All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Brattinella]

Whew!  I missed the caucus part.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

 You can't remodel a bathroom without a tile cutter. WTF, even I have a tile cutter and I'm not in construction work.

Sheeesh, even I got a tile cutter. Way back after Hurricane Wilma, we got some money to remodel after house damage and my kids decided to retile the kitchen and bought a tile cutter. I gave it to my son-in-law last year. But it's still mine and I will CUT you iffen you take it. 

We should have a mini meeting of the flabby upper arm committee and I shall bring the refreshments. I love that my best friend calls them her "Hi Helens" because they continue to wave after she stops waving. And yes, I also have an old ratty MeeMaw nightgown (which I just happen to be wearing as I type) that is a humongous 4X that I bought for $9 at Walmart and I love it. In fact when I get home from work around 2 PM every day, I put on my pajamas (yes I am that woman) so my neighbors must wonder as I leave the house in scrubs and show up later in pajamas. Maybe I'm my own patient. 

That plaintiff today was a sociopath. She came in all organized and well spoken until the cast started unraveling when she was describing her sister/niece's caucus baby (*shudders*). If I had a dead  caucus baby then I would probably be beating up on my sister/ auntie just on principal after she rubbed it in my face. 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Did this... person actually refer to a dead infant using the same word I might use to refer to the leftovers from a roasted chicken dinner? Can this be true?

Yep, if you heard "carcass" when other people heard "caucus". A lot of illiterate people. What bothered me a lot was the plaintiff constantly grinning and smiling at the most inappropriate times, I have her pegged as a psychopath (amateur opinion, I am not that kind of doctor, but I did take a semester of abnormal psychology to meet a requirement, and it helped me immensely in the business world).

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

defecation of character

Ack!  OMG! 

No $hit, Sherlock!  (pun intended) 

That's just great. Post of the day!

Edited August 16, 2018 by SandyToes

[KittyMom4]

14 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Nobody got anything.  I was appalled at plaintiff referring to her niece/sister's dead baby's body as a carcass, or caucus -- my god, her story was so rehearsed, she couldn't get that word right?

I had a feeling it might have been a very early miscarriage*, because neither of them seemed to know the sex of the poor child, and no hospital is going to allow you to take a stillborn baby home with you. 

TMI alert:

Spoiler

*My sister had a miscarriage at 10 weeks, she knew a week or so before, after an exam, that the fetus was not progressing, she was told it likely pass in a few days and they told her what to look for. Apparently it's pretty similar to a blood clot, and she was told to contain it and bring it to the dr's office so they could run tests. My thought was that maybe that's what happened in this case.

Edited August 16, 2018 by GoodieGirl
unnecessary words confuse things.....

[khyber]

14 hours ago, SandyToes said:

Another one of those cases where we really needed a flowchart to keep up with the familial relationships.

Its Chinatown Jake.

[configdotsys]

I am watching the "caucus" episode now and have absolutely no idea wtf is going on.

[Brattinella]

Another TMI alert.

Spoiler

A co-worker, many many years ago, used to carry a snapshot of her stillborn daughter in her wallet.  Little girl was all dressed up and made-up, too.  She liked to show everyone.  Creeped me the hell out.

[Zahdii]

I didn't pay close enough attention, but I came away thinking that although the plaintiff started out sounding like a reasonable, grounded person; soon I began to think that she's a shit stirrer extraordinaire.  She knows what buttons to push and will calmly watch her target and unleash verbal weapons with surgical precision at just the right moment for maximum impact. 

I also got the impression that the plaintiff resented her 'sister', who was not her biological or adopted sibling, but someone who had lived with the family long enough to have formed a mother/daughter relationship with the plaintiffs mother.

