been a straight dismissal, dismissal without prejudice lets the daughter go home, collect actual evidence, and refile. WTH is up with people who file a law suit then come with no evidence and says trust me, I'm telling the truth? How many times have one of these idiots tried to present an unsigned contract? (Guess that's better than the idiots who present evidence hoping the judge won't read it - then it turns out winning the case for the other side.) Unfortunately, the daughter acted like she needs someone to lead her by the hand to get out of the mess dad put her in.

[Angeltoes]

And Dad needs a big foot up his ass.  I can't stand parents that pull this crap.  A coworker was telling me that his girlfriend (both are in their early 20s) has parents that are constantly asking her for money but they don't do one thing to help themselves.  Yet she works, goes to college and has her own place - in other words, she's a free-standing adult.  I said she needs to stop giving to her parents and they'll eventually stop asking, but he said she feels obligated to them because they gave birth to her.  Without thinking I snorted,"Big deal, dogs give birth, too."  I hope he didn't repeat that to her!

[funky-rat]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 6:05 PM, Zahdii said:

I think that the rental company really did have the records, but when they looked closely, they realized they could try to get the money from the scammer who has made a living of not paying his way, or go after his daughter.  The daughter is a better bet to easily get the money. 

The sad thing is that the daughter will pay or has already paid off the debt, but that incident will still be on her credit rating unless she undergoes a long arduous process to get it removed.  Ironically, the first step toward that resolution is to prove that her no good father scammed the rental agency, and they didn't do enough to make sure who they were renting to.

She won't have too much trouble getting it off her report if she is able to obtain a judgement against her dad.  She'll have to file charges, but if she does, she'll get it off easily.  I worked with credit bureaus for 7 years at my prior job.  Same goes for if you were under 18 and a parent put a bill in your name.

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 8:26 PM, Spunkygal said:

I think you meant plaintiff. She was strong and I would have been a blubbering idiot. But yes, the dogs should have been put down. I shudder to think what heartache and tragedy they will cause in the future. 

 

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 9:35 AM, Giant Misfit said:

Could this have been JJ with a tissue over the phone trying to sound like a man? Because in my head it totally is. 

And I would like to curse JJ for making me feel not bad for a human being confined to a wheelchair in re: killer dog "breeder" case. That guy was a straight-up garbage human who hit all my check boxes: filthy backyard breeder, likely supplier of fighting dogs, irresponsible homeowner who wouldn't pay his share of obvious damages without being sued to do so. I can say with a 99% degree of certainty those dogs are still getting bred and being trained to hurt and kill other animals. I loved how he acted all, "Oh, they're [the dogs] a recognized breed" like the next stop on his journey was the Westminster Kennel Club show at Madison Square Garden and not down the street to some filthy, blood-stained basement to bet $20 on one of his former puppies. 

Heh.  The dude who refused the e-signature was a bit...odd.  And what irritated me is that I was sitting and waiting on his paperwork, and the software sends him reminders, and I sent him a separate reminder that I needed him to move on it, and he acts like I should just automatically know that his policy is that he doesn't e-sign (his PERSONAL policy - not that of the entity that he works for).  I said "I didn't know....." and he cut me off and gave me a 20 minute lecture.  I noted his customer file to not do the e-sign with him.

