All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Byrd is the Word]

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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.    

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the best that this country has to offer in Mr. Lucas versus the worst this country has to offer in likes of this horrible defendant and her equally horrible progeny illustrated so well. This case will be under my skin for some time. 

[Brattinella]

11 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

This case will be under my skin for some time. 

Me too.  I cannot get that screaming dog out of my mind.  What a brain-dead woman!  Her son, too.  Getting all huffy because their precious doggies were being maligned!  I sincerely hope the dogs (at least) were put down.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour 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. 

I was in awe of his determination; I do not know if I would have had the courage to interpose myself in that fight with only my bare hands. But perhaps he was familiar with those dogs and knew they are typical bullies, just of the canine variety, i.e. fearless when dealing with smaller creatures but scared when confronted by a human. Him picking up the dog and throwing it over the fence was really something to behold.

The defendant's argument seemed to be that since she allegedly did not see it, it did not happen; even after watching the recording twice, she stuck to that line. Of course your dogs were back in your yard and not in the plaintiff's you vile ninny; the neighbour had chased them away back to their own territory.

JJ did not give a stellar performance in her exchanges with the plaintiff; instead of simply pointing out to her that the fact she did not witness the incident was irrelevant and moving on, she kept trying to drown her out while the other stupid woman was doing the same. The son seemed to admit that it did happen, but he was more intent on defending his mother's honour in that she told the truth about not seeing it happen (again, of no consequence as far as liability), adding to the cacophony.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

No dog case. I don't want to watch vicious and savage beings or dogs living with those savage beings.

I did enjoy the "Whose Car is it Anyway?" Erin, plaintiff is a 21-year old student who is rather hard-headed and dull, as is her high-waisted boy witnes/whatever.

Erin: "They told me that in California-"

JJ: "Don't tell me what anyone told you."

Erin: "Of course. They told me that in California-"

Def, who is 3 times her age, is just as stupid and shouldn't be. I get that in the olden days, it was easier to scam people. But now, with scam warnings abounding, we still have people of all ages and all levels of intelligence who completely put all their trust in some person on Craigslist. It's like CL is some unimpeachable source of honesty and integrity. WTF is going on? Has no one learned that seldom does anything good come from using CL? Anyway, Erin has this whole CSI theory about how def undertook this elaborate plan to scam her and enrich himself with a whole 2K. Frankly, def did not seem bright enough to be some criminal mastermind. GTFO, Erin and take Mr. Highpants with you.

Time waster with Shatavia, who invited her co-worker from the bank to mount her TV on the wall, even though he had no special knowledge of doing such. He says she invited him over at midnight, with the music going and a glass of wine in hand and was looking for a little hoochie coochie. I believed him. He broke the TV and Shatavia wants him to pay for it. Don't think so. Call the Geek Squad next time, Shatavia, but not at midnight.

[Toaster Strudel]

6 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Me too.  I cannot get that screaming dog out of my mind. 

It was blood-curdling alright.

Pitnutters have to see this, though. It's the only way. Pits will do that to babies, the elderly, their owners... let potential pit owners have their blood curdled by this video before deciding to invite this kind of potential bloodshed into their own homes. Though, I've long suspected, deep down, pitnutters secretly hope to see bloodshed inflicted on others, as evidenced by this particular owner just standing around, not helping, and then denying the whole thing. She enjoyed it.

[chenoa333]

On 2/12/2019 at 4:43 AM, Byrd is the Word said:

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

Are you serious? How dare you accuse Robin of having cosmetic procedures done to her face! 😁

[CrazyInAlabama]

That awful dog owner was a total POS, and she was definitely standing in the yard, and watching her dogs attack that poor, little dog.     

[augmentedfourth]

That video might have been one of the most disturbing things to ever air on this show. My mother was over at my house while it was on, and while she's no great lover of dogs, she had to hide her eyes for the second showing. The neighbor who broke it up is lucky he didn't suffer any injuries. 

All the litigants in the second episode seemed to be competing for the title of craziest hair, with the possible exception of the last defendant.

Lastly: SHATavia. That's all I could see. Unfortunate. 

