All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Byrd is the Word]

10 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I've stayed in places where I would have loved a room that size, and a huge bathroom like that, and the fridge is such a nice amenity, I don't care that it was in the closet.   I guess Perry Mason wanted the fridge in the room, so he could hear it run all night?   

We’ve stayed in many VRBO and Airbnb properties in the US and Europe. They are generally a great bargain particularly if you don’t want the calories and expense of 3 meals a day in a restaurant. Some are income properties and a few have been a person’s actual home that the owner vacates in exchange for the rent. It’s not for everybody. But for us it’s a bit of an adventure and more interesting than most hotels. You meet some interesting people and the sharing/pay it forward nature appeals to us also. Once in Dallas last year I had a bad experience. The place belonged to a man who lived there. Like a pig. It was a total misrepresentation and the well beyond dirty. The city was busy with a major convention and the NCAA basketball tourney so my options were limited. I “ate the steak”, complained to Airbnb, wrote an honest review and moved on. No law suit. Now I have the shocking pictures and a great “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” type story to tell. Life goes on. 

[Byrd is the Word]

55 minutes ago, chenoa333 said:

What is happening with her right upper lip? Cold sore maybe? 

My best guess is collagen injections that have collected in one area over an other. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[nora1992]

15 hours ago, patty1h said:

Ellen Schneiderman paid money to get her face like that?  OMG, what a rubber mask nightmare she looks like.

Did this come to anyone else's mind?  

[PrincessPurrsALot]

1 hour ago, nora1992 said:

Did this come to anyone else's mind?  

She truly was ahead of her time.  🙂 

[NYCFree]

10 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

I thought so too.  To me it was the typical look of Beverly Hills /LA woman who are scared to age.

Did anyone notice today, that JJ refused to listen to 2 countersuits?  

I’ve read somewhere that the “style” in Beverly Hills/California is have plastic surgery that definitely looks like plastic surgery. Whereas the East Coast style is to have the plastic surgery not be noticeable, but rather simply make the recipient look younger, or “refreshed”.

Supposedly, the California style is like an ostentatious display of wealth “look how much money I have, in order to do this to my face.” I simply can’t imagine this. However, if you compare the looks of Beverly Hills Housewives to their NY sisters, this does appear to be the case. The CA women aren’t lacking for money, so they must actually want these features.

[Byrd is the Word]

25 minutes ago, NYCFree said:

California style is like an ostentatious display of wealth

I'm Chicago born and raised and I've traveled this country extensively.  Southern California is the only place I've been where I feel almost completely out of my element.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

My best guess is collagen injections that have collected in one area over an other.

Exactly what I think. Maybe whatever quack was injecting it didn't have a  steady hand that day.

11 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

Did anyone notice today, that JJ refused to listen to 2 countersuits?  

Probably baloney anyway. She's already read them and decided "Ridiculous!"

[Guest]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

You could even see the folds of skin around her ears where it was pulled too tight and a mouth that has been stretched nearly ear-to-ear by injections and facelifts and just make her eyes look even closer together.

I noticed that, too. It looked to me that that facelift was relatively recent and hadn't yet started to settle down. Not that she's going to look any less Frankenstein-ian when it does though. 

The whole lot of them in that case were despicable, overprivileged cretins. 

[KittyMom4]

On 2/11/2019 at 10:06 AM, funky-rat said:

I'll be happy when the stupid barn wedding Pinterest-palooza becomes old hat.

You and me both....why do weddings have to have a 'theme', isn't THE WEDDING a theme enough???

On 2/9/2019 at 10:57 PM, ButYourHonor said:

True.  That was the one thing that made me think she really isn’t the blogger... then again she could have been planning to write down a phony name.  Either way, she was a sanctimonious ass.

I think she was willing to write down the 'name' until JJ said she was going to give it to the P so she could sue that person, but realizing if she wrote down her friend Joan's name and then Joan gets sued, guess who Joan is going to throw under the bus?

22 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Sadly, I will admit to have a 1992 Aerostar back in the day. My Ex selfishly got the car in the divorce, after which he backed into a pole and broke off the bumper (which he replaced with a railroad tie). It finally broke down for good at some point as I saw him walking by the side of the road with a half gallon jug of water and a  bottle of antifreeze as I sailed by in my much newer and mechanically superior vehicle. Buh-bye Aerostar. 

sweet sweet Karma!!! 

17 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Did anybody else get the sense the Ms Schneiderman may have suffered trauma to the left side of her face?

The trauma of a needle full of botox hitting a nerve. 

16 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

She was a bit of a fright and a shining example of why I'd rather live almost anywhere than southern California.  But he is that pampered, entitled asshole traveler that stands in line in front of you at the airport tearing the skin from the cheeks of some airline agent.

