All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[jilliannatalia]

On 4/3/2018 at 2:59 PM, pagooey said:

I grew up with a kid named Rhea, pronounced ree-ah; she was a snooty, snotty little thing and you bet your custom rims we called her Diarrhea behind her back and maybe occasionally to her face. 

Pagooey, I'm not normally one to make a hell of a lot of religious admonitions, but are you sure it's a wise course of action to go so far as to bet anything on one's custom rims?  Not only is it bordering blasphemy, but no matter how sure a shot one's bet would seem to be, would you really want to risk your custom rims? I mean, can you even conceive of making it through the rest of your life without them?  Bet your spouse, your firstborn child, your life, or whatever else, but perhaps it would be best to leave your custom rims out of the equation.  I fear for your well-being in tempting the fates in such a flagrant manner.

[Toaster Strudel]

Has the case of the lady squatter who lived with a dude for 2 months, filed a restraining order and lived in house for free the rest of the year?

[configdotsys]

On 4/3/2018 at 9:12 PM, AZChristian said:

My favorite puppy case.  JJ figured out how much the plaintiff (irresponsible original owner) was owed by the defendant (irresponsible second owner).  Byrd held the puppy while JJ made her decision.  And he spoke the immortal words, "Please make up your mind.  You know I don't like dogs."  And the whole time, the puppy was licking him like crazy, and he didn't LOOK like he was hating it.  Anyway, JJ told the plaintiff, WE will cut you a check for the difference, so you will be fully paid for the puppy.  And then WE will keep the puppy.  She ultimately gave it to a member of her staff who have (according to reports) given the puppy a very happy home.

No money for either the jetsetting plaintiff or on the defendant's counter-suit.  Must have been sushi day . . . JJ wasn't interested in helping either one of them.

Thank you for posting this! I was afraid to watch when I saw the smug defendant say the poor baby was in a cage all day. I know that dogs when new to the home are caged, but I could tell her caging was not legit. Oddly, I decided to give it a go but as soon as they were walking into the courtroom, my DVR jumped back to the menu despite the progress bar indicating it was a 30 minute recording. I took it as a sign that I should not watch.

I'm so happy the little sweet face was put in a good home.

[funky-rat]

7 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

I must be addled more than I thought because I have no idea what you are asking...   :)

I think they want to know if it was new, or a repeat.

[SandyToes]

Yes, it was a repeat.  (the case with the awful blonde woman.) The crocodile tears in the hallterview - sheesh.  And I agree with the def - she's probably done this several times.  Ick. 

As for the puppy Mocha case, JJ did a "here's what happened" that someone posted, since soooooo many people had flooded the show asking what happened. She introduced the new family, and the puppy had been renamed Fluffy, or something.  Very sweet. 

[Florinaldo]

36 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

And I agree with the def - she's probably done this several times.  Ick. 

Yes, when she said "what else could I have done?" it really seemed like putting someone out of their home through abuse of the legal system is a normal occurrence in her world.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Florinaldo

[AZChristian]

Here's the update on "Foxy."  Wonderful ending to the case.

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Has the case of the lady squatter who lived with a dude for 2 months, filed a restraining order and lived in house for free the rest of the year?

Yes, Toni Meadows from MN. Charming beast, she was and this was a repeat. Defeated little def started "pushin' and shovin' and drinkin' and swearin' at her. He was such a big meanie, he pushed her down the stairs!

JJ wanted her medical records because if one is pushed down a flight of stairs, one usually sustains some sort of owwie. OH, well, Toni explains, he tried to push her down the stairs. Same thing, no?

I was disturbed that the police automatically believed that he was abusing her and threw him out of his own house for nearly a year. leaving that hag and her boy to squat there. It was like a TPC rerun the other day, where a vicious witch punches and scratches her boyfriend and vandalized his car. The cops come, she lies to them and they instantly put the cuffs on him. The whole thing was on camera, but they never arrested her or even spoke to her later. Does looking like a cheap, rough Hooker on the Point grant a person immunity for crimes they commit?