On the night in question, the plaintiff had been staying in her mothers house for four days, and late that evening they were all sitting around talking.  The plaintiff said they were all drinking, but the 'sister' and the mother both said that only the plaintiff had been drinking, and that her drinking as been a problem for a long time.  The plaintiff was sitting on the floor while the other two were seated at a table, when the plaintiff decided that she needed to bring up some unfinished business regarding her sister's dead baby.  She said her sister had a stillborn baby and she kept the carcass around for a few days and they didn't even know if it was a boy or a girl.  (That's why I agree with GoodieGirl that it probably wasn't a stillborn birth, but a miscarriage at home of a fetus that was small enough to not be obviously a male or a female.)

Well, the sister was upset and said that she didn't want to discuss it, and the plaintiff said something like "Well, if it had lived it would have been my niece or my nephew."  Like that gave her the right to insist on talking about what was obviously a very painful experience for the sister.  Then the sister started to choke the plaintiff, but she must not have been very good at it because the plaintiff didn't try to defend herself at that point, but instead told her mother to make the sister let her go.  All of this was related by the plaintiff in a very mild tone, but I saw a glint of maliciousness in her eye.  She kept pointing out that she could easily stop her sister, but she wanted her mother to do it, and when that didn't happen, the plaintiff got her off and stood up.  I think at that point they went to commercial.  There were a couple of clips of the mother stating that after the altercation she wanted the plaintiff to leave, and the judge saying something about the plaintiff lying to the police about actually living there when she'd only been there for a few days, but I changed the channel.  I knew no good was going to come from this case.

I can't remember, was the plaintiff suing for the assualt or did she claim that her property was stolen after she was told to leave?  I assume that the plaintiff isn't welcome at her mothers house these days, but she probably doesn't really care.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Zahdii

[bad things are bad]

16 hours ago, SandyToes said:

Keeping the caucus (carcass?!?) 

THANK YOU. For some reason my brain couldn't come up with what "caucus" was intended to represent. I had the same problem with Seinfeld's Dolores :)

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, Zahdii said:

I didn't pay close enough attention, but I came away thinking that although the plaintiff started out sounding like a reasonable, grounded person; soon I began to think that she's a shit stirrer extraordinaire.  She knows what buttons to push and will calmly watch her target and unleash verbal weapons with surgical precision at just the right moment for maximum impact. 

Yep, sounded reasonable at first - later we find out only reason Mom let P into the house was that P needed an address to make bail on a previous charge. Oh, and we also learn that cops had been called the previous day when she got into a fight with D's (minor?) son. Anyway, Mom testified that after the previous day's kerfuffle Mom told P she was causing too much chaos in the home and needed to leave. I gathered that the next day they were trying to talk out their differences (and P was pouring down the booze) so that P wouldn't violate the conditions of her bail. But, like you said, P couldn't keep from being a sh*t stirrer and brought up the miscarriage (and probably kept referring to the lost baby as a carcass in court as a jab at D). Anyway, 'nother kerfuffle, cops come back, they slap on the cuffs and take her to hospital to see if she's nutty enough to be admitted. Nope, may be nuts, but hospital didn't consider her dangerous. When she's released she goes back to Mom's place, but doors are locked and she never had a key, so she takes her car and heads off to file for a restraining order, claiming D is the looney one, and is a danger to everyone in the house, including Mom. Tries to convince JJ that she didn't try to get D removed from the house (D is 30 something and has lived with Mom all her life) nah, P just wanted cops to talk to D. Ah, but JJ has the application for restraining get order - which, was tossed by original judge - and it clearing show's P tried to get D booted from her residence. 

Quote

I can't remember, was the plaintiff suing for the assualt or did she claim that her property was stolen after she was told to leave?  I assume that the plaintiff isn't welcome at her mothers house these days, but she probably doesn't really care.

Never clear to me what P thought her cause of action was. She wanted money for false arrest, but made a big deal about she was only detained, NOT arrested, and taken in for looney toons evaluation. While claiming she was assaulted, makes a point of how she could have easily escaped the "choke hold" at any time - oh, but she was waiting for frail little Mom to step in and break of the physical altercation. Also blamed D for Mom giving her the boot, but Mom (who can barely stand and needs to hold lectern to balance) gets up and tells us she wanted P out of her house the day before the incident when cops came and hauled P away in cuffs. Part of her claim was for illegal eviction - from the house where she was a guest, never a tenant, and never had keys - but she insists it was her residence after 4 days. Oh, maybe part of the 5 grand claim was because after getting booted she went to a motel. Anyway, she REALLY wanted to talk about the defamation part of her claim... but by then JJ was fed up and announced she had no case. I actually thought D had a better case for defamation and harrassment (or SOMETHING for having to deal with looney P). Ah, but the application for restraining order with all the lies was never granted, so I guess no real damages.