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Though, I've long suspected, deep down, pitnutters secretly hope to see bloodshed inflicted on others, as evidenced by this particular owner just standing around, not helping, and then denying the whole thing. She enjoyed it.

I absolutely agree with this observation.  That bitch wasn't the first Pit Thug that I've noticed barely containing a smirk.

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

JJ did not give a stellar performance in her exchanges with the plaintiff; instead of simply pointing out to her that the fact she did not witness the incident was irrelevant and moving on, she kept trying to drown her out while the other stupid woman was doing the same. The son seemed to admit that it did happen, but he was more intent on defending his mother's honour in that she told the truth about not seeing it happen (again, of no consequence as far as liability), adding to the cacophony.

I was surprised JJ engaged for that long with POS & Son.  It was clear from the second that POS opened her yaw, that she was completely incapable of normal logic and reason.  POS Jr. made several smartass remarks, too...way past the Byrd Escorts You Out limit.  

It seemed like JJ was kind of trying to goad them into some histrionics for sweeps week.

If those dogs lived near me,  there would be a big ol' pile of poisoned ground beef tossed over the fence.

I'm a huge dog lover, but that attack was too much and won't be the last if they are allowed to live.

1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Edited February 14, 2019 by zillabreeze

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Pitnutters have to see this, though.

"Pittnutter" is my new word of the week.

From what I know of this breed of humans however, I don't think they would lean anything from watching that video. They would probably says something along the lines of "sure, those dogs are savage brutes, but my adorable and cuddly little pit would never do anything like this".

I also think that a number of them would actually cheer the attack, more or less overtly depending on who is watching with them.

41 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

That awful dog owner was a total POS, and she was definitely standing in the yard, and watching her dogs attack that poor, little dog.   

Although we did not see her in the far background during the attack, the way she came into view later on, not running out of her house, is indeed a strong indication that she was there all the time. As demonstrated by her testimony, she just did not care about the mayhem caused by her dogs, and still does not.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

In my opinion, it's always the owners, and I've said this for years. Irresponsible people see pitbulls as a symbol of toughness, and before that it was Rottweillers and Dobermans, etc, etc, and while overbreeding is a thing, that's also due to some irresponsible idiot who doesn't have any idea of how to take care of an animal, like that moron the other week who didn't call the vet until his dog had been in labor for something like ten hours.

[iwasish]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

No dog case. I don't want to watch vicious and savage beings or dogs living with those savage beings.

I did enjoy the "Whose Car is it Anyway?" Erin, plaintiff is a 21-year old student who is rather hard-headed and dull, as is her high-waisted boy witnes/whatever.

Erin: "They told me that in California-"

JJ: "Don't tell me what anyone told you."

Erin: "Of course. They told me that in California-"

Def, who is 3 times her age, is just as stupid and shouldn't be. I get that in the olden days, it was easier to scam people. But now, with scam warnings abounding, we still have people of all ages and all levels of intelligence who completely put all their trust in some person on Craigslist. It's like CL is some unimpeachable source of honesty and integrity. WTF is going on? Has no one learned that seldom does anything good come from using CL? Anyway, Erin has this whole CSI theory about how def undertook this elaborate plan to scam her and enrich himself with a whole 2K. Frankly, def did not seem bright enough to be some criminal mastermind. GTFO, Erin and take Mr. Highpants with you.

Time waster with Shatavia, who invited her co-worker from the bank to mount her TV on the wall, even though he had no special knowledge of doing such. He says she invited him over at midnight, with the music going and a glass of wine in hand and was looking for a little hoochie coochie. I believed him. He broke the TV and Shatavia wants him to pay for it. Don't think so. Call the Geek Squad next time, Shatavia, but not at midnight.

Car scam defendant looked a bit like Ed O’Neill from Modern Family. And was smart enough to let JJ deal with the nutty plaintiff without interrupting. I wonder how many hours she and goofy bf spent building that elaborate pile of evidence? 