Both of those parties deserved each other, she of the scheister school of VROB'ing and he of the "I'm SUPER SPECIAL" variety. Ick to both of them, had no sympathy for either one. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, NYCFree said:

I’ve read somewhere that the “style” in Beverly Hills/California is have plastic surgery that definitely looks like plastic surgery.

If this is true, Meg Ryan, Ms.Schniederman and a whole bunch of others certainly got what they paid for. Yikes.

[poeticlicensed]

The Beverly Hills VBRO room looked damn fine for $240 a night, given that it's in Beverly Hills. Private pool and pool bath, I'll take it! Plaintiff was a self entitled ass. What did he expect for 240 a night in BH? I laughed that he was offended by the fridge in the closet. I'm betting they put the fridge there for the guests to use. Defendant had a scary face and she was annoying, but he got what he paid for, she didn't misrepresent the room. Plaintiff thought he could pull a fast one by finding old pics in Zillow and trying to present them as evidence. 

[funky-rat]

22 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

reminds me of the infamous Amy's Baking Company episode of Kitchen Nightmares...I believe Amy was caught using pix from Pinterest representing that they were items that she had baked herself. 

She also later admitted that a chunk of her offerings were outsourced.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Both new episodes-

First Episode-

Gender Reveal Party Pooper!-Defendant daughter and fiance owe plaintiff mom $350 the balance of a loan for vet bills for their dog.     The other issue is plaintiff allegedly posted mean video and pictures online of daughter and son-in-law (almost), and defendants were embarrassed.    So when Mom refused to stop posting this stuff, everyone got mad, and defendants stopped paying the loan back, and plaintiff Mom is still storing the baby things the defendants bought themselves, and won't give the baby stuff back.   JJ takes this chance to say the Mother is forever, and the fiance may not be around very long.    

JJ's right fiance needs to shut up, and butt out.   However, it doesn't sound that the mother and daughter ever had a great relationship.    Mother gives back the baby stuff.  Daughter/defendant claims the vet bill money was a loan.    JJ would have taken the pictures down, and mother didn't like the daughter's tone.     I suspect the mother and daughter won't be best buddies ever.  $350 for plaintiff, and gifts were returned.  

Judge Judy's Joy for $500 Alex-Plaintiff suing former roommate for traffic tickets, and getting her car impounded and junked.  Car was impounded and junked after plaintiff couldn't afford to get it out of impound, after defendant had a wreck with plaintiff's car.   (I never heard of a junking in less than 30 days, and many are much longer depending on the jurisdiction).  Wonder if the plaintiff just went out of town, or was in jail or prison?    Defendant was left with the plaintiff's tiny kids, but someone else was supposed to watch the kids.     Defendant is counter-suing for illegal eviction.

JJ has already branded the defendant a liar, and probably the plaintiff, so my guess is she thinks they're both trying to get paid for a car by the show, and lying and scamming.      Defendant didn't have driver's license (at 27), and it was suspended at least twice (speeding, etc.), and claims to have a hardship license.   Hardship license only included going to and from work, grocery store, hospitals, and not visits to relatives, or boyfriends.    Defendant claims to have been going to the emergency room at the time of the accident, and when JJ wants the number of the ER, the defendant changes her lies again.   

Defendant claims she went to the ER at University Hospital with pregnancy issues, and then on the way home she had the wreck, which is a lie.   Defendant went to some friend's house, and had the wreck (booty stop with friend is my guess).   

Defendant has a counter claim, which is hysterical. that plaintiff threw the tramp out after the accident, and car junking.    Defendant's claim is for the usual TV, and clothes, and is all $3000.    Plaintiff says she gave defendant 48 hours to get her stuff, and she didn't so plaintiff claims she threw it out by the curb.    Plaintiff gets $1400 (I think).   The plaintiff's vertical stripe black and white top is making me dizzy.

Second episode-

Halfway House Fail!-Contractor defendant had no contractor's license, or insurance.    Defendant hired his workers from the halfway house.   Plaintiff suing for not finishing contracting work, and theft.     Plaintiff was having defendant do drywall work.     Plaintiff hired defendant after seeing pictures of 'his' work on Facebook.     Plaintiff was downsizing, and work was on a smaller house he bought.      When plaintiff went to check on progress furnace, and appliances weren't in the garage, but were outside, and destroyed by a worker.     Plaintiff hired another company to put in the drywall.    Defendant was fired for theft.       Defendant was in halfway house at one time, and hired others from there too.      Defendant was working on another job, so was never there supervising.  Plaintiff gets $3k back, minus the drywall defendant bought for job, which leaves $1525.