Oh well, my timeline may be off, but I gather cops were called at least 3 times in the 4 days she was there. Sort of wish JJ had asked Mom how many times they had been called in the past.

Edited August 16, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Zahdii said:

  Then the sister started to choke the plaintiff, but she must not have been very good at it

Of course she did. Someone always gets choked at my family gatherings. Cops are always called. Restraining orders result. Good times! I'm happier than ever that something told me to skip this ep.

[iwasish]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Of course she did. Someone always gets choked at my family gatherings. Cops are always called. Restraining orders result. Good times! I'm happier than ever that something told me to skip this ep.

It’s not a family gathering if police aren’t called, an actual arrest upgrades the family gathering to a family reunion.

Edited August 16, 2018 by iwasish

[chenoa333]

Shelby Hardenbrook vs. Billy Perry. Custody b.s. case (on today's new episode) However, all i want to add is this: I'm going to say a prayer every night that their child does NOT grow up to look like either of those parents. Lol!

[AngelaHunter]

43 minutes ago, chenoa333 said:

Shelby Hardenbrook vs. Billy Perry. Custody b.s. case

O.M.G! As soon as I laid eyes on that incredibly hard-rode hag, I thought "drug addict". Goddam it, she looks about 60, but was still able to hump away and breed with the useless asshole, Billy, who surprised me in that he was able to make a baby.  They needed to pass on their impeccable genes I guess. It infuriates me that both of them- (Billy just "kind of quit his job" since it wasn't good enough for his extraordinary talents) and Shelby lives with her mommy since she can't take care of herself either -  were never dragged off and sterilized.

JJ: "I'm sorry this little girl has two such marginal parents."  Yeah, I'm sorry too, and sorry that any court thought either of them are fit to care for a little child. I wouldn't give either of these mental midgets/fools/ low-life drug addicts a hamster to look after, but yeah, let them have a kid.

The case of Daddy suing for a car he bought for his daughter: Yeah, buy a 12-year old, beaten-up Chevy Impala from those two corpulent dipshits and expect it to be perfect. Daddy, wise up!

Edited August 16, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

I've been away at conferences for a few weeks.

And the felon/carcass/restraining order was one heckuva "welcome back".

Life goes on I suppose - even in my absence.

[CrazyInAlabama]

That 'carcass' case was so sad.   I'm surprised the P.'s mother didn't get hurt in some of the fights, because she looked so fragile.   

 

Today's case with the Pit Bull breeding was absurd.   I love how the P. lost big time, and she's lucky Byrd didn't put her in a head lock and beat her bloody with JJ's fly swatter when she kept interrupting.     And what the heck is "an AKC registered Service Dog", that the plaintiff told the D. that her dog was "AKC registered".   Pit Bulls aren't AKC, but UKC registration, and some others that are very easy to call anything registered.       How lovely that the defendant can now go home and churn out six litters a year out of his females, and increase the number of poorly bred, unregistered, non-health tested puppies.    

The dog bite case was infuriating.  I'm glad the plaintiff got $5k for the dog assault, and I can't believe the defendant was so cavalier about some poor child being bitten by the same dog.     The authorities where the defendant live need to keep close track of him and his dog, because I can't believe that there are only two attacks, and one wasn't even an issue to the defendant.    I hate that some poor kid was bitten, and probably afraid of dogs for life because of that idiot, and his vicious dog.  

 

By the way, I looked at the AKC website, and the only registry of any kind of non-show dog, is a therapy dog registry, and I'm betting an intact dog doesn't qualify, especially an intact pit bull.     I wonder how many other litters the plaintiff's dog has produced?    The plaintiff and the defendant were certainly two of a kind.  