[SRTouch]

22 hours 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 agree with the general 'WTH was going on' thread. Only thing I could come up with is to wonder if the price difference was sort of apples and oranges. What I was thinking was the legit contractor bid on just the moldy drywall remediation - these two clowns expand the job to remove/replace all the drywall. Not what legit contractor bid on, and reason his bid was lower.  Unlicensed contractor sends wife and unskilled labor to tear down all the drywall - not knowing how to remediate mold, they end up spreading contamination all over the place, which is why legit contractor raised price even though demo had been done.

Oh, and once again JJ used her warped ideas to declare unlicensed buffoon did half the job. If there are just two line items on the contract, the job is NOT necessarily half complete when first line item has been completed... no, there is a big difference between unskilled labor doing demo and experienced craftsmen - your tile, plumber, electrician, or in this case mud/drywall guys (for those who have never tried it, there is a certain art to taping/mudding that I never mastered on my DIY projects. And, as I mentioned, I wonder if in this case there maybe should have been professional mold remediation - which can turn pricey fast).

Edited February 14, 2019 by SRTouch

[PrincessPurrsALot]

**** MOD NOTE ****

I moved the general discussion of pit bulls over to the Small Talk thread.  We are getting a bit far afield.  I understand this discussion was sparked from this horrifying case, which evokes strong emotions. That's okay.  Just doing a little housekeeping. 

[DropTheSoap]

17 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

I was surprised JJ engaged for that long with POS & Son.  It was clear from the second that POS opened her yaw, that she was completely incapable of normal logic and reason.  POS Jr. made several smartass remarks, too...way past the Byrd Escorts You Out limit.  

I was surprised POS Jr. was allowed to stay at the mic and keep making snide comments.

[configdotsys]

I have not read above this comment because I am afraid to see anything about the dog case. Last week there was a case that said To be continued.... at the end. I can't even remember what it was about but my DVR never recorded the second half and I record both the 4-5 pm episodes and the 10-11 pm episodes because sometimes one or the other gets delayed or whatever for weather, news or basketball. Does anyone know what happened in the second half of that show?

[patty1h]

Did anyone else get this weird blip:  the first case was a contractor (with his hair hanging over one eye), then a commercial and the show comes back to an entirely different case involving a dog attack?   Seems like my cable service needs better techs.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

 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. 

Don't forget the tablets and cell phones. Every yahoo these days has a "flat screen" and a "tablet" (aka cheap a$$ Ipad) along with a 20 year old luxury veeehickle (think Lexus, Mercedes or even an Altima) 

Patty1H, I'm trying to figure out what's going on with my JJ right now. I ran the DVR back twice and was wondering if it was just me. 

I was fine with the poodle case as long as I didn't "hear" the woman yelling about her dog. But I was really impressed watching her neighbor pitch that pit bull over the fence TWICE. Dude is like a modern day Sir Galahad. 

1 hour ago, DropTheSoap said:

I was surprised JJ engaged for that long with POS & Son.

That was one rotten loose-lipped apple that didn't fall fall from the loose-lipped tree. The Pit Bull mama was ignorant and her child was even more ignorant. I imagine he's going to be a frequent flyer in the judicial system soon, if not already, and PB Mama can bail his sorry self out while she pontificates about how she didn't see nuthin. . . . 

[Spunkygal]

I can’t believe the vet was able to save that poor poodle! JJ didn’t ask how he is doing. I soooo wish I hadn’t watched the video. I had a nightmare about it last night. If that had been my dog, I would have run outside with every knife I owned and those savage dogs would not be alive. 

[Byrd is the Word]

Any woman the likes of Robin Gilden who is more concerned about a root canal on her dog than she is about carelessly exposing a child to pepper spray or mace is in serious need of a tune up. And her remark in hallterview about not being able to get out of bed because of the stress and strain of pulling on a leash. Really? 🙄 You’re either an academy award winning drama queen or grossly out of shape. And either way you’re an messed up old hag. 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[WhoaWhoKnew]

Just watched yesterday's car repossession/theft case.

I have never seen someone declare they are dating someone's husband with such unbridled pride. 

It really takes all kinds.

[SandyToes]

3 hours ago, DropTheSoap said:

I was surprised POS Jr. was allowed to stay at the mic and keep making snide comments.