Son Paid to Care for Sick Mother-Plaintiff caretaker suing defendant for non-payment taking care of defendant's mother for a month.    Plaintiff worked 5 days a week for 5 hours a day.    Defendant applied to state for pay to take care of his mother.   Defendant was paid by the state to take care of his mother in the evening, and he had lived in her house for a long time before that, for free.    Plaintiff claims the defendant shorted her wages.  The reason the man didn't pay the caretaker was the state would only pay for 2 1/2 hours, not 5, so he didn't pay the rest.  Before the health aide, the mother was alone for up to 12 hours a day, on the defendant's work days.         Plaintiff was paid $125, and gets the money the state paid  defendant for caring for his mother which was $800, adding up to $925

Warning, Tomorrow's second episode has a warning about watching it, there is a savage attack by some pit bulls on a tiny poodle, and it's on video. 

[Byrd is the Word]

47 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Halfway House Fail!

You forgot to mention that the plaintiff looks like a poor man’s Justin Timberlake and the defendant a poor man’s Eminem. Also, defendant   wife looked a little strung out but maybe it’s jet lag and/or the toll of her four kids. 

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant applied to state for pay to take care of his mother.   Defendant was paid by the state to take care of his mother in the evening, and he had lived in her house for a long time before that, for free.

I can almost swallow the bitter fact that the defendant receives a stipend  to care for his mother. Maybe in a perfect world (yeah, I know, dream on) it buys her some extra comfort. But when the care becomes all about the money and not about the quality of care and the patient you’ve lost me big time. 

[AngelaHunter]

58 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Halfway House Fail!

Plaintiff is a different kind of stupid than we usually see. A licensed, insured contractor would do the job for 6500$. Def, an unemployed, uninsured, shifty moron, would do the same job for 8000$. Usually it's the other way around, the person chooses the cheaper, unlicensed person and then squawks about the shitty job. Not here. Plaintiff drags out the old, "I'm a nice person. I have a big heart. I felt sorry for him" so chooses the expensive idiot because he wants to pay much more for someone unqualified I guess. Idiot goes and rounds up god-knows-who from some halfway house, gives them free rein in plaintiff's house even though they may not know what they're doing and probably swiped plaintiff's stuff and then def takes off for parts unknown. Plaintiff never thought anything could go wrong, I guess. Amazing how water always finds its own level with def's wife Justine, who thinks her loser hubby is just perfect, so perfect that she wanted to have FOUR kids with him. Poor kids, with two amoral cretins for parents. Plaintiff didn't get everything he wanted, but he really needed to be punished for his stupidity so maybe he won't do the same again.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Son Paid to Care for Sick Mother

I don't get this. Def lives with Mom, works 12 hrs a day and spends a few hours at night with Mom, tidies the house he lives in and cooks meals he eats and strangers are forced to PAY him to do this? Even then, the money he got wasn't enough, so the plaintiff, who actually did care for mom got nothing from him. What kind of racket is this?

[Byrd is the Word]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Justine, who thinks her loser hubby is just perfect, so perfect that she wanted to have FOUR kids with him.

Bet you a beer that not each of the 4 kids are his. 

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ's right fiance needs to shut up, and butt out.

I thought differently: JJ needs to butt out in this case, she is not Dr. Phil, The two are in couple and he can have a say into what's going on, because the situation impacts him as well as her. Of course, she makes the final decision as to which course to take

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Son Paid to Care for Sick Mother-

Defendant obviously was only too happy to have found a way to make some easy money, even it it meant screwing an honest worker who provided the actual service.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Warning, Tomorrow's second episode has a warning about watching it, there is a savage attack by some pit bulls on a tiny poodle, and it's on video. 

I am sure that in many viewing areas it will be replaced by "special reports" reminding viewers that it is snowing hard outside, as they can see by just looking out their windows.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Florinaldo

[parrotfeathers]

I understand about the son getting payment for taking care of Mom.  I agree he didn't really do enough to get payment, but the gov't will pay for home health care.  Sometimes a family member will apply and will be approved as that health care worker and payment will go to him/her instead of a stranger.  I guess it is legal.

[Florinaldo]

14 minutes ago, parrotfeathers said:

I guess it is legal.

I have no problem with such programs, as long as the recipient puts in the corresponding work, which did not seem to be the case with him. Being a caregiver to older people is quite a job and the money must go to the person actually performing the required tasks, in this case the plaintiff whom he seemed to have no regret in stiffing.

[AngelaHunter]

I still don't get why anyone should be paid for taking care of a family member in the evening when they're home anyway. It's not like he had to quit his job to look after her, then he hires someone to do just that and keeps all the money after that poor woman did all the work, the pig. I took care of my mother when she was sick and it never occured to me to hit the public trough to get remunerated for caring for my OWN MOTHER. I could see it if, for example, a SSM had a child with such severe mental or physical issues that regular childcare workers couldn't handle and she has to stay home, but in this case? Pretty outrageous, IMO.