Edited August 22, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

Why can't we all be lucky enough to find a man like Hogaboom? I would be thrilled to pay the price of a phone for the pleasure of his company. OH, gawd yes!

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Note to Garryn, the plaintiff in the second mini-case - don't come to JJ's courtroom baked.  Oh and you're not that cute cos I can see your scalp through your well-coiffed hairlets and I would NOT buy a car from you. Nor would I take an "aerial fitness" class from the defendant, she with the flapping false eyelashes and well-Chloroxed hair-deau (since we are an "aerial fitness" instructor **cough, pole-dancing-instructor, cough***) . I wonder if Garryn had partaken in her "private lessons". 

[zillabreeze]

Oh joy!  ANOTHER 10 backyard bred pit bulls to be scattered around...clogging up the no kill shelters.  Slamming out of raggedy screen doors to eat yorkies being walked by unsuspecting seniors. Breeding for extra income by folks that don't support their own damn children.   

Of course, all ten of these little wriggling cuties will be spayed/neutered, trained, contained and vaccinated.  AND no doubt in my mind that heartworm meds & annual vet checks/shots will of course take precedence over tats, weaves, nails and hoopties.  Oh yes, my cold heart is comfy warm.

[Guest]

I can't add much more than what was already said except the plaintiff (Hogaboom's ex-lover of eight months "not a year") looked like Cybil Shepherd who's gone to seed.

They were a couple that looked like they were made for each other.  

I would have bet money that they were destined for a 50 year anniversary.

Shame.

[Brattinella]

Ahh, Hogaboom!  How do I love thee?  Let me count the ways.  I love thee for thy neckbeard which looks wondrous, but I must never touch for the prickles!

And the not-married P?  I think she was missing many lower teeth, poor thing.  The one who was most fascinating was the daughter who raided her dead mother's bank account.  With her pasty, pumpkinny face and doll-eyes which rapidly blinked in stupor at every comment.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

With her pasty, pumpkinny face and doll-eyes which rapidly blinked in stupor at every comment.

I don't even know what to say about her. She left me without words. And her friend? Another freak, who yelled constantly, "I was there!!!!"

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

Ahh, Hogaboom!  How do I love thee?  Let me count the ways.  I love thee for thy neckbeard which looks wondrous,

Hogaboom inspires poetry! The neckbeard, obviously grown to hide the lack of discernable chin unfortunately just emphasized that his neck is way bigger than his head. Hot he was, as was the huge water-filled balloon he was concealing under his shirt. Poor deluded plaintiff, thinking she was going to keep this man all to herself by enticing him with money? Ha! Hogaboom must be free to find other despairing, desperate women  discerning, cultured ladies who wish to bid for the sought-after but elusive pleasure of his company.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Litigants,

1) Let's  keep  the talk on topic.  What is the topic? The episode of Judge Judy.  A few asides are okay.  Pages of them are not. (Posts have been hidden).

2) As always, part of keeping the talk about the show is only talking about people on the show; that is, we do not extrapolate to talking about entire classes and types of people.  This is a reality TV show that chooses cases and participants for entertainment value.  In so doing, there are certain things they have decided are more entertaining to present.  That does not mean the participants are average representatives of like groups within society. 

We have a fetal "caucus", un-neutered assistance dogs and rode hard, put away wet Cybill Shepherd to discuss.  There's plenty of snark bait right there. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by PrincessPurrsALot
Clarification

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's new episode with the arrests for drug dealing was hysterical.    The defendant parents think that denying their son was also arrested and charged makes it true.   I'm glad they lost and had to pay the plaintiff the security deposit.

 

The other one with the young man who cheated the mentally challenged man was despicable.     He reminded me a lot of Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver, the original shady character who always acted like an angel.      I wonder how may other people the defendant has cheated over the years. 