I have a friend who is in the dog world - she doesn't breed, but she deals with sport dogs. She calls the social justice warriors for bully dogs "Pit Bull Apologists".  The ones who always do the "But they were nanny dogs!" (which has long been debunked), or the "In the 70's it was the Dobermans......" or the "Smaller dogs bite more!" crap.  I have no issue with Pit Bulls, IF their owner can tell me that they were gotten from a reputable breeder with no fighting history, and they were correctly socialized.  If yes, then they're lovely dogs.  If no, then I won't go near them.  A friend of mine has a Pit.  He was gotten from a breeder with a long history of quality dogs not from fighting stock, and he extensively read up on how to correctly socialize them, train them, etc.  I would have no issue spending time with his dog (who is also neutered).  It really upsets my friend who is in to the sport dogs when people blame children for being mauled by a Pit.  She ripped someone to shreds once who blamed a 2 year old for his own death because he picked up the dog's bone.  "It was the child's fault, not the dog's!  He should have known better!".  Um...he was TWO!  You can blame the parents until the cows come home, but in the end, the dog was vicious, and needs to be put down.  Period.  Another friend, and former co-worker, is one of these people who loves dogs just a bit too much for my case (like she's in love with her dogs - it's a bit creepy at times, and I'm an animal person), was sharing these posts that a Pit Bull rescue was putting up about this dog who was rescued from a fighting operation.  The dog was pregnant.  She had her litter and killed her pups.  Once her wounds healed, she was adopted out.  The first thing that dog did was attack and severely injure the dog the woman who adopted her already had - an elderly small dog.  I was floored when that woman decided to give her elderly dog away, and keep the Pit Bull.  I was so angry that I blocked the page, so I don't know what happened, but if that were me, the Pit would have been out the door faster than you could blink.  I'm all for rescuing animals, but Pit rescues should be tightly regulated.

22 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Very true of both these litigants. Pops acted like he won something. Nope, a win would have been a straight dismissal, dismissal without prejudice lets the daughter go home, collect actual evidence, and refile. WTH is up with people who file a law suit then come with no evidence and says trust me, I'm telling the truth? How many times have one of these idiots tried to present an unsigned contract? (Guess that's better than the idiots who present evidence hoping the judge won't read it - then it turns out winning the case for the other side.) Unfortunately, the daughter acted like she needs someone to lead her by the hand to get out of the mess dad put her in.

She had some stuff she wanted JJ to look at, but she refused, so we don't know for sure what all she had, unfortunately.

18 hours ago, Angeltoes said:

And Dad needs a big foot up his ass.  I can't stand parents that pull this crap.  A coworker was telling me that his girlfriend (both are in their early 20s) has parents that are constantly asking her for money but they don't do one thing to help themselves.  Yet she works, goes to college and has her own place - in other words, she's a free-standing adult.  I said she needs to stop giving to her parents and they'll eventually stop asking, but he said she feels obligated to them because they gave birth to her.  Without thinking I snorted,"Big deal, dogs give birth, too."  I hope he didn't repeat that to her!

My MIL never stopped asking us for money, no matter how many times we refused to finance her wasteful ways.  Just a week before she died, my husband was in the area and stopped to see her, and she hinted for money.

[SandyToes]

On 1/28/2018 at 10:44 AM, SRTouch said:

(Guess that's better than the idiots who present evidence hoping the judge won't read it - then it turns out winning the case for the other side.) 

I LOVE those cases!!!!

Today's "Literary Agent" case had me cracking up. "My memoir!"  Heh.  I actually believe the "agent" didn't have much to work with, however, she didn't deliver the goods.

[Quof]

I tried to figure out what story wanna-be author could possibly have to tell.  She was a Knicks cheerleader for 6 years in her youth.  

Oooooo, that sounds fascinating.

[Brattinella]

I looked up the Literary Agent case, the plaintiff indeed had somewhat of a stellar career.  There are pictures of her with Guiliani, Bill Clinton, Kim Kardashian among others.  She was a member of a famous Dance Troupe, and It looks like she also was a cheerleader.

 

I guess Quof's post came out at the same time, sorry for stepping on your toes.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Brattinella

[Mondrianyone]

Once again JJ doesn't let complete ignorance of a particular field get in the way of her having strong opinions about it.  First of all, writing a query letter, and then a book proposal, is not the same as writing something that says, "Dear Publisher, here's my book."  I'm pretty sure that Judy, despite having a number of published books written for her with her name on the cover as author, has never had to write a query letter or a proposal.  When you're famous and have a built-in platform, the publishers come to you, not vice versa.  The plaintiff did the right thing by trying to find someone who specializes in writing proposals.  She just happened to pick a lemon.

And how does Judy know that the plaintiff's story wouldn't be worth telling, or that there aren't potential readers for it?  I agree with Brattinella--Heather seems to have had a pretty wide range of experiences and might have some interesting stories to tell.  Or not.  Usually it's the publishers who make that decision, not some TV judge.  I guess all of Judy's books aren't vanity enterprises.  Because talking about yourself for 300 pages is almost the definition of vanity.