29 minutes ago, parrotfeathers said:

Sometimes a family member will apply and will be approved as that health care worker

Yeah, we've seen the kind of wily scams that attracts. Everyone is always looking for a angle to get something for nothing and exploit/abuse a service that is meant to help the truly needy.

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I am sure that in many viewing areas it will be replaced by "special reports" reminding viewers that it is snowing hard outside, as they can see by just looking out their windows.

There's a major snowstorm here (I think the same place you are) but there's no bulletins breathlessly yelping about snow in February.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

There's a major snowstorm here (I think the same place you are) but there's no bulletins breathlessly yelping about snow in February.

That's because we are made of sturdy stuff up North (except in Toronto where 10 cm of snow are enough to send citizens into a panic and for the mayor to call in the Army).

Edited February 13, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Byrd is the Word]

9 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I have no problem with such programs, as long as the recipient puts in the corresponding work

I’d much prefer to be cared for by a family member or friend and if a stipend from a government agency helps offset a loss of income or out of pocket expense, perfect. I can easily imagine a scenario where caring for someone full time would cause a financial hardship. But like many government programs, it started with good intentions and then gets corrupted by skeemers and scammers.  

Edited February 13, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

8 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

That's because we are made of sturdy stuff up North (except in Toronto where 10 cm of snow are enough to send citizens into a panic and for the mayor to call in the Army).

10 cm, that’s like 3” in Chicago, eh. 😉

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

10 cm, that’s like 3” in Chicago,

10 cm converts to 4 inches, but perhaps 3 is the threshold of an emergency situation in Chicago.

To be fair to Toronto, calling in the Army happened way back in 1999, but it left quite an impression, especially poor Mayor Lastman's press conference, where he looked so pitiful as the situation overwhelmed him.

I made my initial comment because some posters here have reported in the past that the show gets interrupted in their area by trivial weather updates.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I’d much prefer to be cared for by a family member or friend and if a stipend from a government agency helps offset a loss of income or out of pocket expense, perfect.

I agree completely, but in this case, he wasn't taking care of her or losing a penny of income.  He left her alone 12hrs a day, 5 days a week and spent a few hours with her at night in the house HE was living in. So for maybe bringing her a of tea and saying "Goodnight" he got - what? 800$/mnth? Isn't that what he said? Then we she was no longer able to stay alone all those hours, he hired plaintiff, but thought no way was he getting off that gravy train, so kept it.

13 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

especially poor Mayor Lastman's press conference, where he looked so pitiful as the situation overwhelmed him.

He was acting like a clown, just for attention and turned TO into a laughingstock. We're up to 40cm (16 inches) since yesterday and it's still snowing, but no one cares.

[Byrd is the Word]

19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I agree completely, but in this case, he wasn't taking care of her or losing a penny of income. 

This clod is one of the skeemers and scammers that indeed corrupt the generally well intended system.  It wasn't enough that he took money that he likely didn't need but then he took from a woman who probably did and certainly deserved to be paid for the work she was hired to do.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

21 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

10 cm converts to 4 inches, but perhaps 3 is the threshold of an emergency situation in Chicago.

To be fair to Toronto, calling in the Army happened way back in 1999, but it left quite an impression, especially poor Mayor Lastman's press conference, where he looked so pitiful as the situation overwhelmed him.

I made my initial comment because some posters here have reported in the past that the show gets interrupted in their area by trivial weather updates.

Chicago's weather and Toronto's are remarkably similar.  And we haven't had a genuine snow emergency in a decade.  But that doesn't stop the local TV stations from interrupting regular programming with bulletins that seem to suggest that snow is toxic or that it'll explode on your driveway.  Frankly, it's just another obvious ploy to scare us into watching and thus improving their ratings.

[khyber]

On 2/9/2019 at 7:30 PM, Byrd is the Word said:

On a personal note, my 6 siblings and I have sadly buried both parents and liquated a fairly sizable estate without a single lawsuit and barely a snotty word between us. It can be done people. (I’m sure the regular contributors here already know this) But it’s almost impossible unless the parents haven’t made a proper estate plan with wills, trusts and the necessary POA’s for health care and property. Any of us with kids who hasn’t worked hard to make this easy and equitable for those left behind is, in my opinion, either an irresponsible fool or an asshole. 