Exactly. I think JJ was just so shocked at the case that she lost her reasoning ability, too!  The case was "almost" worth watching just for the sheer OMG-ness of POS and her mouthy, deplorable, odious son.  JJ: I always have the last word!  Jr.:  "You think so?"  Gah!    POS's  hairdo was another high point in an otherwise awful case.  

I'm guessing there are multiple rap sheets on both those charmers, and if not on Jr, there will be soon, and it will be just as horrific as the crimes his dogs commit.

VERY glad to hear Flippy the sweet doggy is alive and well.  When it wasn't mentioned in the case, I was a little worried.

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

That was one rotten loose-lipped apple that didn't fall fall from the loose-lipped tree. The Pit Bull mama was ignorant and her child was even more ignorant. I imagine he's going to be a frequent flyer in the judicial system soon, if not already, and PB Mama can bail his sorry self out while she pontificates about how she didn't see nuthin. . . . 

Great minds thinking alike!

[chenoa333]

21 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

If those dogs lived near me,  there would be a big ol' pile of poisoned ground beef tossed over the fence.

Mom and Lil' Wayne Wannabe should be the recipients of the poisoned meat.... so surprised JJ let the son talk back to her, talk over her, disrespect her. I've never seen JJ let that happen. 

[DropTheSoap]

The painter in the contractor case needed to learn important rule #1 — answer the question asked and otherwise keep quiet. Esp. when you’re not losing. 

Neighbor (defendant) in the dog/pepper spray case referred to plaintiff as an attorney. I guess it’s been a few decades since she’s taken evidence. 

Her callousness about pepper spraying the kid was rather amazing. 

[stephinmn]

Ellen Schneiderman is NOT A VEGAN. (For what it's worth)

https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wwwanimalalliancenet-ellen-lavinthal-aka-ellen-schneiderman/beverly-hills-california-90210/wwwanimalalliancenet-ellen-lavinthal-aka-ellen-schneiderman-ellen-lavinthal-aka-ellen-1050739

Edited February 15, 2019 by stephinmn

[augmentedfourth]

5 hours ago, patty1h said:

Did anyone else get this weird blip:  the first case was a contractor (with his hair hanging over one eye), then a commercial and the show comes back to an entirely different case involving a dog attack?   Seems like my cable service needs better techs.

Yeah, we got the same wonkiness in the NYC/tri-state area. My first episode started with the legal fees for the teenager, then the contractor case started, but when it came back from commercial, it was the end of the pepper spray case, followed by the car vandalism. Then in the next half hour, it was the legal fees and the contractor AGAIN, but then the contractor case was completed. It sounds like the pepper spray case was more interesting than the legal fees case, but oh well.

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Divorcees Fight Over Son's Assault!

Pretty unremarkable case except for the fact that the defendant dad looks oddly like Steve Buscemi.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

18 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Slick ponytail suing bizarre man-bun.

I didn't find this guy repulsive because of his pony tail and greasy hair.  But it helped.

[Byrd is the Word]

10 minutes ago, stephinmn said:

Ellen Schneiderman is NOT A VEGAN. (For what it's worth)

https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wwwanimalalliancenet-ellen-lavinthal-aka-ellen-schneiderman/beverly-hills-california-90210/wwwanimalalliancenet-ellen-lavinthal-aka-ellen-schneiderman-ellen-lavinthal-aka-ellen-1050739

I also happened to notice that she used her Facebook page to shame woman in NYC who wore a fur trimmed coat and posted a full face picture of the woman.

[stephinmn]

Ellen Schneiderman Pre-plastic surgery

Edited February 15, 2019 by stephinmn

[Guest]

On yesterday's case of the mother suing the father for attorney's fees, I am glad to have learned that the only tax-paying citizen in this country is Judge Judy who seems to think she's the only one (sometimes with an assist from Byrd) who "contributes" paying for anything. If I recall correctly, the father in this case also had a job. And from that job, I presume he pays taxes—just like the National Bank of Judge Judy. So for her to bleat on and on and on and on about herself being the benefactress of everyone in this country is pretty galling. (Yes, exaggerated for effect.) The woman makes $45 million (or whatever a year). Of that, maybe a nickel of her taxes (which I'm sure are finessed to within the letter to the law to make her pay the very least tiniest amount possible) would go to pay whatever legal assistance is needed for people of lesser means. In the same breath, the father also pays taxes so he also "paid" for the lawyer. Or because he's a person of lesser means does his "contribution" not count for anything? And between the two of them, I wonder who's gonna miss that nickel more every month?