The two men with the traffic collision in the turn lane were both wrong.   I hate people like the older driver who uses the turn lane to bypass everyone else, and is shocked when someone pulls ahead of him.     

 

The driver formerly from New Hampshire with no insurance (that's legal there, if you have a certain guaranteed money reserve to pay for damages), should never have moved to Florida.    I have the feeling that the local authorities will be looking closely at her insurance status after this one.    Since she's in the next state to me, I hope I don't see her screaming by during a hurricane evacuation, because I have the feeling she's an interesting driver, and thinks nothing is her fault.  

Edited August 21, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The other one with the young man who cheated the mentally challenged man was despicable.     He reminded me a lot of Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver, the original shady character who always acted like an angel. 

After a long break from this show because I couldn't take wanting to damage my TV and my psyche on a daily basis anymore, I gave in and watched this episode. Needless to say, I regret that decision because David Bancewicz, the sociopathic shit weasel who stole that poor young man's iPhone and, essentially the Apple Watch, too, made me want to whack the screen with a brick. (Thankfully, I had none on hand.)

The kicker came in the hallterview when David Bancewicz bemoaned his status as the real victim in the matter. Not that he had any evidence whatsoever to back up his delusional belief or anything.

It irritated me that JJ complimented him on his "perfectly coiffed hair." Clearly she needs an adjustment to her glasses because all I saw was some bonehead with 1/8" worth of bangs on his face. I've no idea what was going on with the hair situation there but it reminded me of a time when I was in 7th grade and thought if I cut my bangs to my scalp, it would appear as if I didn't have bangs at all. It didn't work for me then. It doesn't work for him now. Jackass. He'll be in prison within two years. 

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The two men with the traffic collision in the turn lane were both wrong.   I hate people like the older driver who uses the turn lane to bypass everyone else, and is shocked when someone pulls ahead of him.

I was in the exact same accident as this back in 2001. Traffic stopped, drivers waved me out to take the left turn, I waved to thank them—only to then see a car zooming up (illegally) in the far turn lane. It was too late. I made it just far enough away from him that he crashed into my rear end. (My insurance covered the accident 100% and sued the driver for the return of my deductible—which I received.)

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm guessing the coif remark was sarcastic, and Judge Judy knew he would be too stupid to realize it.      One of these days, that defendant is going to steal from the wrong person, and find out that some people don't like you stealing from people who can't protect themselves.     

 

Giant misfit-I'm glad you got the 100%, I hate the illegal zoomers in the turn lanes.    Around here if you pull that enough times, some good old boy with a really old, solid metal pickup will refuse to back down, or avoid you, and will laugh when someone like that hits their truck, and the other car crumples into a coffee table.  I had to laugh when the driver with the 30 year old car pulled out all of the paperwork for the work he'd done restoring his 30 year old car, because that is absurd.   

Edited August 21, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[zillabreeze]

@CrazyInAlabama...LMAO!  Great minds think alike!  I saw Eddie Haskell right away and couldn't turn it off.

I was terribly disappointed that he didn't at least try to say "Good afternoon, your honor.  Black is certainly a lovely color on you"

[shksabelle]

That 19 year old sociopathic piece of shit is either going to wind up in jail, rip off the wrong person and get the beating he so richly deserves, or both. What an awful human. 

[nora1992]

If I went to PF Chang’s and found him to be my server, I would not want to hand over my credit card to him - I already know that he is a scammer.

[KittyMom4]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The two men with the traffic collision in the turn lane were both wrong.   I hate people like the older driver who uses the turn lane to bypass everyone else, and is shocked when someone pulls ahead of him.