Just got back from out of town & saw this. I couldn't agree more. I too was trustee for a big trust & everything went well with the 5 step-siblings. Even the estate lawyer & tax accountant were stunned that step-siblings didn't fight over various issues. The keys: the parents had all the docs listed above, I informed all about the major decisions & why I was making them, & everyone understood why I was chosen to do it & not them.

I now have a friend who's mother has passed & father will soon, but he is a control freak with a very complicated estate & an adult special needs child. No one knows what he has planned so it will be a mess. Why parents do that to their kids I don't know.

[Byrd is the Word]

42 minutes ago, khyber said:

I was chosen to do it & not them.

My younger brother was chosen and he was perfect.  He's honest, smart AF and understands money.  Not that I don't, 😉  Also by being the middle he has better relationships with some of the younger ones.  As the oldest I sometimes carry a lot of childhood shit from them that still plays out sometimes. He didn't make a major move without discussing it with me and I appreciated that.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

9 minutes ago, khyber said:

Why parents do that to their kids I don't know.

I am in complete agreement.  It's not necessarily intentional, but it's cruel.  The other thing is when parents try to micro manage from the grave. Make a good plan, protect and provide for the ones that deserve it and RIP.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

perhaps 3 is the threshold of an emergency situation in Chicago

I was born and raised in Washington DC where the threshold is 1/4" when people start to abandon their cars in intersections.

[KittyMom4]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I agree completely, but in this case, he wasn't taking care of her or losing a penny of income.  He left her alone 12hrs a day, 5 days a week and spent a few hours with her at night in the house HE was living in. So for maybe bringing her a of tea and saying "Goodnight" he got - what? 800$/mnth? Isn't that what he said? Then we she was no longer able to stay alone all those hours, he hired plaintiff, but thought no way was he getting off that gravy train, so kept it.

Agreed! The poor woman/health aid was left to do the work for little or no money because supposedly his mother set it all up and he had no say in who it went to. I think he thought she'd never call him out on it either. 

14 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I thought differently: JJ needs to butt out in this case, she is not Dr. Phil, The two are in couple and he can have a say into what's going on, because the situation impacts him as well as her. Of course, she makes the final decision as to which course to take

I disagree, JJ, as she reminded us has seen this same scenario time after time after time. That woman was 19 years old (she looked older, btw) and thinks they are soooo in love, we're gonna have a baby and daddy is always gonna be in the picture and we're going to live happily ever after, until it doesn't. Then all of sudden there's no baby daddy and no money and they start dragging everyone to court to argue over cribs and diapers and soccer leagues and who knows all else, without the benefit of marriage and a divorce where the judge can sort out their couches and TEE VEES and VEEHickles. 

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Halfway House Fail!-

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Plaintiff is a different kind of stupid than we usually see. A licensed, insured contractor would do the job for 6500$. Def, an unemployed, uninsured, shifty moron, would do the same job for 8000$. Usually it's the other way around, the person chooses the cheaper, unlicensed person and then squawks about the shitty job. Not here. Plaintiff drags out the old, "I'm a nice person. I have a big heart. I felt sorry for him" so chooses the expensive idiot because he wants to pay much more for someone unqualified I guess.

Something fishy going on with this. I think there was a house flip in the works and P & D were thinking they could hire cheap labor, fix it up and flip it for big money. I think P knew EXACTLY where the labor was coming from and it wasn't until he realized the D had no idea what he was doing and wasn't supervising the criminal contractors that he wised up. And what the hell was D's wife "supervising"???? Idiots all of them, glad not much was won. 

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, GoodieGirl said:

Something fishy going on with this.

What struck me most about this case is that the defendant hired a crew of drunks, junkies and misfits who steal and destroy the property of the plaintiff, gets himself fired yet still expresses indignation that JJ’s ruling will cause him to lose money. Perhaps at some point during the licensing process he’d have learned that we only profit when we deliver value and suffer when we don’t. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

This clod is one of the skeemers and scammers that indeed corrupt the generally well intended system.  It wasn't enough that he took money that he likely didn't need but then he took from a woman who probably did and certainly deserved to be paid for the work she was hired to do.

And kept trying to claim he did no wrong, since it was Mom, not him, who initially signed him up as he provider.

Edited February 13, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, GoodieGirl said:

. I think there was a house flip in the works and P & D were thinking they could hire cheap labor, fix it up and flip it for big money. I think P knew EXACTLY where the labor was coming from and it wasn't until he realized the D had no idea what he was doing and wasn't supervising the criminal contractors that he wised up.

That would be the usual scenario (no way do I believe the plaintiff's "sympathy" BS) but in this case, the def was charging more than a real contractor. That is the part I don't get. What person in his right mind is going to hire some clown for 1500$ more than a legit contractor would charge? He's not running a charity and doesn't even know the def. Not a great business plan. I have no idea what shady business was afoot but whatever it was, it backfired.