She needs to take her overprivileged ass to the corner and shut up. 

[Florinaldo]

11 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Pretty unremarkable case except for the fact that the defendant dad looks oddly like Steve Buscemi.

I was surprised by the decision. Usually, JJ refuses to interpose herself in child support matters that are under the jurisdiction of real family courts, especially if a formal support judgment was rendered.  Here, she was able to read into the father's support obligations a duty to pay for half of the lawyer's fees, because they were a "life necessity", much like food and clothing.

I know I should not try to look for consistency in JJ's decisions (that way lies madness), but this seemed particularly nonsensical, especially because he did not have a say in the decision to hire the lawyer.

The decent thing might have been for him to contribute somethng on his own initiative, but that was a case where JJ should just butt out.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Byrd is the Word]

36 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Here, she was able to read into the father's support obligations a duty to pay for half of the lawyer's fees, because they were a "life necessity", much like food and clothing.

JJ is correct that it's a life "necessity" though.  In a criminal matter as this, you're grist for the mill without representation. Furthermore, I did find this ruling consistent in that she frequently rules (or pontificates) in favor of the tax payer as her lengthy and a bit redundant explanation of her ruling indicated.  So, if I put two and two together, the minor 17 year old needs an attorney and the parents who have the means should pay before you and I are required to do so. Once the kid turns 18 and you want to feed him to the wolves, so be it; it's your life I guess.  Until then be a man and protect your offspring.

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

If I recall correctly, the father in this case also had a job. And from that job, I presume he pays taxes

He may pay taxes, but that fact hardly frees him for the obligation of his half of a $5,000 legal bill.  The implication that as a taxpayer himself he pays for a public defender for his son's misdeeds ignores the fact that, at best, his obligation to the child he fathered is distributed among every other tax payer. As tax payers non of us should be paying for food, housing, health care or legal expenses for anyone who can afford it themselves and doing so robs from the people who truly need assistance and can't get by without out it.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Florinaldo]

27 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

JJ is correct that it's a life "necessity" though. 

It depends on what circles these people run in I suppose. I stil think he should have been a party to the hiring of the lawyer in order for him to be held accountable for a full half of the fee.

As for JJ's rant, it was consistent in that it was directed at her usual targets, but her legal reasoning was not, particularly when it comes to support obligations and relevant family court decisions.

At least she told the boy he owes his parents that money, although there is probably zero probability the little delinquent would ever reimburse anything, not that he has to since the show pays out the award (which still leaves him in debt to his mother).

[funky-rat]

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 8:46 PM, Toaster Strudel said:

Pitnutters have to see this, though. It's the only way. Pits will do that to babies, the elderly, their owners... let potential pit owners have their blood curdled by this video before deciding to invite this kind of potential bloodshed into their own homes. Though, I've long suspected, deep down, pitnutters secretly hope to see bloodshed inflicted on others, as evidenced by this particular owner just standing around, not helping, and then denying the whole thing. She enjoyed it.

They'll just blame the owners, and say the dogs shouldn't be punished. Yes, it is the owner's fault, but a dog that aggressive should be put down anyway, and NOT put in to some shady "rescue" to be adopted out to someone else who likely doesn't have the knowledge or patience to properly train a Pit.  I will absolutely be around Pits who are trained correctly, socialized properly, and don't come from fighting stock.  If you can't prove that to me, no thanks.  If you "rescued" your Pit, no thanks.  The barber shop where my husband gets his hair cut has two pits.  The female is super sweet.  She does get a bit carried away sometimes when she wants to play, but many dogs do.  The male is HUGE.  He's friendly, but he is not neutered, and that concerns me sometimes.  I don't mind them too much because they're in the barber shop all day, and are well socialized.