Me too - but I also can't stand people like the Plaintiff who can't be bothered to turn right, go around the block SAFELY and then make a turn at a LIGHT, instead people must allow him to divide traffic on a 5 lane road so this special snowflake doesn't have to be inconvenienced. WTH? I have seen incidents like this where motorists will wave someone through only to cause an accident because other drivers weren't aware of the good Samaritan's intent. Honestly I think the Defendant's insurance was correct, 50/50 responsibility. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by GoodieGirl

[Guest]

1 hour ago, GoodieGirl said:

Me too - but I also can't stand people like the Plaintiff who can't be bothered to turn right, go around the block SAFELY and then make a turn at a LIGHT, instead people must allow him to divide traffic on a 5 lane road so this special snowflake doesn't have to be inconvenienced

For the record, since I copped to having the same kind of accident, there was no option in my case to take a right. I mean, there was, but I would have been immediately put on a highway going towards the opposite direction in which I needed to go with no exit for miles to turn around. There was no "block" in which to turn around. I certainly wasn't a "snowflake" who didn't want to be inconvenienced—it's just the way I went every day and one day something bad happened. And the Plaintiff in this case wasn't stopped from making a left turn from a "No Left Turn" sign as surely there wasn't one lest the Defendant would have mentioned it. It was safe for him to go...until it wasn't. 

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, GoodieGirl said:

I have seen incidents like this where motorists will wave someone through only to cause an accident because other drivers weren't aware of the good Samaritan's intent.

When teaching the kids to drive, we had to remind them OFTEN that these good Samaritans aren't LEGAL traffic control folks.  If they wave you through, it is still YOUR responsibility to make sure the route is clear. Can't rely on them. 

I turned the case off. I could tell it was just going to end up being a shouting match where everyone thought they were in the right, and that Judy was going to probably go 50/50 on them.  My two cents:  The guy in the turn lane was in the wrong 100%.  It's  not a "fifth lane" for traveling traffic; it's a merge or turn lane.  Even if he's planning on making the left turn, zooming up a quarter mile isn't allowed, and he should have been EXPECTING other cars to be coming out of a driveway, ALSO making a turn, or coming into that same lane.  Defensive driving.

Very glad to have missed the case involving a litigant with special needs. 

[DoctorK]

26 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

  It's  not a "fifth lane" for traveling traffic; it's a merge or turn lane.

While this may vary from one place to another, I was really annoyed when JJ completely ignored the plaintiff when he provided a copy of the local law about this and proof that the defendant was cited for a moving violation for misusing the lane. I think JJ disliked the plaintiff because he was well dressed for court, came prepared and with evidence (which she ignored) and calmly and logically presented his case. He was respectful and everything, but JJ had already decided that that the plaintiff erred in making his turn and to just call it a 50/50. Also, where did this big ado about making a left instead of  three rights come from?  Also, just to nitpick, to get headed in the direction you want to go and on the same street actually requires four rights and then a left - the advantage is that the left turn will occur at an intersection, not in the middle of a block.

[SuburbanHangSuite]

15 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Needless to say, I regret that decision because David Bancewicz, the sociopathic shit weasel who stole that poor young man's iPhone and, essentially the Apple Watch, too, made me want to whack the screen with a brick. (Thankfully, I had none on hand.)

 

All of this!  That mother was so sweet and you could tell how much she loves her son and to have a smirking, scamming POS exploit his innocence was just too much to handle.  I wanted the foster father to say something but I'm sure he was mortified too.  

I liked JJ's decision to find both men equally at fault in the left turn mishap.  I have the exact same kind of set up near here where the straightahead traffic backs up for days and the median doesn't start a turn lane until a few feet before the light.  People always drive that median up to the turn lane and although it's techincally illegal, it's understandable.  I'm glad neither of those guys was hurt.  It looked like a really nasty crash.

[KittyMom4]

8 hours ago, DoctorK said:

  Also, just to nitpick, to get headed in the direction you want to go and on the same street actually requires four rights and then a left - the advantage is that the left turn will occur at an intersection, not in the middle of a block.

Exactly, and while I sympathize with the kid for having to go out of his way to safely turn left, I also wondered if there was another exit out of that parking lot that did have a light and he avoided it thinking he'd get out faster if he went across the 4 lanes. At my place of employment there are two exits, one with a light, one without, when I have to turn left I use the exit with the light, when I have to turn right I use the exit without the light, IMO, that's the difference between a defensive driver and a special snowflake driver, the former waits the 30 seconds at a red light to safely turn, the latter takes a chance and then blames the other person who hits him. 

