All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AuntiePam]

32 minutes ago, Quof said:

Nope.  Exhibit A: The Turpin family, who imprisoned their children and no school inspector ever visited.

Exhibit 2: The Duggars

I hope those are outliers, and that most home-schooled kids have some outside supervision.  Don't parents need permission to take their kids out of school?  I understand that the kids won't have regular personal home visits -- if schools had the staff to do that, nobody'd need home schooling in the first place. 

JJ could have educated us all if she'd asked about the mechanics of home schooling.  I'm not surprised that she's not familiar with it, but I am surprised that she doesn't know about the thousands of people who work from home, for the government as well as private companies.  It saves everybody money and it helps with traffic congestion.

Psycho, yes -- she got kinda crude with the handyman.  I felt embarrassed for him.

[basiltherat]

I knew as soon as we found out Asshat Plaintiff was a government employee that she would be gunning for him -- and invoking Byrd and his ever-shrinking wallet!  I do totally agree with her that "working from home" on MY DIME should not be done.  Private companies, OK.  But the gov'mnt  should require their (our) employees to be in an office. If there's not enough room, have two or three shifts, if all he needs is  computer and a desk, then put him in public where Byrd and I can visit him!

I knew when she was grilling him and later the Def that she was sensing Extreme Asshat-ness on both sides, and it turned out she was right.  Throw them back to their local courts to duke it out, dog poop at 20 paces.

What was Smart Ass Homeland Security thinking when he opted to go to JJ?  Hasn't he done any research on her?  It would seem quite below his stature as a smug smarty pants to show his face on daytime teevee.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

Anyhoo, JJ disappointed me greatly in the Homeland Security/Home Schooled case.  Yeah, she was confronted with a couple of system-abusing nincompoops (both parties), but JJ herself appeared ill-informed.  Yes, government workers work from home because there isn't enough office space to accommodate them -- especially in Homeland Security.

JJ has a Pavlovian distrust and ignorance of telework in any incarnation. True, teleworking for Homeland Security may appear bizarre at first glance, but even that agency must generate a lot of administrative or low-security work that can be done through secured lines between the home and the office. I would venture to say though that the work he does at home, whether on paper or electronically, must not be of the very highest sensitivity level, because that would require a system with so many layers of security measures that it could only be achieved in a secure building.

She seems to assume that people teleworking, especially government workers, are slouching. As any other employee, teleworkers have to meet performance objectives and to perform specific tasks; if they do not, then management can establish that they are indeed abusing the privilege. So I have no problem with public servants working from home.

I also did not appreciate her berating the wife about her husband's precise employment status; I have seen cases of people not knowing precisely if the agency they work for is part of the core federal public service or is a separate employer under Canadian Law. Hell, I have even met freelances who were under the impression that they were full-time public servants. I am certain that their spouses had even less of an idea about the specifics of the situation.

Both sides in this case were ass-hats.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

Little interjection: James Spader - "Secretary"? Outstanding.

Better get to watching today's eps.

[SandyToes]

41 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Both sides in this case were ass-hats.

Amen to that a thousand times. I think JJ was so hard on the plaintiffs because she had a pretty good idea this was a case that essentially had already been tried, or that at least the merits of it had been. Suing for something you didn't get AFTER you move out?  Really?

So, for the bazillionth time, can someone please refresh me on the payouts of this show?  $5000 pool they "split" based on decision?  Or $5000 each, or does one side only win the award and the other side nothing?  Folks always seem so pissed off when they "lose" - but don't they still get a pile of cash? 

[Toaster Strudel]

I can't put a finger on it but I had a visceral loathing for Mr Homeland Work From Home. It's as if I detected, under the relaxed, smirking veneer of oily deference to JJ, a reptilian evil of unplumbed depths.