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

That would be the usual scenario (no way do I believe the plaintiff's "sympathy" BS) but in this case, the def was charging more than a real contractor. That is the part I don't get. What person in his right mind is going to hire some clown for 1500$ more than a legit contractor would charge? He's not running a charity and doesn't even know the def. Not a great business plan. I have no idea what shady business was afoot but whatever it was, it backfired.

I’m with the group on this. P bought the property for $70k which even in Indiana won’t buy jack. He likely knew of the misfit labor which was okay for the demo. But only a fool or a flipper is going to let those same misfits do any construction intended to last. There was some testimony about the D doing just the demolition but it didn’t really go anywhere. The whole thing was off and frankly a bore except for the always off putting ghetto affectations of the Caucasian defendant. That was worth a laugh. Aight?

Edited February 13, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, GoodieGirl said:

JJ, as she reminded us has seen this same scenario time after time after time. That woman was 19 years old (she looked older, btw) and thinks they are soooo in love, we're gonna have a baby and daddy is always gonna be in the picture and we're going to live happily ever after, until it doesn't

JJ conveniently forgot the reverse side of the stastistic she quoted; if roughly 50 % of couples separate, then the same proportion stay together.

In any event, her role is to judge on present circumstances, not foretell relationships future. She has trouble enough as it is making fair and equitable decisions based on the facts and (when she so chooses) the law, she should not venture into Dr. Phil territory.

Plus, even though the mother will still be her mother in 10 years, considering what we saw on display I don't think there is any assurance that the relationship wth the daughter will be any better than it is now. JJ bought into the "blood is thicker than anything" nonsense; what good is trying to get support from a relative if you don't get along with them?

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

And kept trying to claim he did no wrong, since it was Mom, not him, who initially signed him up as he provider.

He had found an easy way to make some money without putting any effort into it and damn if he was going to let anyone convince him he was in the wrong for not paying the actual care provider.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Florinaldo

[KittyMom4]

@Florinaldo, I get what you're saying, but what I think JJ was saying and I'm agreeing with, is that when you are legally married it is easier to dissolve assets and marital debt/money than when you are 'playing house'. There are no laws or statutes to help you get what you brought in and/or earned while you live together, however divorce laws do. I think JJ was letting that young lady know that she'd be better served to marry the father so if the relationship doesn't work out at least she will be able to recoup something. 

[patty1h]

I've seen these cases before - someone is doing you a favor and breaks your item.  JJ had a case today - flat screen TV gets damaged while a non-professional attempts to hang it and she threw the plaintiff out with no award.  Is there a law that supports these events or is this a Judy thing?  This one always confused me.  Another thing that confuses me is the person who does break an item and doesn't pay for the broken item - that seems just crass.

[Byrd is the Word]

20 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I've seen these cases before - someone is doing you a favor and breaks your item.  JJ had a case today - flat screen TV gets damaged while a non-professional attempts to hang it and she threw the plaintiff out with no award.  Is there a law that supports these events or is this a Judy thing?  This one always confused me.  Another thing that confuses me is the person who does break an item and doesn't pay for the broken item - that seems just crass.

I think it’s important to recognize that JJ is an arbitrator of these cases and not a judge, per se. Both parties agree that her rulings are binding and there is an obligation to comply. But while she bases her rulings, more or less, on common law she’s not obligated to follow it. That’s while she’ll bark at some guy who argues this or that based a some parking statute from Nowhere, MN. Her rulings are sometimes based on logic and fair play (not always present in the law) and sometimes they’re just arbitrary and capricious. If I broke your TV while trying to hang it I’d probably pay for it. But I’d probably also expect you to shoulder shoulder some of the responsibility since it was an accident and I had nothing to gain by helping. Most of us have been there, done that and didn’t up in court. They fact that many of these dopes can’t work things out like grown ups is half the fun!

Edited February 13, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[iwasish]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I think it’s important to recognize that JJ is an arbitrator of these cases and not a judge, per se. Both parties agree that her rulings are binding and there is an obligation to comply. But while she bases her rulings, more or less, on common law she’s not obligated to follow it. That’s while she’ll bark at some guy who argues this or that based a some parking statute from Nowhere, MN. Her rulings are sometimes based on logic and fair play (not always present in the law) and sometimes they’re just arbitrary and capricious. If I broke your TV while trying to hang it I’d probably pay for it. But I’d probably also expect you to shoulder shoulder some of the responsibility since it was an accident and I had nothing to gain by helping. Most of us have been there, done that and didn’t up in court. They fact that many of these dopes can’t work things out like grown ups is half the fun!