[augmentedfourth]

13 hours ago, jilliannatalia said:

I'm not quite sure where in my area to get a gun legally, though I know through my work where to obtain one illegally. I certainly don'y want to make a heavily overly political  post, but I don't like it any more than the next person does when my regular television viewing is interrupted for news stories about which I care, but about  which I don't wish to watch endless hours of coverage if for no great reason other than that my older child is 3 1/2 and is no longer napping for very long.  Judge Judy is on when he gets up.  As long as it isn't too explicit a case, I let him watch it with me as we color or assemble puzzles on the floor in view of the TV. (I am well aware of just what a stellar parenting practice this is.)  I cannot, however, justify allowing the child to view coverage of the weekly mass shootings.  A parent has to draw the line somewhere. 

My speech-delayed 3 year old can clearly say Judge Judy, Wayne, and Drew. (Oh, and new car!) I'm not saying we watch CBS all day every day, because we don't, but she definitely knows the key players of the daytime lineup. 

[One Tough Cookie]

On 4/3/2018 at 9:12 PM, AZChristian said:

My favorite puppy case.  JJ figured out how much the plaintiff (irresponsible original owner) was owed by the defendant (irresponsible second owner).  Byrd held the puppy while JJ made her decision.  And he spoke the immortal words, "Please make up your mind.  You know I don't like dogs."  And the whole time, the puppy was licking him like crazy, and he didn't LOOK like he was hating i

Oh my God, my heart melted with each lick.

So nice to see Crystal Methven make make a surprise week end appearance!

[Brattinella]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was disturbed that the police automatically believed that he was abusing her and threw him out of his own house for nearly a year. leaving that hag and her boy to squat there. It was like a TPC rerun the other day, where a vicious witch punches and scratches her boyfriend and vandalized his car. The cops come, she lies to them and they instantly put the cuffs on him. The whole thing was on camera, but they never arrested her or even spoke to her later. Does looking like a cheap, rough Hooker on the Point grant a person immunity for crimes they commit?

It seems in 'real' cop shows, like Live PD, when there is a domestic assault call, in 90% (IMO) of the calls, the man is arrested, even though the MAN bears the wounds and bruises.  This is patently unfair and is NOT what I consider 'equality of the sexes'.  Yes, there are cases where both people have marks, and they should both go to jail.  There truly ARE men who are battered on a regular basis.  I know one.

[bad things are bad]

I would imagine that statistically men are the majority of the abusers. Doesn't means that they should automatically be arrested but if you don't have any other evidence, you're going with the odds. 

[funky-rat]

32 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

It seems in 'real' cop shows, like Live PD, when there is a domestic assault call, in 90% (IMO) of the calls, the man is arrested, even though the MAN bears the wounds and bruises.  This is patently unfair and is NOT what I consider 'equality of the sexes'.  Yes, there are cases where both people have marks, and they should both go to jail.  There truly ARE men who are battered on a regular basis.  I know one.

My mom's brother was beaten by his wife on a regular basis.  We could never convince him to leave - he didn't want to be alone.  We thought we had him convinced once when his wife was on an involuntary psych hold for hitting him in a grocery store hard enough to give him a bloody nose and break his glasses.  Then one of the doctors told him that if he left her, she'd probably kill herself, and he couldn't live with the guilt.  She died a few years ago, and he has some peace, but he still cries over her sometimes, and how much he misses her.  Breaks my heart.

[AngelaHunter]

28 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

90% (IMO) of the calls, the man is arrested, even though the MAN bears the wounds and bruises.

I believe that, even when (as in TPC case) the man called the cops. Who the hell calls the police when he's doing the battering? I think many men do not want to admit a woman is pounding on them, but I'm sure it happens a lot more than we know. Some men were raised being told never to hit a woman, but IMO, if a woman (or anyone) is throwing punches she should expect to get the same in return.

[SandyToes]

I'd bet good money that the smirky snowflake teen hit-and-run driver has been in trouble again, and will be incarcerated soon. Hope no one dies in the meantime. Judy usually enters all smiley. Man, she was loaded for bear from the get go. And rightly so.

Oh, Levi, Levi, Levi.  Good on you for trying to make child support payments. But I don't know that there's much between those sweet little ears.  I haven't laughed so hard at a case in a long time. They deserve each other, but as per usual, there is a small child involved who will have to be the grown up in that family.  Sigh.

[27bored]

So the Plaintiff’s neighbor in the hit-and-run case was named Michael Kelso? Like, fr fr? And he was suing a man named Joey Diaz? Wow.

The second case with the girl who apparently had a baby with Buckwheat was...not over soon enough.