She also seems to have some serious well of hostility for writers as a group, who apparently think they're entitled to some separate form of justice from everybody else.  Huh?  I'd sure like to know the story behind that assessment.

Right verdict, but really crazy-pants on the way there.

[Spunkygal]

55 minutes ago, Quof said:

I tried to figure out what story wanna-be author could possibly have to tell.  She was a Knicks cheerleader for 6 years in her youth.  

Oooooo, that sounds fascinating.

It's probably who she was boinking and all the associated juicy details that were fascinating!

The plaintiff's dog in today's other case was super freaking adorable.  I'm so glad it is ok!

[Brattinella]

Just now, Spunkygal said:

It's probably who she was boinking and all the associated juicy details that were fascinating!

The plaintiff's dog in today's other case was super freaking adorable.  I'm so glad it is ok!

Oh, I loved that little dog, too!

[Angeltoes]

I had the TV on behind me while I was playing games on the computer.  I heard the plaintiff's name in the book case and thought,"Oh, it can't be..." and turned around to look at her.   Yep, it was her....forty years ago, when Heather was a preschooler, my best friend used to babysit her and her siblings.  Heather was an adorable little red-haired girl and her mom was a dance teacher.  I took a screen shot of her on the show and sent it to my friend who said OMG.  I knew it was only a matter of time before I actually recognized somebody from my life on this show!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mondrianyone said:

And how does Judy know that the plaintiff's story wouldn't be worth telling, or that there aren't potential readers for it?  I agree with Brattinella--Heather seems to have had a pretty wide range of experiences and might have some interesting stories to tell.  Or not.  Usually it's the publishers who make that decision, not some TV judge.  I guess all of Judy's books aren't vanity enterprises.  Because talking about yourself for 300 pages is almost the definition of vanity.

Amen to your whole post. JJ's snotty, elitist, "I'm here to shit on your dream" rant was atrocious today. Now, mind you, I'm sure Slam Dunk Diva (or whatever that book was going to be called) was no Gone with the Wind, but who the hell is Judy to sniff at some "nobody" wanting to write a memoir? For all she knew, she had a really compelling story to tell! (Though, from the sounds of it in the hallterview, she kinda didn't.) 

The dog case. GOD. Yes, the little dog was just sooooooo adorable!!! That being said, the second I saw the picture of the Defendant's dog, I said out loud (to no one), "That dog is emaciated!" I knew it was being starved -- and likely because he was settling some grudge with his ex-wife. Fuck that guy. Another piece of human garbage whose removal from the planet would be welcomed. I hope his stupid daughter gets the opportunity to starve him. I was glad that during the hallterview the Plaintiff mentioned that one of the dogs was adopted out by animal control. My fingers are crossed that both those poor animals met with better fates once they were removed from that shit heel who abused them. 

[DoctorK]

Quote

I knew it was only a matter of time before I actually recognized somebody from my life on this show!

I haven't seen anybody I know on court shows but we have a local low budget version of COPS called blue lights where I have seen someone I know get busted for stealing used tires and one where my car was in the background when the cops pulled over a car where no one in the car had a driver's license. The cop was funny, at one point he asked in a pleading voice, "do ANY of you have a driver's license?" Sound like JJ litigants to me.

Edited January 30, 2018 by DoctorK

[AKA...CJ86]

          Going back to the Daughter/Father identity theft case... I sympathize with the daughter.  

          I had a similar situation years ago when I was recovering from some health issues/surgery and staying with relatives.  Another relative was jumping around from relative to relative and not in a good place and while they briefly stayed with the assisting me, they learned my SSN... and later used my SSN, but with their name and info.  

          What I went through, I just sympathize with anyone with identity or SSN related theft.  IDK if every case is the same, but I know I had to jump so many hurdles... having my local SS office provide a statement that my number was my number, etc., etc.  We basically were listed almost as one person on some things, on some things I had his...terrible...credit score and him my good score... it was a long process getting everything disputed and straightened out, but eventually, it did.

          I could just imagine what the daughter had to go through.