The vexatious lawsuit for the pool key is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

[WaitForMe]

2 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Anyhoo, JJ disappointed me greatly in the Homeland Security/Home Schooled case.  Yeah, she was confronted with a couple of system-abusing nincompoops (both parties), but JJ herself appeared ill-informed.  Yes, government workers work from home because there isn't enough office space to accommodate them -- especially in Homeland Security.  And no, people who home-school don't need special training, but (correct me if I'm wrong) their students do need to pass tests in order to succeed, get a diploma, etc.  Aren't they usually supervised by a school system/school board? 

JJ needed to put on her listening ears, but she was too engrossed in making the litigants look like fools.  But we didn't learn enough about what either of them did to make them look foolish, because JJ spent the whole episode trying to embarrass the plaintiff. 

Wow!  I couldn’t agree more!! I came here to see if anyone else felt the same way. I was getting ready to just fast-forward to the end because of the things she was saying about both the plaintiffs and the defendants.

I know it’s sweeps, but she’s over the top rude.  I guess that’s what makes people watch, but I’m almost ready to take a vacation from my favorite courtroom .

Edited February 14, 2018 by WaitForMe

[Mondrianyone]

I haven't seen the work-from-home episode yet, but I work from home, so I'm gonna say that qualifies me to comment.  Actually, I have no comment about the case, but the things you folks are saying reminded me of something I've been thinking for a while now.  I get the impression that JJ has been laying the groundwork for a new book for the last year or so, with her repeated comments about "Not in my America."  She says it so often I'm guessing that's the working title.  Somebody owes me a lunch if I turn out to be right.  Just bring it to my house.  Where I work.  ;o)

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

  Somebody owes me a lunch if I turn out to be right.  Just bring it to my house.  Where I work.  ;o)

Tuna fish sandwich, steak or sushi?

Edited February 14, 2018 by PsychoKlown

[Florinaldo]

47 minutes ago, WaitForMe said:

JJ needed to put on her listening ears, but she was too engrossed in making the litigants look like fools.  But we didn't learn enough about what either of them did to make them look foolish, because JJ spent the whole episode trying to embarrass the plaintiff. 

Anything outside of her personal and limited experience seems to warrant scorn and rudeness, as well as suspicion that the people involved are scammers. Her ignorance of telework in this case, of economic conditions that force even people with jobs to live in their cars or in shabby lodgings or of non-traditional family/roommate arrangements in others, are prime examples. She used of be like that about any case involving commerce over the Internet, but she has learned a little about that so there is some minute hope for her to get educated about other subjects.

I agree that in this instance she was so intent on berating both parties, especially the plaintiffs, that the facts of the case became so fragmented they were the equivalent to an aerosol sprayed all around and I could not really piece them together satisfactorily; a waste of a full episode.

 

52 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

So, for the bazillionth time, can someone please refresh me on the payouts of this show?  $5000 pool they "split" based on decision?  Or $5000 each, or does one side only win the award and the other side nothing?  Folks always seem so pissed off when they "lose" - but don't they still get a pile of cash?

From what I understand, there is a set amount for the award kitty. It is reduced by whatever is awarded to one party, and what remains is then split between the two. So litigants receive less money if they lose. I am not sure what happens when both complaints are dismissed. People may also be unhappy because they are so convinced that their cause is just, that personal pride is involved in how they react to the outcome. Plus, they are probably coached by the production staff to put on a good show.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

Or $5000 each, or does one side only win the award and the other side nothing?  Folks always seem so pissed off when they "lose" - but don't they still get a pile of cash? 

My understanding is that the 5K is split and if one side wins their judgment, it's subtracted from the payout of the other person. If one side gets 5K, the other side gets nothing, except their airfare, hotel and meals. This is how so many idiots appear here, show themselves as idiots/scammers/jerks and go away empty-handed. IIRC, one time JJ even awarded a plaintiff more than he/she was asking because the behavior of the def was so disgusting she wanted to ensure that person got nothing.

Ms. Parker - you could fool a lot of people from the back view. Horrid hag smashes plantiff's car after running a stop sign, yet thinks she's not responsible. And of course, she "found out" after the accident that - surprise! - she had no insurance.