I think most people who tried to help and broke something would be contrite and at least offer to split the cost at minimum... and most of us who had asked for the help would refuse and eat the loss. 

The halterview was interesting ... 

[DropTheSoap]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

I've seen these cases before - someone is doing you a favor and breaks your item.  JJ had a case today - flat screen TV gets damaged while a non-professional attempts to hang it and she threw the plaintiff out with no award.  Is there a law that supports these events or is this a Judy thing?  This one always confused me.  Another thing that confuses me is the person who does break an item and doesn't pay for the broken item - that seems just crass.

It gets into determining negligence, in legal sense. That's why she kept asking the guy if he had any particular experience with installing TVs or did something like the installation for a living. A non-professional is held to a different standard than someone who specializes in that type of work. JJ seemed to be  looking to see if he had any intent to cause damage -- if he acted maliciously. Without a showing of that, I think she either determined he wasn't negligent or that the person with the TV was more negligent than he was in asking for a non-professional to do the installation of the item. (My guess based on how things went.)

Edited February 13, 2019 by DropTheSoap

[DropTheSoap]

20 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

I understand about the son getting payment for taking care of Mom.  I agree he didn't really do enough to get payment, but the gov't will pay for home health care.  Sometimes a family member will apply and will be approved as that health care worker and payment will go to him/her instead of a stranger.  I guess it is legal.

It's legal -- if someone's actually taking care of the person.

I just kept thinking the guy looked like Mick Belker from Hill Street Blues.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I think it’s important to recognize that JJ is an arbitrator of these cases and not a judge, per se. Both parties agree that her rulings are binding and there is an obligation to comply. But while she bases her rulings, more or less, on common law she’s not obligated to follow it.

An arbitrator usually follows a certain set of rules or principles, a framework that guides and sometimes limits the decisions. I have played that role a few times, on panels or solo in the field of labour law, and we couldn't improvise arbitrary guidelines.

JJ sometimes barks "that is what the LAW says!", other times she declares "I don't care what the law says" and in other instances she simply makes up her own rules on the spot. In that sense I don't see her as a real arbitrator, but rather as an "arbitrarinessator," to make up a new silly word.

[AuntiePam]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't get this. Def lives with Mom, works 12 hrs a day and spends a few hours at night with Mom, tidies the house he lives in and cooks meals he eats and strangers are forced to PAY him to do this? Even then, the money he got wasn't enough, so the plaintiff, who actually did care for mom got nothing from him. What kind of racket is this?

It's probably cheaper than paying a professional, and it's definitely cheaper than nursing home care.  I think that's the premise for a lot of state and federal programs that provide funds to family members caring for other family members -- care for them at home if at all possible. 

What I don't understand is why the plaintiff and defendant were both paid for care during the same time period, and why plaintiff was paid less. 

Also, the producers goofed up big time by showing that dog attack video as a preview.  I have a strong stomach but that had me shouting "No" loud enough to wake my napping husband.

Dog lovers -- skip the episode entirely -- you won't be able to avoid the video.

Edited February 14, 2019 by AuntiePam
Warning on the dog case

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the caretaker case, the aide was coming in for five hours a day, five days a week, while the son was working his usual 12 hour work day.    Before he found out about the state program, the man had left his mother alone for 12 hours a day, and then he had the aide for a month, and he was getting paid for taking care of his mother after he got home, and on weekends or at least his two non-work days.     I'm sure since the aide was only there for a month that the mother is now alone all day again. 

I put today's episodes in the Chambers Thread, oops!   And skip the dog case.    

Both are new today (repeating the warning that the first case of episode two is a tiny poodle getting shredded on video by two bigger dogs)-

Episode One-

The Duped Duo!-Defendant gave $5k for a car, and same car was on craigslist for $7k later.     Plaintiff is suing defendant for fraud and theft over sale of a car.    Plaintiff is suing the defendant, but never met him before today.    Brian Bolton tried to buy a Subaru Crosstrek from craigslist, in October 2018 from Charles Griffith.     Charles Griffin is who the defendant bought the Crosstrek from (there is a Calif. Drivers License copy).   The plaintiff bought the car from someone else, and the registration, insurance, etc was Charles Griffin.    Defendant Bolton was supposed to get more keys, title, etc the next day after purchase, and the car couldn't be registered, because of no clear title.   

Car was parked in front of defendant's house, and disappeared one day, and police would not take a report, because it wasn't in defendant's name.   A few days later the car was on craigslist for $7500, and plaintiff bought it, the seller said he was Charles Griffin, but she couldn't title the car.    She was given the def. wife's ID, which hey exchanged after they bought the car from Griffin.   