          This case shoulda, woulda, coulda, been on another judge show with someone who wouldn't misunderstand the modern technological norms of us peons.

Edited January 30, 2018 by CyberJawa1986

[NYCFree]

My electronic "signature" for my son's school is just me typing my name into the blank space. They have an option to see your "signature" and if you click on it, a cursive font appears.

Something about Amex/Apple was recently hacked for me. In the same half hour, my iCloud email account started receiving hundreds of emails indicating I had signed up on web pages around the world, and at the same time someone tried to charge several thousand dollars worth of product on Apple using my Amex. Thankfully Amex sent a fraud alert, I don't know how they knew, because I've certainly bought many an Apple product over the years. This hack really worried me so I went to all three credit reporting agencies and froze my accounts. Amex sent me a new card. I figure whomever had my Amex number launched a program to inundate me with emails so I wouldn't notice the fraud alert one. I have it set up to receive both text and emails, so I was protected that way.

I am so happy that the starving dog was removed from the defendant's home. It also infuriates me when there is a witness or actual photographic proof and the dog owner keeps insisting "my dog was in the yard."

[SRTouch]

15 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

The dog case. GOD. Yes, the little dog was just sooooooo adorable!!! That being said, the second I saw the picture of the Defendant's dog, I said out loud (to no one), "That dog is emaciated!" I knew it was being starved -- and likely because he was settling some grudge with his ex-wife. Fuck that guy. Another piece of human garbage whose removal from the planet would be welcomed. I hope his stupid daughter gets the opportunity to starve him. I was glad that during the hallterview the Plaintiff mentioned that one of the dogs was adopted out by animal control. My fingers are crossed that both those poor animals met with better fates once they were removed from that shit heel who abused them. 

Almost makes me want to watch... I love stories where abused animals get rescued. But, no, I usually bail on the animal fight cases fairly early. Always comes down to owners not doing right by their animals. This one, as soon as I saw the skinny unkept dog picture I stopped watching. .. we seldom see an animal rescued from a bad situation on court tv. At best we see the ignorant/neglectful idiot owner get publicly lectured... heck, when they lose the money doesn't even come out of their pocket. I get upset with JJ when she goes off on one of her rants out of left field, but have to love it how she sometimes steps in to help the animals. We've seen her offer to rehome more than one dog... and who can forget her telling Byrd to go get the puppy, and pup licking Byrd while he tells her to hurry and decide the case cause he doesn't like dogs. On the down side, her prejudice against some breeds and rescue dogs sometimes has me yelling at the tv.

Edited January 30, 2018 by SRTouch

[funky-rat]

16 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I haven't seen anybody I know on court shows but we have a local low budget version of COPS called blue lights where I have seen someone I know get busted for stealing used tires and one where my car was in the background when the cops pulled over a car where no one in the car had a driver's license. The cop was funny, at one point he asked in a pleading voice, "do ANY of you have a driver's license?" Sound like JJ litigants to me.

 

The closest I came is a guy who suddenly resigned his position where my husband used to work showed up in the audience on what used to be Regis & Kathie Lee (not sure what it 's called now - this was somewhat early in 2016) when Trump first announced he'd run for President, and appeared on the show.  He stopped and talked to the guy my husband used to work with and his wife.  Hugged the wife.  Said something to the guy we couldn't hear.  There was a long standing rumor that he had quit to go work for Trump, but that was never proven.  Other than that, and three friends who appeared on game shows (and I don't count that - two did crappy, and one won a ton of stuff), my brush with fame is fleeting.

2 hours ago, NYCFree said:

Something about Amex/Apple was recently hacked for me. In the same half hour, my iCloud email account started receiving hundreds of emails indicating I had signed up on web pages around the world, and at the same time someone tried to charge several thousand dollars worth of product on Apple using my Amex. Thankfully Amex sent a fraud alert, I don't know how they knew, because I've certainly bought many an Apple product over the years. This hack really worried me so I went to all three credit reporting agencies and froze my accounts. Amex sent me a new card. I figure whomever had my Amex number launched a program to inundate me with emails so I wouldn't notice the fraud alert one. I have it set up to receive both text and emails, so I was protected that way.