[Sarcastico]

Nothing could force me to sit through the rerun of the Knife Sisters. But I do have a question: was it possible that Neshdae was jealous of her sister's relationship with Kayesha, and wanted Kayesha for herself?

[pagooey]

On 4/5/2018 at 7:35 AM, augmentedfourth said:

My speech-delayed 3 year old can clearly say Judge Judy, Wayne, and Drew. (Oh, and new car!)

1. This is adorable; I want to hear a little schmoop saying all of these things. 2. I first learned to tell time by the t.v. schedule, so the daily routine packs in more lessons than you might realize! 

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, Sarcastico said:

But I do have a question: was it possible that Neshdae was jealous of her sister's relationship with Kayesha, and wanted Kayesha for herself?

I'd rather not think about that, but maybe Kayesha got enough whisker burns with her errant baby daddy, and couldn't take the thought of more from Neshdae.

[jilliannatalia]

1 hour ago, pagooey said:

 2. I first learned to tell time by the t.v. schedule, so the daily routine packs in more lessons than you might realize! 

Remember that movie I Am Sam? One of my favorite parts was when the Dianne Wiest character heard the baby screaming and came to the rescue. She tried to tell Sam to give the baby formula every two hours, referencing the clock, but Sam just wasn't getting her drift, so she used TV programs as a reference point  for when to feed Lucy. I understand that the movie was Hollywood and not real life, but from my master degree studies, I could say that there was a definite element of realism in parts of the movie.

[Sweedish Fish]

On 4/3/2018 at 5:59 PM, pagooey said:

I grew up with a kid named Rhea, pronounced ree-ah; she was a snooty, snotty little thing and you bet your custom rims we called her Diarrhea behind her back and maybe occasionally to her face. 

 oh, Rhea was my most loved name.  From Stevie Nicks Rhiannon, to naming a cat that.

Not to mention Rhea of the Coos , Stephen King

Called my niece by that name, it was close.

 

I'm ruined.  ruined tell ya.    

[AngelaHunter]

I am so behind. Apologies. Just saw "Cadon" - another genius who graduated high school at 19. He may work now and then "according to his needs" but not too much. Why would he? Daddy gives him cars, feeds him, believes all his bs stories and defends him to the death. Cadon needed to be dragged out of this, the dumb smirk wiped his face, and put right into boot camp.

Is there something in the water these days that's killing brain cells, or are people just getting dumber naturally. The idiot who says in the hall he helped out his girlfriend's family? She and her offspring discussed it and decided what they really needed to help them was for that dummy to lease them each a 900$ phone and he agreed. Hilarious! He's staying single forever! Got that, ladies?

Names? I just watched a "Veranda" over on Hot Bench. Someone's mama didn't do her research!

[jilliannatalia]

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I am so behind. Apologies. Just saw "Cadon" - another genius who graduated high school at 19. He may work now and then "according to his needs" but not too much. Why would he? Daddy gives him cars, feeds him, believes all his bs stories and defends him to the death. Cadon needed to be dragged out of this, the dumb smirk wiped his face, and put right into boot camp.

Is there something in the water these days that's killing brain cells, or are people just getting dumber naturally. The idiot who says in the hall he helped out his girlfriend's family? She and her offspring discussed it and decided what they really needed to help them was for that dummy to lease them each a 900$ phone and he agreed. Hilarious! He's staying single forever! Got that, ladies?

Names? I just watched a "Veranda" over on Hot Bench. Someone's mama didn't do her research!

The data from standard IQ test batteries reviewed each time a test is revised show that kids continue to show gains as  compared to groups from earlier norming populations in terms subtests related to a testing subject's grasp of basic information/general background knowledge of basic information.  Such has been the case since the iinitial exams (1916 for Stanford Binet and something like 1939 for Wecshler, particularly with respect to any subtests in any way related to  general knowledge.  For many years, subtest scores in most areas tended to climb in time. Tests had to be renormed so that the average score would remain 100.  

 

We now have a few phenomena compounding the increase in scores in some areas.  Because of communication --  primarily because of the widespread communication available through the Internet, more testing subjects are now able to answer test questions before they have been heard the questions in their entirety.  In some neighborhoods, groups of parents who know each other often question any of their children who are given cognitive tests and record their children's responses. They compile and share their knowledge.  (I know personally of LDS families who do this, but I highly doubt that their the only ones.) Their kids score consistently very high on cognitive tests. 