 

7 hours ago, SuburbanHangSuite said:

I liked JJ's decision to find both men equally at fault in the left turn mishap.  I have the exact same kind of set up near here where the straightahead traffic backs up for days and the median doesn't start a turn lane until a few feet before the light.  People always drive that median up to the turn lane and although it's techincally illegal, it's understandable.  I'm glad neither of those guys was hurt.  It looked like a really nasty crash.

Yes, I see nothing (too) wrong with what the defendant was attempting to do, however he should have been more aware of what the traffic around him was doing, again I agree it was a 50/50 split of responsibility, both drivers made bad decisions.

Edited August 22, 2018 by GoodieGirl

[AngelaHunter]

I'm trying to remember the last time my family  - including my mother -  and I were outside throwing rocks at each other, like cave people or warring primates, but I can't. I'm sure it's happened - why not? - but I just can't recall it. Maybe someone took some video.

[SuburbanHangSuite]

Wow.  Plaintiff in the Moving case today was a nasty piece of work.  I lost count of how many times she snapped, "First of all..." at JJ and I'm really surprised her case wasn't just thrown out for her bad attitude.  And I don't believe all those things were damaged in the move.  Methinks she went about damaging items after they wouldn't kow tow to her.  They moved her from 9am to 11pm AND they moved her 50 miles?? Bish got off cheaply.

[Brattinella]

4 hours ago, GoodieGirl said:

when I have to turn left I use the exit with the light, when I have to turn right I use the exit without the light, IMO, that's the difference between a defensive driver and a special snowflake driver, the former waits the 30 seconds at a red light to safely turn, the latter takes a chance and then blames the other person who hits him. 

EXACTLY this!

[Quof]

FFS, America, I know you've got some big breaking news today.  But did you have to interrupt JJ's smackdown of the obnoxious mover????; I can only assume it was a smackdown, since that's how it was heading, when Breaking News flashed on my screen.

[Zahdii]

Wait.  I've had the TV off.  What breaking news?

[CrazyInAlabama]

Breaking news was something to do with the political dog and pony show going on in court.

The mover verdict ended up being that plaintiff had to pay him, and then the mover would submit the damage claim of $1,200 his insurance company.      I understand the lack of physical inspection on a move from way out of town.     That's how we did my move when I was in an extended stay motel, and they picked up from my storage unit.   They did know the size of the unit, but that's all.     My guess is that the mover wasn't as fast as she wanted, and I bet she hadn't packed any of her valuable stuff, like that strange lamp, for shipping.     The plaintiff also was upset that one mover had to leave, and was replaced by another, after the mover's family member died.     I bet she thought the mover would move everything for her (it was a big house, and a door-to-door move from way out of town), and she would only pay the mover for the low estimate of items she gave him.   I totally disliked the plaintiff, but that's probably because she reminded me of someone I used to know, and dislike.

Also, who knows when her stuff was damaged?    A photo of a damaged item doesn't mean it happened in this move either, it could have happened before, and she never claimed it.    Besides, that lamp was ugly, almost as ugly as her attitude. 

The first case of the former tenant who took months to move out, and didn't pay for a full month, was ridiculous.      You don't move out, and then complain about everything that was wrong while you lived there.    The tenant was another example of why landlords stop renting and sell the house.    However, the tenant did research, and claims there was no certificate of occupancy for the house, but that was also after he moved out.     I wouldn't be surprised if it was an older house, and they didn't issue certificates of occupancy then, or if the paperwork was lost by the courthouse.     

I did enjoy the other new case (at least on my cable guide it was new) with the roommates, the woman roommate had a different boyfriend when the woman, two men, and another roommate (I think there were four), moved in together.    Then the young woman hooked up with the other male roommate who stayed.   And then the ex-roommate said the woman cheated on the roommate/boyfriend.      Peyton Place lives.      Her parents must be so proud of the daughter, and the boyfriend certainly was desperate to be with her.  