Most credit cards have a fraud detection algorithm.  They may look to see if you've made other purchases recently and where they were (ie: you bought groceries in your town and then charged something across the country an hour later), or if it exceeds a certain dollar amount, or the purchase is in a high-fraud category (electronics is one).  We had two brushes with that.  Someone tried to buy plane tickets to Brazil with a credit card that didn't have a high enough limit to accommodate it and it was flagged, and once we were in our area on the east coast and someone tried to buy $2500 worth of toys at a Toys R Us in Phoenix AZ.  That 2nd one was our debit card.  They froze my husband's, but not mine.  We found out when he tried to pay for lunch at a restaurant, and it declined, but they tried my card and it went through (his mag strip was getting worn, so we assumed it was just that).  Turned out we traced it back to one of those "independent" ATM's at a flea market we'd been at just an hour before (we stopped at a branch of our bank to get money, but the ATM was broken).  In the past year or two, there have been tons of instances of skimming devices found in that area - usually at gas stations, but some times in other areas.  It's so bad that I won't gas up there if I'm travelling through.

Edited January 30, 2018 by funky-rat
Continuity

[SnarkyTart]

20 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Amen to your whole post. JJ's snotty, elitist, "I'm here to shit on your dream" rant was atrocious today. Now, mind you, I'm sure Slam Dunk Diva (or whatever that book was going to be called) was no Gone with the Wind, but who the hell is Judy to sniff at some "nobody" wanting to write a memoir?

So much this.  I can't recall a time in recent memory when I've felt more contempt for JJ than I did for this.  Her attitude was outrageous!

[Mondrianyone]

She came straight out of the gate hating the plaintiff.  You can only speculate as to why that may be, but it was actually kind of shocking.

[Florinaldo]

23 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

Once again JJ doesn't let complete ignorance of a particular field get in the way of her having strong opinions about it. 

JJ often speaks with the authority that only ignorance can bestow on the speaker.

That being said, the two litigants also seemed  rather ignorant of the real-world workings of the publishing business. For example, yes stricto sensu a "synopsis" or summary is based on an already written work. But I think that the plaintiff meant "outline" and simply got confused in the terminology; as an allegedly published author, the defendant could have corrected her during their discussions. It is common practice for authors to submit an outline of a proposed book to their publisher or the agent who would have to shop it around. Outline and sample chapter is also frequent. So if the plaintiff had a good idea of what she wanted to recount, all she had to do was communicate it to the defendant who could then have written it up it to show what the central thrust of the narrative would be, what main points would be covered and how it would all be organised and flow.

I thought that the defendant was trying to convey that the plaintiff was not providing her with the necessary material to perform some portions of the contract and thus she was in breach. But she caved in much too easily to JJ's bullying and insistence on not hearing any of that; who knows, she might have been able to establish that she had been put in a situation of impossibility of completion of the contract because of the plaintiff's behaviour. But JJ had already made up her mind, so that was out as an option.

JJ also has no idea what a cover or query letter to a publisher consists of; she does not have to, first because she would not be the one lowering herself to bother with such details, but also because her status means she can dispense with it. New authors or writers who are neither automatic bestsellers nor TV stars cannot be as dismissive with it as she was.

[AngelaHunter]

Re: Woman writing her autobiography - I feel (and yeah, I know no one cares about my feelings) that a "Title page" should be more than a piece of paper with five words typed on it. I could better - anyone could -  and I think she had off-the-charts chutzpah to think she should keep five thousand dollars for that. If litigants couldn't come together on the project, def should have said she couldn't do this, called the whole thing off and given back the money to the plaintff, minus whatever she did do, which probably amounted to a couple hundred dollars, if that. I didn't really like her smug attitude.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I feel (and yeah, I know no one cares about my feelings) that a "Title page" should be more than a piece of paper with five words typed on it.