[Bobby88]

36 minutes ago, Toaster Strudel said:

I can't put a finger on it but I had a visceral loathing for Mr Homeland Work From Home. It's as if I detected, under the relaxed, smirking veneer of oily deference to JJ, a reptilian evil of unplumbed depths.

The vexatious lawsuit for the pool key is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

So did I. The minute I saw the preview yesterday, I immediately got an abusive and controlling husband/father vibe. You know, the kind who wants his kids home-schooled not because they weren't doing well in mainstream schools, but so he can keep tabs on their every move. I got the impression that the wife was intimidated by him as well.

He reminded me very much of another plaintiff from a case back in 2001 (I saved it to my hard drive before YouTube took it down). This plaintiff was suing his neighbor for having his car impounded after he filed a false hit-and-run charge. Even re-watching it, it's hard to explain since JJ basically has to drag the story out him, but he did in fact hit the neighbor's car and said that he basically hid out when he saw the police towing his car because "I'm afraid of the police". Well, it turned out that the reason he feared police so much was because the defendant contacted said police multiple times because he suspected the plaintiff was beating his wife.  JJ questions the wife who is very hesitant with her answers to questions about whether or not her husband yells at her, etc. JJ obviously denies the plaintiff's claim and says that if the plaintiff's wife would like to talk with her in her chambers privately, she'd be happy to arrange it. Although he was more nervous and agitated than today's plaintiff, he gave similar evasive answers and just came across as not a nice person. Anybody know which case I'm talking about?

[lovesnark]

3 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

I can't put a finger on it but I had a visceral loathing for Mr Homeland Work From Home. It's as if I detected, under the relaxed, smirking veneer of oily deference to JJ, a reptilian evil of unplumbed depths.

The vexatious lawsuit for the pool key is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Me, too. The minute I looked at him, I felt extremely creeped out. Like wondering if everyone in the family has to have his permission to do anything and they have to do it perfectly his way or pay the price. Reminded me of an old episode of Law & Order where a man stole his daughters from their mother and brainwashed them, married a completely submissive, easily brainwashed woman and completely dominated every aspect of their lives. Creepy, creepy, creepy.

[nora1992]

12 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

I can't put a finger on it but I had a visceral loathing for Mr Homeland Work From Home. It's as if I detected, under the relaxed, smirking veneer of oily deference to JJ, a reptilian evil of unplumbed depths.

The vexatious lawsuit for the pool key is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Reptilian evil!  What a great phrase!  But isn't it amazing how both parents can work AND homeschool their kids?  Mom works with Univision and other networks, yet still finds the time to homeschool her children.  Perhaps that is the solution to boosting the pay of teachers across the land: they can obviously work two jobs with ease, even when it means teaching students in three different grades at the same time.  Or would that be akin to holding four jobs at the same time, if each grade is counted as a separate job?  

But a note about the daughter (JJ was wise to remove her from the courtroom): did she say she was 11?  Her speech sounded similar to that of some current third-graders I know.  Perhaps she isn't allowed to speak up much in the home?  I kind of got the same impression of the wife.  

Is the plaintiff's new house really in foreclosure?  Will there be a case related to adverse possession/squatter's rights next?

[Zahdii]

52 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

Is the plaintiff's new house really in foreclosure?  Will there be a case related to adverse possession/squatter's rights next?

If you have Netflix, look up a show called "Renters".  It's about property managers in New Zealand.  I only watched a couple of shows because once you've seen a house left full of garbage or watched the PM's order new carpet and the locks changed to get a place ready for new tenants, you've seen it all.  But one thing that struck me was the speed with which a landlord was able to get rid of a nonpaying tenant.  They go to the tenancy tribunal in the morning and by lunchtime they have the eviction papers in hand.  They head over to the house in question and either hand the paperwork over to whomever answers the door or they make copies and staple them to every outdoor surface they can find.  Within 48 hours, the tenants are gone or the police arrive to escort them out and their belongings are disposed of in whatever way the PM's see fit.

I get the impression that only falling behind a couple of months is enough to get the process started.  Here in the US, renters can hang about for months on end even after eviction has been signed off on by the courts.