 

Prior exposure to the test items., prio was initially managed by switching to an alternate for of the same exam.  The exposure has become so widespread that the use of an exam's Form B is no longer adequate.  The kids have been exposed to those questions as well.  Vocabulary, general knowledge questions, and specific arithmetic test items appear to have been memorized.  In cases where children aren't particularly bright, test administrators can often trip the children by administering test items within a specific battery out of sequence,  For example, in the comprehension session, a child is asked why a person should turn lights o when he leaves a room,  then what he or sh should do if he sees smoke coming out of a house.  If he answers, "I should knock on the door of the house to see if anyone is inside, and tell them that smoke is coming from their house, and if no one answers, i should have an adult call 911,or call it myself it no adult can be reached" to the question about why the lights should be turned out. there's another section (Digit Span) in which a child repeats the numbers as said to him by the examiner.  If the testing subject starts reciting the number sequences correctly before he or she has been told the number sequences, unless the examiner is holding his book in such a way as to display the number sequences, the kid has been coached.  If a parent has actually copies of multiple tests, and especially with the various forms (which sometimes is the case) the system has failed, and we don't have a standardized method of assessing the IQs of the involved children.  Sharp psychologists or psychometrists can quickly  devise plan x questions off the tops of their heads, but the results cannot be considered standard.  Truthfully though, the results are quite  possibily more valid  than are the results based on answers to the actual questions appearing in the tests, because the child could not have been coached with regard to the particular questions posed.

 

If  children are reasonably bright, it may be very difficult to ascertain that they have been coached.  that's when the system totally breaks down.

 

The conclusion is that general knowledge among children is legitimately on the increase, but that problem solving of all sorts (mathematical and otherwise) and generally knowing how to effectively use the knowledge one has is on the decline. Such may not be the case with children whose parents don't have their heads lodged in their rectums, but critical mass in this regard has taken place, and clueless parents outnumber  competent parents by a substantial margin.  So in answer to your question,  despite anything concluded by those who revise and re-norm the standardized intelligence tests in use, the average person today is dumber than was the average person a generation ago. This is because the less intelligent people, who were there all along, have bred to the point that they now outnumber those people who possess greater intellect, and are continuing to breed at a much faster rate than do the more intelligent people. It's only going to get worse.   If you think about it,  humans are the only species in which the cognitively inferior breed at a greater rate than do the cognitively superior.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, jilliannatalia said:

testing subjects are now able to answer test questions before they have been heard the questions in their entirety. 

Are they litigants, because we see those people all the time on this show.

[seacliffsal]

The first case in the episode I just watched involved a plaintiff who bought a German Shepard puppy-did not take it immediately into her vet, but DID watch it eat rabbit feces in the yard and then took it to the vet after a week and a half.  The puppy became so sick that she had it euthanized.  Then she wanted the defendant (who had offered her a replacement puppy) to pay for everything.  Sometimes it just boggles my mind that people do not take care of living things and then want the world to pay for it.  

[Spunkygal]

4 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

The first case in the episode I just watched involved a plaintiff who bought a German Shepard puppy-did not take it immediately into her vet, but DID watch it eat rabbit feces in the yard and then took it to the vet after a week and a half.  The puppy became so sick that she had it euthanized.  Then she wanted the defendant (who had offered her a replacement puppy) to pay for everything.  Sometimes it just boggles my mind that people do not take care of living things and then want the world to pay for it.  

I wish JJ had delved more into what was wrong with the puppy....something so wrong that the puppy had to be put down. I wonder if the puppy could be treated, but that when the vet told the plaintiff what the charge would be, the plaintiff made the decision to euthanize. My neighborhood is bunnypalooza year round. They drive us crazy and it is not unusual to find nests in the yard with 3 or 4 babies in it. And I don't even live in the country! When I walk my dog, there are bunny pellets all over the place and my dog will eat them once in a while. and I will see her eat them in the yard. Of course I pull on the leash if we're walking or I run out and stop her if she's in the yard, but I asked the vet about it several months ago. She said that there's no way my dog could eat enough bunny poop to harm her. I hope that's true. Side note: she does receive the leptospirosis vaccine every year so maybe that's why. Maybe the puppy had lepto but I guess we'll guess we'll never know.