I care how you feel! :)

A a title page though is literally just that—a page with a title on it. That alone isn't worth $5000 but I think that @Florinaldo has it right with this:

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I thought that the defendant was trying to convey that the plaintiff was not providing her with the necessary material to perform some portions of the contract and thus she was in breach. But she caved in much too easily to JJ's bullying and insistence on not hearing any of that; who knows, she might have been able to establish that she had been put in a situation of impossibility of completion of the contract because of the plaintiff's behaviour. But JJ had already made up her mind, so that was out as an option.

Little Debbie Dunker Dumpee didn't have much of a clue really when she was writing her slam book about her ex-boyfriend dumping her. The author was doing the best she could with what little Debbie had been providing her. I don't think that was clearly established in court because JJ had a bug up her ass about commoners writing books and she came out with guns a'blazing for both the plaintiff and the defendant. 

[lovesnark]

Was the plaintiff walking out today a first? I didn't get to listen very well to the first part of it but he bailed when JJ embarrassed him for being a man whore.

The idiots in the illegal rental case were real gems, too. He.just.couldn't.shut.up. so JJ gave him the boot. I felt bad for the defendant. I bet the illegal landlords owed her money.

[DuckyinKy]

Quote

Was the plaintiff walking out today a first? I didn't get to listen very well to the first part of it but he bailed when JJ embarrassed him for being a man whore.

I googled his name, and come to find out, he is quite the nut job. Litigious, man-whore, male sloot, father has a retraining order, ex-wife has a restraining order.. And his real name is Ned Hoffman, ha! 

[augmentedfourth]

The wannabe author case was at least something new and exciting, and kind of fun. I agree with whoever said JJ's decision was essentially correct, but she didn't come off as well-versed in the publishing world as she probably thought she did. The $5000 title page was hilarious, though.

 

I get what the defendant was trying to get across, and it's entirely possible she was 100% right about the plaintiff not being available and not providing the necessary materials. I think what it came down to, though, was that it was just a crappy contract. My impression was that either she on her own or she and the plaintiff came up with the contract together (or swiped one from the internet, or did a pick 'n' choose from several templates), and it wasn't until things started going south that she thought that it was a good idea to go over the contract with a more knowledgeable third party. Instead of, you know, getting the contract advice first, which would have been the smart thing to do, but then we wouldn't have a show. Crappy as it may have been, she signed it and was bound to it, so she technically didn't hold up her end of the deal. I also agree with whoever suggested it would have been wise for the defendant to say look, this isn't working out, let me refund you most, if not all of your money and we'll part ways.

 

I knew someone here would do the research on who the plaintiff was/what she did before I got here. I won't comment on whether or not there's an audience for her memoirs. However, I did have to laugh as it reminded me of my high school boyfriend who always fancied himself as an ARTISTE, and decided to start writing his memoirs at the ripe old age of 19. He emailed me (from his theatre school) to ask if I wanted to take a look, and I said sure, why not. Basically, most of it was about how for all of high school, including the year we were dating, he was in love with his best friend who had no romantic interest in him. Good times. Really riveting stuff that millions of people would want to read about. He's trying to make his way in the world of independent film now. And still waiting tables, of course.

[DoctorK]

Quote

And still waiting tables, of course.

LOL, I am in mid sixties and I know people who are still at that stage of life.

Edited January 31, 2018 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DuckyinKy said:

I googled his name, and come to find out, he is quite the nut job. Litigious, man-whore, male sloot, father has a retraining order, ex-wife has a restraining order..

Nut job man whore! Oh, damn! I need to watch this toot sweet!

2 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

I care how you feel! :)

Aww, thanks!:D Nobody else does.

2 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Little Debbie Dunker Dumpee didn't have much of a clue really when she was writing her slam book about her ex-boyfriend dumping her. The author was doing the best she could with what little Debbie had been providing her

Little Debbie! LOL! I think it was easy to see def couldn't get what she needed from the Dumpee. I still say she should have said, "You breached our contract. I can't work this way so I'm out. Here's your money back." Keeping 5K was outrageous.

Something else I watched, but which applies here too: If you say, "I was at the liberry" you're either lying or you're not using the facility correctly.

[NYCFree]

As an aside about the attitude over the memoir, I knew someone involved in one of Judge Judy's books. There was a significant disagreement about the way the book would be formatted. Judge Judy insisted on doing something that others didn't think would work. The book was not successful...