[funky-rat]

16 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

 And no, people who home-school don't need special training, but (correct me if I'm wrong) their students do need to pass tests in order to succeed, get a diploma, etc.  Aren't they usually supervised by a school system/school board? 

It depends.  If they do cyber schooling, that's generally through their local school district, or an approved school through the state.  They sit at a computer and will chat with a teacher and other students.  They can compete in sports for the school, and activities.  I know someone who cyber schools their kids because they have health issues and they don't have to miss school because they are having issues - they  can do school from home while receiving treatments, etc.  Cyber Schooling, at least in our state, is always overseen by some form of government, or a school board.  Home visits can happen, depending.  Growth points must be achieved.  There is regular testing, homework, and participation in state achievement testing.  They even have to do things that qualify as gym (swimming, dance, little league, etc).  They will graduate with a standard high school diploma, either issued by the district where they live, or by a state accredited cyber school.  There are little issues transitioning to college if they so wish.

Home Schooling is GENERALLY (but not always) religion based.  There may be some cyber work, but a lot of it is done with workbooks, and may be taught by a parent.  When computer work is done, it's generally not done like cyber school, where you chat with others and watch a teacher.  It's GENERALLY CD-ROM based stuff.  The obvious issues with this are the same issues that plague SOME (not all) Christian Schools.  My BIL attended several Christian schools over the years because he had bad ADHD (before anyone knew what that was) and didn't do well in the standard classroom setting (fidgety, daydreaming, etc).  Back in the mid-80's, kids like him were shuttled off to Christian Schools for more one-on-one, and slower paced learning.  He absolutely floundered in all of the Christian Schools they tried.  This is NOT a dig at their curriculum or anything, but rather that there is ZERO oversight by anyone, and kids like him who actually thrive on structure get lost.  My late in-laws were "teachers" at one of the schools he attended (in exchange for free tuition).  Neither of my late in-laws had a high school diploma, and the school knew that.  Let that sink in.  That's not a problem unique to that particular school, either.  If BIL flunked something, a note was sent home saying "OOPS!  Your child failed (insert whatever here).  He/She will repeat the course until they successfully pass".  And he would just re-do the same workbook over and over again until he passed it.  Generally by the 3rd or 4th time he had memorized the answers, but really learned nothing.  Upon graduating from MOST of the schools he attended, students would have to take the state GED test, where they would get a GED diploma, since the schools were not accredited by the state.  Depending on the situation, transitioning to college was tough.  Not just because you had a GED, but you attended a non-accredited school, and one that did self-passed learning.  Even the smartest kids had trouble adjusting to the different environment.  When BIL was kicked out of his 3rd Christian School, he was sent back to Public School.  He should have been in 10th grade.  They wanted to put in back in 8th grade, because he was that deficient, but put him in 9th grade because they didn't want him to be 2 years older than his peers.  He had to do a lot of remedial work, but he graduated on time.  College was never in the cards for him (it's not right for everyone), but he struggled for a long time.

I know people who home school and do a wonderful job.  This is not directed at them.  But someone mentioned the Duggars, and this is very much like their situation.  The curriculum they use is scary, and they have their older kids teaching the younger ones, and they're far from the only family to do that.  I could see the Homeland Security dude using a similar curriculum and controlling every aspect of what his kids do (and don't) learn.  And if it makes it harder for them to get along in the real world, that just gives him more control.

[pagooey]

20 hours ago, basiltherat said:

Throw them back to their local courts to duke it out, dog poop at 20 paces.

To dookie it out, as it were. 

...I'll see myself out. 

[flyingdi]

Off topic but Molly Ringwald's character should have gone for Staff(Spader) instead of the eternally boring Blaine.  Sure he was douche but at  least he wasn't blah.

[AngelaHunter]

"She didn't correctively stay there." Melissa, you stupid buffalo  - no offense to upstanding buffaloes everywhere. I know you think your girlfriend is super hot stuff, but I'm pretty sure everyone doesn't think so, although the landlord may have been desperate enough to hit on her. Oh, the house was so unlivable with leaks and mold and etc, but authorities were only called when the landlord told them and their non-corrective tenant, who paid no rent (at least not to him) and drags a poor 5-year all over the place with her, to GTFO.