[augmentedfourth]

As I'm not a dog owner, I was wondering how harmful eating rabbit poop really is for dogs. I guess there are a lot of variables, and with a puppy so young, you probably don't want to chance much of anything. I agree with JJ's ruling, though, based on past ones - the plaintiff had the dog for two weeks in between getting the dog and putting it down, and had nothing to prove it wasn't healthy when she took it home.

 

The highlight of the episode, though, was the old bat suing over her dead brother's (?) golf cart, who couldn't give a straight answer as to whether her daughter moved from Pennsylvania to Virginia in 2014 or 2017 (or anywhere in between). Yeah, that's a very difficult question. And then she started yelling at the end that the defendant didn't pay for the repairs to it. Who cares? You just told JJ that YOU DIDN'T. 

 

Is there a Kelley Blue Book for decades-old golf carts? :P 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

The highlight of the episode, though, was the old bat suing over her dead brother's (?) golf cart

It was her uncle's golf cart, leaving me wondering how old he was. She inherited everything he owned, including his house into which she moved her hachet-faced daughter and her brood, and she was in court fighting over an ancient golf cart?? We've seen people suing over ancient beater cars and trucks, but a golf cart that probably dates back to the mid-last century was a new height of insanity. Just be glad you're still sucking up oxygen you hag and forget about the stupid golf cart. Sheesh!

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

a golf cart that probably dates back to the mid-last century

Are we sure that it wasn't horse drawn?

[AZChristian]

16 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Is there a Kelley Blue Book for decades-old golf carts? :P 

Nope.  You just look on the bulletin board at the clubhouse in senior communities to get a good idea of the cost of old golf carts.

[Guest]

On 4/7/2018 at 11:28 AM, jilliannatalia said:

So in answer to your question,  despite anything concluded by those who revise and re-norm the standardized intelligence tests in use, the average person today is dumber than was the average person a generation ago. This is because the less intelligent people, who were there all along, have bred to the point that they now outnumber those people who possess greater intellect, and are continuing to breed at a much faster rate than do the more intelligent people. It's only going to get worse. 

I'm just gonna hide under the covers all day now, thank you.

I just watched the case of the puppy the Plaintiff had to euthanize at two months old because it was vomiting after allegedly eating "rabbit poop" in her backyard. To this I say "bullshit." Rabbit poop doesn't kill dogs that age -- parvo sure can and not wanting to pay vet bills for additional testing and choosing to euthanize (cheaper) instead is another cause. Whatever happened, JJ only decided to read out the portion of the vet notes that said "rabbit poop" and nothing more. The puppy killer got nothing, and rightly so, but I really would have loved a little more explanation in that case. 

[SRTouch]

20 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

I just watched the case of the puppy the Plaintiff had to euthanize at two months old because it was vomiting after allegedly eating "rabbit poop" in her backyard. To this I say "bullshit." Rabbit poop doesn't kill dogs that age -- parvo sure can and not wanting to pay vet bills for additional testing and choosing to euthanize (cheaper) instead is another cause. Whatever happened, JJ only decided to read out the portion of the vet notes that said "rabbit poop" and nothing more. The puppy killer got nothing, and rightly so, but I really would have loved a little more explanation in that case. 

Couple things had me ready to toss things at the tv and wishing JJ had taken a little more time to berate both litigants. Here we had back yard breeder selling second litter of pups. Did I hear correctly that plaintiff picked up puppy at 7 weeks? I didn't hear anything about a puppy health check from either side at time of purchase. JJ did establish there was no contract or health guarantee.... hmmmm perfect time for a plug to adopt from Humane Society where the pet would, more than likely, have been vetted... and hopefully fostered until old enough to be adopted (and neutered/spayed). Couldn't believe plaintiff trying to use this was her first puppy as a defense. Ah, she didn't know WTF she was doing, so she should get all her money back and the vet bills paid. Poor puppy didn't live long enough to give her the full experience of just how much work raising a fur baby can be, and the destruction they can cause as they mature (hey, they're worth it in the end!) And, of course she refused the replacement puppy - after 2 weeks she had learned that puppies are more than adorable/cute accessories, they take some work to care for. Who thinks this puppy, had it lived, would have spent way (WAY) to much time crated or stuck in the back yard unsocialized? Really? Puppy ate rabbit sh*t? 2 month old puppies are like any babies - they taste and chew on any and everything... that's why we watch them like a hawk after we puppy proof up the wazoo. I agree, would have been nice had JJ read vet report and told us what the vet thought rather than stop with the patient history and plaintiff's statement that it may have eaten rabbit droppings. I kind of doubt the rabbit droppings made the puppy sick, but in any back yard there are several things puppy should not eat, possibly including several ornamental plants that can be toxic. Without a necropsy we're just guessing... but would have been nice to hear the vet's educated guess instead of clueless plaintiff patient history statement.