[iwasish]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

JJ is correct that it's a life "necessity" though.  In a criminal matter as this, you're grist for the mill without representation. Furthermore, I did find this ruling consistent in that she frequently rules (or pontificates) in favor of the tax payer as her lengthy and a bit redundant explanation of her ruling indicated.  So, if I put two and two together, the minor 17 year old needs an attorney and the parents who have the means should pay before you and I are required to do so. Once the kid turns 18 and you want to feed him to the wolves, so be it; it's your life I guess.  Until then be a man and protect your offspring.

She also said it’s up to the parents to have the kid get a job and pay the parents back. 

My brother got himself in a minor mess at 16/17. My mom could have gotten a public defender for him easily, but she took him to a private attorney. Then she got my brother a summer job working at the same hospital she was employed at and he worked 40 hrs a week for the entire summer. She took every one of his checks and used them to pay the attorney.  My brother never got in trouble again. 

[SRTouch]

2 minutes ago, iwasish said:

She also said it’s up to the parents to have the kid get a job and pay the parents back. 

My brother got himself in a minor mess at 16/17. My mom could have gotten a public defender for him easily, but she took him to a private attorney. Then she got my brother a summer job working at the same hospital she was employed at and he worked 40 hrs a week for the entire summer. She took every one of his checks and used them to pay the attorney.  My brother never got in trouble again. 

Wow, that almost sounds like 1) she was teaching him to take responsibility for his actions 👍.... or 2) abuse of child labor laws👎I imagine at the time your brother felt it was #2, but in time realized it was #1

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

He may pay taxes, but that fact hardly frees him for the obligation of his half of a $5,000 legal bill.

True fact, man. But I didn't say (or mean to imply) that he had no obligation to foot the bill otherwise. My point was only about JJ's claim that it seems like it was only her taxes that go towards paying legal aid when the father's taxes (and, by the same extent, all of our taxes) go towards legal aid for those who can't afford it.

[Byrd is the Word]

32 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

True fact, man. But I didn't say (or mean to imply) that he had no obligation to foot the bill otherwise. My point was only about JJ's claim that it seems like it was only her taxes that go towards paying legal aid when the father's taxes (and, by the same extent, all of our taxes) go towards legal aid for those who can't afford it.

Point taken. I didn’t take her that literally when she referred to herself as the taxpayer to mean that she in fact considers herself the only taxpayer. Independent of the tax issue or even a custody agreement for me was that this guy brought the boy into the world and he has an obligation to protect him from the world while he’s still a kid, albeit a big kid who should know enough to keep himself out of the criminal courts. And don’t saddle your ex-wife with 100% of the burden. Be a man. Nut up and pay up. 

[Silver Raven]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

At least she told the boy he owes his parents that money, although there is probably zero probability the little delinquent would ever reimburse anything, not that he has to since the show pays out the award (which still leaves him in debt to his mother).

Didn't his mother say he had gotten a job to pay them back?

[SandyToes]

So how did the nurses' union case end up?  I was interrupted and missed the exciting conclusion! Thanks!

[Florinaldo]

Ah, union politics! Takes me back a few years.

Defendants seemed to be the frequent mix in such circumstances of people who rely on hearsay, have a confused or erroneous understanding of the rules governing financial procedures and jump easily to unwarranted conclusions based on incomplete facts, with the added twist of some of them having political ambitions within the union.

That being said, the former president should have known that him signing checks made out to his wife could raise eyebrows and might have taken precautions to forestall any hint of a conflict of interests (although with that bunch, even the most reasonable precautions would not have allayed their oversuspicious minds). For example, we do not know if the rules of this particular union make it an obligation that the president sign all checks along with another officier, a silly rule in some organisations that can complicate things when the person is away for a while.

JJ annoyed me when she was screaming at the accountant because she did not want a whole pile of papers. Depending on the internal rules of some organisations, even a single expense can generate a lot of supporting documentation, like the initial bills, the form to request and authorize payment (which may need to be approved by 2 or 3 people), and finally some form of receipt confirming that the check has been issued (or electronic payment has been made).