Edited August 22, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The first case of the former tenant who took months to move out, and didn't pay for a full month, was ridiculous. 

Some government crook got caught, and that's such breaking news they couldn't wait 1/2 an hour for the news program? I found Mr. Cleghorn's wild story fascinating, especially when JJ was repeating his testimony back to him and he broke in to say "That's not true!" LOL! He paid the new landlord 800$/he paid nothing. They moved all their furniture, including the beds, into the new home but were still living at the old home. He was "juggling rent" on two places, except he wasn't. They paid no rent for February but want the rent back. I really needed to see the rest of this.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, SuburbanHangSuite said:

Wow.  Plaintiff in the Moving case today was a nasty piece of work.  

She was very haughty and nasty, but I'm wondering if it's true that the mover has been sued 14 times. Anyone catch the name of the company?

[KittyMom4]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She was very haughty and nasty, but I'm wondering if it's true that the mover has been sued 14 times. Anyone catch the name of the company?

Me too, the fact that the 2 people who did her move were no longer with his company makes me think there may have been a little bit of merit to her story. As far as ALL the damages, I think she may have exaggerated things. If I had lamps that I bought "at a gallery in Paris" I would not entrust them to 2 guys I'd never met before. They would have been packed in cotton and put in my car for me to move personally.

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, GoodieGirl said:

Me too, the fact that the 2 people who did her move were no longer with his company makes me think there may have been a little bit of merit to her story.

I believe she was such a bitch, such a virulent harridan to them that they said, "Oh, fuck this!" and did use her mattress as a toboggan (Hee!) in the snow and did break her stuff. After all, they can just go and get other moving jobs, so no biggie if they got fired. What do they care?

"How am I supposed to replace my lamps?" she whines. "I have no idea," says JJ. Go back to Paris and get more, or buy some here, or shop online, or have them repaired. Jeeze, they're only things.

[AZChristian]

38 minutes ago, GoodieGirl said:

Me too, the fact that the 2 people who did her move were no longer with his company makes me think there may have been a little bit of merit to her story. As far as ALL the damages, I think she may have exaggerated things. If I had lamps that I bought "at a gallery in Paris" I would not entrust them to 2 guys I'd never met before. They would have been packed in cotton and put in my car for me to move personally.

If we assume (as I did, too) that "she may have exaggerated things," I suspect that the fourteen lawsuits don't all exist.  As far as the fact that two people who worked for a moving company were no longer employed there, I'm thinking that's a job with a lot of turnover . . . so two people leaving isn't that big of a deal.  The defendant said his company was licensed and bonded.  If they were as horrible as the plaintiff claimed, they'd have lost their bonding company long ago.

I 100% agree with you.  She should have packed those lamps and moved them herself.  She said she bought them "at a gallery in Paris" - but had no proof.  She might just as well have bought them at a yard sale down the street.

[Quof]

Plaintiff is a realtor.  I expect most of what was being moved was generic knick knacks and paddywhacks, purchased at Homegoods, to stage houses. 

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, Quof said:

Plaintiff is a realtor.  I expect most of what was being moved was generic knick knacks and paddywhacks, purchased at Homegoods, to stage houses. 

Maybe there's a Homegoods in Paris!  (LOL)

[KittyMom4]

25 minutes ago, Quof said:

Plaintiff is a realtor.  I expect most of what was being moved was generic knick knacks and paddywhacks, purchased at Homegoods, to stage houses.

I didn't know that, since that's the case why did she exclaim "this is the first time I've ever moved, what do I know?" You'd think being in the business of people-moving she'd have contacts, inside knowledge, maybe even a few coworkers who would have advised her! 

 

25 minutes ago, Quof said:

I expect most of what was being moved was generic knick knacks and paddywhacks

Side note: I am getting my house ready to sell, can I just tell you I had no idea how many of these buggers I have accumulated?? And since I am downsizing from 2200 sq ft to 900 sq ft I have a lot of stuff to get rid of!

Edited August 22, 2018 by GoodieGirl
forgotten letters make things confusing...