[configdotsys]

I just delete the shows that say anything about animals in the description. I just cannot handle it. The idea that someone would mistreat an animal in any way just makes me weep.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

I used to work with a young girl who had a flair for the dramatic.  She swore up and down that her mom was a nurse in New York (upstate - where the girl originally came from) and she absolutely saw babies with the names "Orangejello", "Lemonjello", "Chlamydia", "Gonorrhea", "Shithead" (pronounced Shy-Teed), an "La-A".  I bit my tongue from telling her that I heard most of those stories going back to before she was born, and that the "La-A" is a more recent Snopes-worthy thing.  She was also a touch racist, because there was a component of the mothers of these babies that went along with the story.  :

I heard some of these about 30 years ago from a gal that worked at the Medicaid office. However, my daughter is a nurse at an inner-city ER and some of the names are just as outrageous. 

So Bunny-Poop Puppy-Mama had the dog for two weeks and it was 7 weeks old when she put it down? That means she got the dog at 5 weeks? That's a little too young to take a puppy home IMHO. I've had dogs my whole life and was told numerous times that 8 weeks should be the minimum age to rehome a puppy. I know people get all dewy eyed and excited cos puppies are cute but they are living things, ya know. Plus many people don't know that you aren't supposed to take puppies out where there are other dogs (like in a front yard) until they have all their shots or else they can get stuff like parvo and other infections. Also, if your puppy is eating bunny poop, chances are it could have eaten something else unsavory that could have made it sick. I didn't know at first that eating lizards can cause dogs to get super sick (because the lizards have flukes that lodge in the dog's liver). And even changing a dog's food can cause massive diarrhea. (not to be confused with Rhea ;D)

[AngelaHunter]

51 minutes ago, configdotsys said:

I just delete the shows that say anything about animals in the description.

Me too. Pigs, ducks, dogs, lizards, horses or even fish - the last thing I want to hear is animals being mistreated, neglected or killed by the assholes we see here, most of whom should not be given custody of a goddam geranium.

Who enjoyed the sordid repeat of the kinkos: Boyfriend/girlfriend who already had two kids, wanted to get married, she cashed 50K of her retirement fund for the wedding of the century, etc? The truly mystifying part is that there seemed to be a whole gang of women AND men who couldn't wait to get their freak on with the diminutive, Muppet-voiced little Eric Davidian. Like, wtf? I'm very thankful we didn't have to see the pictures, but even without them I still felt I needed Brain Bleach. My mind's eye is way too graphic.

[iwasish]

On 4/7/2018 at 5:58 PM, augmentedfourth said:

As I'm not a dog owner, I was wondering how harmful eating rabbit poop really is for dogs. I guess there are a lot of variables, and with a puppy so young, you probably don't want to chance much of anything. I agree with JJ's ruling, though, based on past ones - the plaintiff had the dog for two weeks in between getting the dog and putting it down, and had nothing to prove it wasn't healthy when she took it home.

 

The highlight of the episode, though, was the old bat suing over her dead brother's (?) golf cart, who couldn't give a straight answer as to whether her daughter moved from Pennsylvania to Virginia in 2014 or 2017 (or anywhere in between). Yeah, that's a very difficult question. And then she started yelling at the end that the defendant didn't pay for the repairs to it. Who cares? You just told JJ that YOU DIDN'T. 

 

Is there a Kelley Blue Book for decades-old golf carts? :P 

She said the puppy was 7 weeks old. I couldnt figure out if was 7 weeks when she had it put to sleep or when she purchased it. I doubt rabbit poop killed it. But even at 7-9’weeks old it

shouldn’t be out wandering in the yard. You have to watch them! I have a young puppy and no matter how carefully I vacuum and clean, she manages to find some small item, under the couch or coffee table. Sometimes it’s just a dust bunny but she’s also found things that could hurt her. Like a baby, you have to be very vigilant with young pups and kittens!!