Plaintiff claims the defendant realized he was scammed, so he ripped her off, which is all in her empty head.    The plaintiff's male witness is a jerk, and looks like Jim Carrey with the same stupid haircut, high water skinny pants, and looks like his mommy dressed him, and he's also an idiot.    Don't try to tell JJ hearsay, the way the plaintiff, and her amateur lawyer friend did.   

What kind of idiot buy a car on the California craigslist, that was previously cheaper on Tiajuana's craigslist? 

Why can't the idiot plaintiff see that she was scammed, and the defendant was too?   

And I really hope Byrd will boot her witness, her brother I guess, who looks like he escaped from a cult of Jim Carrey worshipers from the Dumb and Dumber days.   

Nothing for the plaintiff.    

Co-worker Hang Up!-Woman plaintiff asked male co-worker defendant to come to her house, and hang her TV on the wall, and the TV was broken.  They are both supervisors at Capitol One, perfect background for hanging a TV isn't it?  Plaintiff wants defendant to pay for the TV.   I can predict how this will end, before it airs.  Nothing for idiot plaintiff, and she deserves nothing.  She's just too cheap to get a TV installer.    The plaintiff's flowered leggings are a crime against fashion. 

EpisodeTwo-

Don't Let Children Watch This!-(Video of tiny poodle getting mauled by two Pit Bulls)-Plaintiff's witness saw the Pit Bull's attack on tiny poodle, and got the poodle free, and threw them back over the chain link fence, so the idiot defendant claims her dogs never left her yard.    What a liar the defendant is, and claims her dogs are American Bulldogs, not pits.    

Plaintiff let her dog out to wee, and suddenly the other dogs jumped the fence (4 ft. chain link) and attacked her poodle.   Plaintiff said she's seen the female pit jump the fence many times, and brought her dog back in, and sent her son to tell the defendant her dogs were out again.    

Plaintiff witness heard screaming and yelling, and went to the door,and saw the two dogs playing tug of war with the poodle,   The witness has also seen three dogs in the plaintiff's yard.     The man jumped the fence, and one dog ran and jumped back over the fence, and the man picked the dog up and tossed this dog over the fence, the dog came back again, and the man tossed the dog over again. 

 The defendant claims she came to the door, asked what happened, man told defendant what happened, and she said she would take care of it.     The video is horrific, and the defendant was actually standing  in her yard, and did nothing but stand there and watch.   The defendant is a total b-word, and heartless, and stupid too.   Defendant just said she's not mentally balanced.      Now defendant sees the video, and still denies her dogs did this, and her son is just as bad.    

The defendant's moron son keeps defending his mother.  I think they're going to show the video again, and the defendant keeps claiming the dogs were the plaintiff's witness's dogs.     I hope there is a decent animal control where they come from, and these dogs are gone.    The defendant only brought photos of two dogs, a tiny puppy, and the big male in the video, and claims she doesn't have three dogs, and she's a total liar.  $5k for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff says the little dog is still alive.

Go Back Where You Came From-Two former roomates, co-mingled funds, bought things on each other's accounts, and the only thing JJ will hear is about a guitar, and that the defendant posted photos of her.     Rhiannon Flint, the plaintiff is stupid, and has neon pink nylon looking hair.    JJ threw her back to small claims court.   That happens when you have zero evidence, and no witnesses.

Was She High?!-Woman plaintiff claims assault by defendant during a car ride, destroyed her phone, etc.   Defendant says woman assaulted him, and fell out of his car when he opened the door.  JJ asks a good question, "Was she high?", and my guess is she was high then, and she's high now.   

The two litigants had an argument on a trip to Atlanta, and he was driving, and she claims he wanted to put her out by the side of the road.   She claims he threw her phone out the window, and she claims he ripped out her dreadlocks by the roots.     Defendant claims plaintiff threw her phone at him, and he never touched her.    

The plaintiff is so stoned.   No medical records, no police report, nothing for the plaintiff, so now she has to pay for her own weed.  

Edited February 14, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Brattinella]

I only want to add SKIP THE DOG CASE!  Not only is it graphic and distressing, it is played in full TWICE.  Simply horrendous. :(

[CrazyInAlabama]

The only redeeming part of the dog case is when JJ asked the despicable defendant who has no heart, if she was mentally ill, and the defendant said she is.   

Byrd is the Word is right, Cody Lucas is a very brave and wonderful person to rescue that little dog. 

Now my computer screen has 100% ads for Doodle dogs.       

Edited February 14, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The man jumped the fence, and one dog ran and jumped back over the fence, and the man picked the dog up and tossed this dog over the fence, the dog came back again, and the man tossed the dog over again.

A huge shout out to Mr. Cody Lucas who is a brave man, a fine human being and an honest to God hero. You have my respect and admiration sir. 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Byrd is the Word