Then we had Jamen, he who guzzles entire cases of Budweiser, suing his former tenant/house sitter/whatever. She runs a 501 charity organization for people over 80, and SHE says she thought Western Union (known as the "Scammer's Best Friend) was the most secure way of transferring funds, even with no record and no way to ever find out who accepted those funds. She said this with a straight face, which her head-shaking, goofy witness could not sustain. I was so disappointed we didn't get to see Byrd giving him the bum's rush.

Edited February 15, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[SnarkyTart]

51 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

She said this with a straight face, which her head-shaking, goofy witness could not sustain. I was so disappointed we didn't get to see Byrd giving him the bum's rush.

Did you see her hallterview where she said the plaintiff was jealous because her boyfriend (the bearded, balding, goofy homeless-looking dude) is "beautiful"?  I didn't know whether to laugh or hurl, so I just threw up in my mouth a little.

[Mondrianyone]

On 2/13/2018 at 9:04 PM, PsychoKlown said:

Tuna fish sandwich, steak or sushi?

How could it be anything but sushi?  (I don't even like sushi, but this is a tribute lunch after all.)

[Intocats]

On 2/12/2018 at 6:18 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Hell, Patricia Bean could take them on. 

Now THAT would be a sweep ep worth keeping.

[momtoall]

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 8:19 PM, WaitForMe said:

I know it’s sweeps, but she’s over the top rude.  I guess that’s what makes people watch, but I’m almost ready to take a vacation from my favorite courtroom .

Me too!!  I periodically need a JJ break and it's break time.

[AngelaHunter]

42 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

How could it be anything but sushi?  (I don't even like sushi, but this is a tribute lunch after all.)

I'm not into raw (although I once spent an entire evening gobbling oysters but that's a whole 'nother story) but I love vegetarian sushi! It's yummy, with a splash of soy sauce and a dab of Wasabi. I'll add that to our menu?

[Mondrianyone]

Or I could drive to any one of a number of local gas stations and grab some lobsters out of the tank and we can call that lunch?  Yes, we can buy lobster at the gas station here.  Not too shabby for the middle of nowhere.  Maybe that would even entice Her Honor herself to join us.  ;o)

[NYCFree]

I did love how Judge Judy completely sussed out that the plaintiff's witness in the deserved car bashed case was the super trouble maker. My son's school mate is the equivalent of the witness, my son is the follower. I knew From sixth grade the kid was basically an attractive nuisance, and my son thought he was the coolest guy ever. Now that they are in tenth grade, my son is a tad more objective, but it's so interesting how the slick personality just shines through.

My eighties crush was Andrew McCarthy. I nearly had a cow when I realized the familiar looking dad next to me at the kindergarten entry parents' meeting was Andrew McCarthy, 25 years later (public school by the way). 

I also got super creepy dad vibe from homeland security. He reminded me of the dad from the lost balloon boy scam, the family had earlier been on wife swap.

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, SnarkyTart said:

Did you see her hallterview where she said the plaintiff was jealous because her boyfriend (the bearded, balding, goofy homeless-looking dude) is "beautiful"?  I didn't know whether to laugh or hurl, so I just threw up in my mouth a little.

No, I didn't watch. I know I'm missing a lot by skipping the hall, but by then I usually can't take any more of the litigants.  Seems one person's "beautiful" is another person's irritant. And loser. And goofball. I guess the beautiful, jealousy-inspiring boyfriend couldn't help his girlfriend pay her rent and I bet the dumb WU evidence was his brilliant idea.

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I bet the dumb WU evidence was his brilliant idea.

Yes, great evidence.  Western Union money order stubs of different weird amounts with no payee showing.  And the def said she had a checking account - which would have made cancelled checks available to her.  

Dumb, dumb, dumb.  Don't pee on JJ's leg and tell her it's raining.  She ain't dumb.