She said she never had a puppy before so who knows what it could have been exposed to or got into.

JJ usually comes down hard on the breeder for selling such a young pup. I wonder what was in the vet record that made her so clearly put the blame on the owner. The breeder did seem to be a nice enough guy and expressed his sorrow about the death of the puppy.  

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, iwasish said:

The breeder did seem to be a nice enough guy and expressed his sorrow about the death of the puppy.  

I didn't watch this, but no ethical breeder would peddle 6 or 7-week puppies, therefore he is not ethical. They shouldn't go to homes until at least 12 weeks old, but backyard breeders and puppy millers won't wait that long to get their hands on the cash, which outweighs the well-being of their product. Yeah, I'm sure he was very sad (not), but not sad enough to dump puppies way too young to be removed from their mothers in exchange for money.

[Florinaldo]

Two cases with similar circumstances in the episodes we got here today, but with contradictory rulings (unless I missed something).

In the first one, because the lying daughter gave her her friend permission to drive the car, JJ said he was not liable for the damage to the car even if it would have been established that he caused it; no proof was provided anyway, and it seemed that she was trying to shift the blame for damage she caused later.

In the other episode, even though the friend was given permission to drive by the son, JJ said he was liable anyway and made him pay. I think his biggest mistake was to act as intelligent and well organised, challenging JJ's treasured stereotype of the dumb young thing, especially male ones. At least the daughter in the other case had the good grace to come across as dim-witted. He also had the audacity to appear at least as smart as JJ imagines herself to be, an affront that could not go unpunished. Her outrage at his audacity for bringing up the fact that the driving charge made by the officer at the scene was dropped by the DA demonstrated how unhappy she was that a litigant in her court was not conforming to her prejudiced view of young people; she called him "Mr. Smartypants" for that, exhibiting what I think was a significant dose of jealousy for his presence of mind.

[SandyToes]

I've noticed, too, that the cases often are very similar, or related in some way!  Does production release them together, or does the syndication company? Hmmm...

As for today's, in the first case, the Mom was wanting the boy to pay so that she didn't have to file on her insurance. Couple that with the fact that the daughter was not a licensed driver, I think it makes her culpable in making a car available to someone (at least one) who is not eligible to drive. 

In the other one, while Mr. Smartypants made some good points, I, like JJ, think he was probably NOT the designated driver, or if he was, he wasn't as "designated" as he should have been.  He was just a little TOO rehearsed, and a little TOO full of himself.  YMMV, of course.  But it does seem odd that JJ  made HIM pay.  Was the car insured? Hmmm....   May be another one of those where JJ knew more info than we were privy to.

The rerun of the Lothario with the mail-order Russian girlfriend:  Oh, brother!  One more thing to add to our "things to remember before you go on JJ" list:  If the judge asks "Are you SURE?" it's time to rethink one's position.  Stat!  I think he was a horrible creep, and took full advantage of M-O, RGf. She looked like such a waif.  Felt bad for her, even though she made poor choices, too.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

57 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

In the other episode, even though the friend was given permission to drive by the son, JJ said he was liable anyway and made him pay. I think his biggest mistake was to act as intelligent and well organised, challenging JJ's treasured stereotype of the dumb young thing, especially male ones. At least the daughter in the other case had the good grace to come across as dim-witted. He also had the audacity to appear at least as smart as JJ imagines herself to be, an affront that could not go unpunished. Her outrage at his audacity for bringing up the fact that the driving charge made by the officer at the scene was dropped by the DA demonstrated how unhappy she was that a litigant in her court was not conforming to her prejudiced view of young people; she called him "Mr. Smartypants" for that, exhibiting what I think was a significant dose of jealousy for his presence of mind.

Have to disagree. Mr. Smartypants told JJ that he was either hanging out with people who were smoking dope or was smoking dope himself, and that it was a band called The Moldy Blueberries. Or something, but I'm pretty sure he admitted he was a little high when he was behind the wheel.

I also enjoyed Sonny Cropper, who kept looking off to the side while answering JJ's questions like he was read from a cue card. I initially thought they said his name was Sonny Crockett, and that was helped by his bright blue jacket, but...no.