[AngelaHunter]

As for JJ being snobby, elitist and condescending to Ms. Dumpee (love that, Giant Misfit!) just for having the audacity to think she could be an author: Recently, another plaintiff here wrote a book and won her case.

JJ was nothing but admiring of and kind to her. She even wanted the copy of the book the woman brought her.  Why no "elitist" attitude towards her? There must have been something else going on with Debbie.

I'm thinking maybe Debbie the Cheerleader wrote  a sensationalistic scandal rag, a TMZ-type gossip tell-all thing, just from the way she said, (paraphrased)"Oh, I've got plenty to say!" Maybe she thought she'd cash in on the sexual harassment feeding frenzy taking place at the moment. JMO. I could certainly be dead wrong as I often am.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm thinking maybe Debbie the Cheerleader wrote  a sensationalistic scandal rag, a TMZ-type gossip tell-all thing, just from the way she said, (paraphrased)"Oh, I've got plenty to say!"

Oh, I have NO DOUBT this was EXACTLY what the book was about - the actual author lady pretty much confirmed it in the hallterview: "All she wanted to do was talk about her ex boyfriend -- I couldn't get any information out of her." And it's likely that JJ was directing her scorn only at Dumpee Debbie since JJ was privy to the facts of the case beforehand. But it just came across to me like Debbie was being used as some cipher onto which JJ projected her disdain of some pauper having the audacity of having something to say. I read it much the same way that JJ shames anyone on disability benefits - like she's just not shaming them, she's using them to shame everyone. I could be wrong! 

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, lovesnark said:

Was the plaintiff walking out today a first?

I thought he had a good reason to walk out. Whatever his real-life character (or lack thereof) was there any justification for her to dump on him with such alacrity and to humiliate him with a high level of animosity? I know: her courtroom, her rules as she likes to say.

But she also refers to it as a court of "equity". If that were true, it would have been fair and just for her to spread the love to the defendants: what's sauce for the gander should have been sauce for the two hissing geese who kept providing an irritating running commentary without any discipline from JJ. What character these two shitheads displayed made me me understand why the plaintiff believed they were involved in the damage to his car. But I guess the only thought they inspired to JJ was "sisters!".

And I feel I should apologize to the noble waterfowl for having used their genus in a comparison with those two sorry excuses for womankind.

[Brattinella]

24 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

What character these two shitheads displayed made me me understand why the plaintiff believed they were involved in the damage to his car. But I guess the only thought they inspired to JJ was "sisters!".

They should have been disciplined, kicked out.  I think JJ's prudish way of thinking got in the way of a just hearing.  Yeah, I know it really sucks to be cheated on, but keying his car and pouring toilet cleaner on his clothes is WAY over the line.  The dude did mess up, but to go over it again and again ad nauseum while the geese kept hissing and giggling.  He should have walked out the moment JJ said he wasn't getting a penny.

[basiltherat]

Romeo was the one who brought the lawsuit, so he has the burden of proof as to which of the lovelies in his harum did him wrong.  JJJ called him a nerd, but her thought bubble was saying, "What's he packin'?"

[Florinaldo]

Of course the plaintiff has the burden of proof. That does not excuse JJ for her contemptuous attitude towards him, which was in itself a contemptible choice on her part, just as her tolerance towards the two defending middle-aged hags was.

I will go back to my usual theory that in this case, as in the book contract one, her extra level of arbitrary crankiness resulted from the fact that she missed her regularly scheduled (and obviously very necessary) morning bowel movement that day.

[KittyMom4]

15 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Crappy as it may have been, she signed it and was bound to it, so she technically didn't hold up her end of the deal. I also agree with whoever suggested it would have been wise for the defendant to say look, this isn't working out, let me refund you most, if not all of your money and we'll part ways.

This is what I thought as well, once defendant realized the little Debbie* writer wasn't going to give her the information she needed she should have said "I'm done, here's your money, find someone else" especially once she found out little Debbie was going to sue, showing a typed title page and saying she didn't know what the other thing was so she just ignored it made the defendant look worse IMO. 

*tm to @Giant Misfit