[pagooey]

16 hours ago, NYCFree said:

I did love how Judge Judy completely sussed out that the plaintiff's witness in the deserved car bashed case was the super trouble maker. My son's school mate is the equivalent of the witness, my son is the follower. I knew From sixth grade the kid was basically an attractive nuisance, and my son thought he was the coolest guy ever.

This made me laugh. In my family we had particular nomenclature for those kids; allow me to introduce That Nathan and That Bridget, respectively.  Try it with the name of your teen nemesis today! 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

No, I didn't watch. I know I'm missing a lot by skipping the hall, but by then I usually can't take any more of the litigants.  Seems one person's "beautiful" is another person's irritant. And loser. And goofball. I guess the beautiful, jealousy-inspiring boyfriend couldn't help his girlfriend pay her rent and I bet the dumb WU evidence was his brilliant idea.

I'm with you.  How many times can you hear that fresh phrase "It is what it is"?  Or better yet, the scam artists who are indignant after scamming someone and state "You can't trust nobody".

Jeepers.

[chenoa333]

Todays episode with "Sadae"? in long faux red braids.....did she prounounce "alcohol" as AKAHOL?  Our country is going down, down, down...sewer bound.

[chenoa333]

On 2/14/2018 at 12:27 PM, pagooey said:

To dookie it out, as it were. 

...I'll see myself out. 

NO, Officer Byrd will see you out! Lol.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, chenoa333 said:

Todays episode with "Sadae"? in long faux red braids.....did she prounounce "alcohol" as AKAHOL?  Our country is going down, down, down...sewer bound.

Multiple times.  And she probably looked askance at JJ when JJ put that "extra" letter "L" in there right after the first "A."

[Brattinella]

8 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

My "how many times" thing that gripes me is when the people are fighting until the finish, done with your forever, I spit on your grave, all during the "trial" and then in the hallterview it's "I love you so much!" "I just aired all our dirty secrets, but I love you and all is forgiven!" while hugging and sobbing.

The cash they split is worth the drama.

[Quof]

The only reason daughter was suing dad over the tv was because Judy was paying.  

[SRTouch]

8 hours ago, Quof said:

The only reason daughter was suing dad over the tv was because Judy was paying.  

Well, assuming these cases are really actual cases which have been filed in a small claims court somewhere. I wonder if this isn't another step in some of these idiots trying pressure and/or wake up opposing deadbeat. I mean, idiot thinks deadbeat is ignoring me, so I'll wake them up by filing a small claims case, no response, maybe deadbeat will pay up when JJ's production people call.... or, maybe at that point it's,  "forget the money, let's go on tv!" And of course they get paid a little by production, get a free trip to California and are put up in some hotel and a per diem for meals.

The ones I really question are the smug business owners who expose their shady practices on tv. I have to wonder what they're thinking? Do they not realize how potential customers might react? Are they just so smug and arrogant that they really see nothing wrong with whatever they routinely do? Or, maybe, it's "any publicity is good" or nobody i know watches, so won't matter.

Edited February 16, 2018 by SRTouch

[SandyToes]

I think it's all of the above!  And as has been mentioned before, winning in small claims does not mean you actually ever see any cash. And some of these cases are so small ($800-ish) that the loser never pays, and it's not worth it to the winner to have to split the judgement with whatever entity actually DOES collect the cash.  We've won judgements over the years from tenants, and sometimes don't see much, if any, of the cash.  The award shows as a debt owed on their credit reports, but often it's not worth the extra trouble  to us (after eviction, small claims, etc) to farm it out to be collected.  So coming on the show, if you've got a good chance of winning, often at least gets you the cash in hand.

On the other hand, the wacky cases full of baloney are certainly more entertaining! This show is kind of like Super Nanny (or whatever it was called) for me.  With that one, I'd watch, and think, "Dang!  I'm a GREAT parent after all!"  Same thing here. "I'm not as big a wacko/deadbeat/loser as I thought I was!"   That and the smackdowns...