[Brattinella]

9 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I also enjoyed Sonny Cropper, who kept looking off to the side while answering JJ's questions like he was read from a cue card. I initially thought they said his name was Sonny Crockett, and that was helped by his bright blue jacket, but...no.

He was just enjoying his face on the monitor; REALLY enjoying seeing it.  So was the plaintiff, actually.  How do you go on Natl TV and get mesmerized by your own face?

[SandyToes]

11 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I initially thought they said his name was Sonny Crockett, and that was helped by his bright blue jacket, but...no.

Ha!  Me, too!

Too funny about the Moldy Blueberries - that was the story JJ told as her "Fable du jour."

Edited April 10, 2018 by SandyToes

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I'm pretty sure he admitted he was a little high when he was behind the wheel.

I don't recall that. Besides, if he was as rehearsed as you indicate, he would not have admitted to that. He seemed too smart for that. JJ really does not like to be matched or outclassed in the brains department; as @SantyToes said, he made some good points which of course usually sends her into hostile mode, especially coming from a young male.

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Brattinella said:

How do you go on Natl TV and get mesmerized by your own face?

Ask Harvey Levin.

[funky-rat]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 9:06 PM, AngelaHunter said:

It was her uncle's golf cart, leaving me wondering how old he was.

A childhood friend had nephews around 8-10 years younger than her.  They were her older brother's kids.  Her older brother was around 21 years old when she was born.  Her older sister was 18 or 19.  So it could be a similar situation.  Still....completely pointless case.

[funky-rat]

17 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Two cases with similar circumstances in the episodes we got here today, but with contradictory rulings (unless I missed something).

In the first one, because the lying daughter gave her her friend permission to drive the car, JJ said he was not liable for the damage to the car even if it would have been established that he caused it; no proof was provided anyway, and it seemed that she was trying to shift the blame for damage she caused later.

In the other episode, even though the friend was given permission to drive by the son, JJ said he was liable anyway and made him pay. I think his biggest mistake was to act as intelligent and well organised, challenging JJ's treasured stereotype of the dumb young thing, especially male ones. At least the daughter in the other case had the good grace to come across as dim-witted. He also had the audacity to appear at least as smart as JJ imagines herself to be, an affront that could not go unpunished. Her outrage at his audacity for bringing up the fact that the driving charge made by the officer at the scene was dropped by the DA demonstrated how unhappy she was that a litigant in her court was not conforming to her prejudiced view of young people; she called him "Mr. Smartypants" for that, exhibiting what I think was a significant dose of jealousy for his presence of mind.

I don't recall the specifics, and I no longer record repeats because I'd have 100+ eps at the end of the week, but I could see her feeling differently depending on the age of the kids involved.  If it was a 16 year old giving a 17 year old permission to drive, they're both underage and can't legally be held responsible.  If it's a 16 year old and an 18 year old, it's iffy.  If they're both over 18, I could see her more likely to hold them responsible.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, funky-rat said:

A childhood friend had nephews around 8-10 years younger than her.  They were her older brother's kids. 

Yeah, I know. I have uncles who are a few years older than I - grandad had two wives and two batches of kids, so... it just sounds odd hearing a woman who appeared to be in her mid-eighties talking about her uncle.

[Quof]

Quote

If it was a 16 year old giving a 17 year old permission to drive, they're both underage and can't legally be held responsible.

Teenagers most certainly can be held legally responsible for their actions.    

[SandyToes]

I couldn't make it through any of the shows (so far) today. Such an awful collection of humanity.  Blech.

So I'm watching society's finest on the ID network:  Murder Comes to Town.  Why this is better, I do not know. But it's okay for laundry folding.

[AngelaHunter]

Did we need the waste of time and space given to the rerun of  mature adults, Shafonta and Ceyide of MN, who don't understand that once they sell something to someone else - the mechanic Mr. Lofton in this case - that they have no more to say about what is done with the item, namely an old beat-up, rusted and "irreparable" Impala. I know she was emotionally attached to the hunk of junk,  feels she was "frauded" and that the deal was a "switch and bait"(which I guess is a reverse bait and switch) but guess what? Some mechanic is not going to dedicate himself to ensuring your well-being, Shafonta.  JJ was incredibly patient with this bullshit and I have no idea why.