That scheme where people who sign up new members get a bonus is a gimmick that easily contributed to the climate of mistrust.

The plaintiffs fully deserved the 5 k$ awarded to them and the head plaintiff was totally disingenuous when he said "we did not mean to imply they were doing anything fraudulent when we sent out that mailing". He must be taking us and JJ for fools. Their general incompetence and self-serving negligence in carrying out the most basic verification makes me suspect they might be trounced out of office at the next round of elections.

[CrazyInAlabama]

A day of people who don't feel like bringing proof.     The union case was so awful, with all of those statements flying back and forth.   I don't know how any of them could work together after this.      I think it was a sad case of people trying to do the right thing, by running for office, and then winning became everything, and it got personal.       

The sublet, did he pay/ didn't he was confusing to me too.     I laugh at the 'undisclosed location' though. 

The survey case was ridiculous, with all of that acrimony one second, followed by both sides announcing they will still hang out.   

My cousin was a surveyor, and to do large properties, especially ones that haven't been done in a while, you do have to sight along more than one corner or property line.      I don't know if GPS and other tools have changed that though.    So doing an area survey for two properties does make sense.  Unfortunately, finding the corner markers (usually buried metal objects now) can be tough.   

Edited February 18, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

and the head plaintiff was totally disingenuous when he said "we did not mean to imply they were doing anything fraudulent when we sent out that mailing".

Oh, fuck that!  What a load of bullshit.  Assholes.  Glad the plaintiffs won.  Thank you for the update!!

I did appreciate how dapper each of today's contesti-gants were dressed. Nice change. No see-through undergarments!

Edited February 16, 2019 by SandyToes

[AngelaHunter]

Dennis Byron, well-dressed, well-spoken deadbeat: You can always tell when someone is a scammer. If I were accused of ripping anyone off, I would be beyond outraged, but scammers like Dennis just stand there smiling. I guess he's used to being accused and reviled because this is probably his MO - going from place to place and not paying. No, he paid no rent in November, but he has a good reason for not doing so - plaintiff told him to leave the place he was subletting from her (she told him that because he consistantly paid late and then not at all). That means he doesn't have to pay, even though he had his ass parked in the apartment, right? JJ asks where he live now and he said he now lives in an "undisclosed location." LOL! He doesn't want any more "harassment" from plaintiff, whose harassment consisted of trying to get him to pay the damned rent.  Or maybe he's in a witness protection program. People, if you need someone to sublet your place, do a better job of checking them out to make sure they aren't predatory grifters and squattahs. JJ awards plaintiff her missing rent and as she's leaving, Dennis is yelling, "Wait. I have three countersuits!" even though he was told that his reply of "undisclosed location" means he gets nothing, well aside from the fact that a countersuit is an incredible show of chutzpah from a deadbeat.

[iwasish]

8 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Wow, that almost sounds like 1) she was teaching him to take responsibility for his actions 👍.... or 2) abuse of child labor laws👎I imagine at the time your brother felt it was #2, but in time realized it was #1

Just to clarify, my mom didn’t “take”his check, he received it and turned it over to her. Also, the employer didn’t break any child labor laws, it was over the summer school break so it was legal for him to work 40 hrs a week, he worked in the storeroom handing out supplies to the various nursing units, (not exactly slave labor). My mother was still supporting him as far as him living at home, food, a bit of spending money.  My brother, after a couple weeks of sulking,  didn’t have any lingering resentment against my mom. 

And oddly enough she got lots of flack from co workers and even relatives who thought she was being heavy handed. Some of those people are still bailing their kids out of trouble a couple decades later. ....

[DoctorK]

9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

his reply of "undisclosed location"

In my fantasy world, JJ would have responded to this gem with "Well, since you won't disclose your home location, we will be unable to provide your return transportation so find your own undisclosed way home!"

[nora1992]

Both of Friday’s episodes were preempted by a local new stories. Is there a recap posted anywhere?

Both of Friday’s episodes were preempted by a local new stories. Is there a recap posted anywhere?