And I agree, too, that she seems crankier than before. Sometimes the old shows are more fun to watch.

[bad things are bad]

Quote

The only reason daughter was suing dad over the tv was because Judy was paying

Dad reminded me of the Albert Collins song: 

"I don't care, what the people are thinkin' 
I ain't drunk, I'm just drinkin'"

[SRTouch]

9 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

Dad reminded me of the Albert Collins song: 

"I don't care, what the people are thinkin' 
I ain't drunk, I'm just drinkin'"

Ah, well, we've been missing chucks of JJ here this week, what with Olympic coverage edging over, then yet another school shooting.

Not going to get into it here, but IMHO repeatedly running loops of same talking heads after a mass shooting just promotes the next attention seeking nut to do the same thing... and can't think of any possible reason to show the lunatic on ground in handcuffs - only reason  to show his/her likeness on air would be law enforcement is still looking to catch the sick *******

Edited February 17, 2018 by SRTouch
Added to 2nd paragraph

[augmentedfourth]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

 

The ones I really question are the smug business owners who expose their shady practices on tv. I have to wonder what they're thinking? Do they not realize how potential customers might react? Are they just so smug and arrogant that they really see nothing wrong with whatever they routinely do? Or, maybe, it's "any publicity is good" or nobody i know watches, so won't matter.

You know who I question more? The lawyers who show up as litigants. I don't think I've ever seen a case where it went well for one. For example: yesterday's guy who clearly didn't specialize in contract law, and had to admit in front of however many million people that he'd been temporarily disbarred at least once. I bet that will really attract future clients. 

[stephinmn]

The pit bull defendant today flipped off Judge Judy after she ruled against him. Yes, she called him stupid, but he also said the plaintiff bit his own dog. 

[Quof]

Note to today's "goddaughter" defendant.  If you're going to say "Supposably", don't repeat it 3 times, so everyone knows you think that's the word.

[basiltherat]

I missed the end of the pit bull bite case today -- I was positive she was going to deliver a smackdown.  Pit bull daddy looked like Colin Mochrie from Whose Line is it Anyway? so I thought maybe he was trying to be cute on purpose.  Yup, finally a "Man Bites Dog" casse!

[Toaster Strudel]

Pitnutters can be always be counted upon to bring in delusions in the courtroom.

The antique gun case made me a bit sad, these were two decent people, but the plaintiff hasn't watched enough JJ (unlike us couch potato legal eagles) to know that "obstruction of justice" isn't actionable for damages in small claims, and that the antique store owner was not responsible. His cabinet was worthless, I hope he sees the error of his ways and apologizes to the lady.

[AuntiePam]

46 minutes ago, Quof said:

Note to today's "goddaughter" defendant.  If you're going to say "Supposably", don't repeat it 3 times, so everyone knows you think that's the word.

And aren't godchildren designated at birth?  Defendant said she'd known the defendant for 14-15 years.  So she didn't meet her "godmother" until she was 20?

[Quof]

Quote

"obstruction of justice" isn't actionable for damages in small claims,

Or any other court.  It's a crime, subject to prosecution.

[shksabelle]

“We was”, “she do”, “brung”. I don’t think Miracle’s “As and Bs” are in English. 

[Guest]

After the week I've had and the possibility of a trip south this coming week I did smile a tad when "goddaughter" did not disappoint by uttering "It is what it is". 

Yes indeed. 

[khyber]

21 hours ago, SandyToes said:

I think it's all of the above!  And as has been mentioned before, winning in small claims does not mean you actually ever see any cash.

I won a small claims case for $5000 and could never collect. After writing me a bad check he closed his account and made sure that everything he owned was in some other family member's name. Turned out he had lost many cases and I heard from others who also were not able to collect. I should have tried to get on JJ all those years ago.

[Intocats]

14 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

And aren't godchildren designated at birth?  Defendant said she'd known the defendant for 14-15 years.  So she didn't meet her "godmother" until she was 20?

I think “goddaughter” in this case is akin to “street uncle” from a previous case.