Hot Bench - General Discussion

[DebbieW]

That chick had CRAZY written all over her.

They were both dumbasses, but she was definitely batshit crazy and her statement in the hallterview made me want to throw up.  

[Rick Kitchen]

So if you walk your dog down a street where there is a vicious dog, you're partially responsible if your dog is attacked?

 

Backman is such an asshole.

[ElleMo]

So if you walk your dog down a street where there is a vicious dog, you're partially responsible if your dog is attacked?

 

Backman is such an asshole.

I second that. She never said the dog had attacked before, correct?  Just barked and stuff when they walked by. Almost all large dogs look/sound vicious when another dog walks by.  I wouldn't be able to walk my dog anywhere if I avoided every house where a dog jumped at the fence when my dog walked by.  Across the street is a huge Malamute.  If it is outside when we walk across the street from the house it goes bananas in the backyard.  My lab mix does the same when a dog walks in front of my house. We have never had an issue, though, because we keep our dogs on a leash and have fences in good condition.  I am sure this lady never expected trouble.

[zillabreeze]

So if you walk your dog down a street where there is a vicious dog, you're partially responsible if your dog is attacked?

Backman is such an asshole.

 

I could not believe that even came out of his mouth.  I thought he was joking at first because it was so absurd to even imply that.

 

Me too, ElleMo- no matter which direction we walk there is a dog losing their mind.  Some slam up against the wood fences and I even have a couple that slam against picture windows!  I guess I should not walk my dogs on the off chance one of these actually break the wood or glass?

[Eliza422]

I could not believe that even came out of his mouth.  I thought he was joking at first because it was so absurd to even imply that.

 

Me too, ElleMo- no matter which direction we walk there is a dog losing their mind.  Some slam up against the wood fences and I even have a couple that slam against picture windows!  I guess I should not walk my dogs on the off chance one of these actually break the wood or glass?

You don't even have to have a dog with you to get frantically barked at by a dog! I've walked along plenty of streets on my own and gotten barked at by lots of dogs.

[Rick Kitchen]

OMG, the case today where the people were suing over who got possession of the dog was just heart breaking.  But that little chihuahua clearly loved the plaintiff just as much as he loved the defendants.

[Puffaroo]

Has Sonia ever had to subdue a litigant?  'Cause I'd sure like to have seen her take down the racist batshit crazy stepson in today's case.

[DoctorK]

Thanks for the heads up Pufferaroo, sounds interesting. Unfortunately, I have concluded that Miss Sonia (as Judge Joe Brown always called her) is a decorative piece, based largely on her stance, in a modelling pose standing straight up but with her legs crossed at the ankles. Not the way anyone who might have to respond in a hurry would ever stand.

[SRTouch]

Thanks for the heads up Pufferaroo, sounds interesting. Unfortunately, I have concluded that Miss Sonia (as Judge Joe Brown always called her) is a decorative piece, based largely on her stance, in a modelling pose standing straight up but with her legs crossed at the ankles. Not the way anyone who might have to respond in a hurry would ever stand.

Well, she's mainly been window dressing for years, first for Judge Joe Brown and now Hot Bench on court tv shows. But, she's one of the few tv bailiffs who has a background in law enforcement. From her bio she spent 19+ years in LA County Sheriff's and Marshall service. Looks like most of that time was in admin, though, so don't know if she's faced down many hostile subjects.

[Rick Kitchen]

Why does Backman yell and scream at people who don't deserve it, but backtracked on racist stepson?  Was he afraid of him?

[SRTouch]

Why does Backman yell and scream at people who don't deserve it, but backtracked on racist stepson? Was he afraid of him?

I rank Bakman way down on my list of tv judges - though to be fair I've never heard of some of them. Watching this show, it's obvious to me that DiMango is the only experienced judge. Acker acts like the experienced contract lawyer she once was. Bakman, in my view, is the stereotypical slime ball defense lawyer. Though to be fair, I sometimes get the feeling that that is the role he is supposed to play on this three man court, to sort of be the devil's advocate. But like the aforementioned slime ball defense lawyer, he's ready to argue the most ridiculous sides of a case, just to hear himself talk. Edited February 9, 2016 by SRTouch

[DoctorK]

 

racist batshit crazy stepson

Oh my goodness, what a piece of work. If any of you are Terry Pratchett fans, this kid is exactly how I pictured Carcer (a character in Night Watch), a smiling laughing full blown psychopathic killer.

[zillabreeze]

 

the role he is supposed to play on this three man court,

The two women also defer to him for vehicular and construction issues - always with a wide eyed "I'm just a girl" look.  I hate when women do that instead of trying to have a modicum of understanding of such things, but that's a different rant.

 

Judge Millan can hold her own with mechanical, construction & electronic issues, which makes her my very favorite TeeVee judge.

[SRTouch]

Judge Millan can hold her own with mechanical, construction & electronic issues, which makes her my very favorite TeeVee judge.

She's my favorite, too. I don't always agree with her decisions, but then no one agrees with some one else 100% of the time. MM bases her decisions on law, and isn't afraid to take a recess to find or confirm facts. With MM I can figure out why she ruled a certain way, unlike with JJ who sometimes bases her ruling on how things should work in "Judy's World".

When I watch the tv judges, it's not too hard to figure out which ones spent time as real judges. DiMango, JJ, MM, and Mathis all have the experience to see through the BS. And, there you have the shows I watch - though sometimes I skip Mathis when he let's litigants mouth off.

[DebbieW]

The stepson was a real piece of work.

 

I enjoyed the case that came after it, though (not sure if it was the same episode or the next one because I was catching up on the DVR) with the Cake Baking Sisters.  For once we had litigants on both sides who were bright, articulate, and who really just had a difference of opinion of how to interpret an agreement.  They were classy and wished each other the best afterward.  I know that doesn't make for "good court TV", but it was refreshing for once.

[Zahdii]

Regarding the case yesterday where the neighbors dog got out and into the yard next door. 

 

The dog was happily chasing a cat that wasn't quite as happy with the situation.  The cat tore some ligaments trying to get away.  The surgery to install replacement ligaments so the cat would be able to walk again cost the plaintiffs $4000. 

 

The owners of the dog said that their dog wasn't at fault.  The fact that they were in Mexico at the time and had left the dog home alone didn't allow them to concede that their dog may in fact have gotten out.  When called by the owners of the cat and informed that their dog had been in their yard and caused the cat injury, the defendant's wife apologized asked the plaintiff to see if he could check the neighborhood and try to find the dog, and to check on their house.  When the plaintiff checked the house, he found that the gate was ajar.  (I'm not sure if the dog had returned home by that time or if someone found the dog and put it back in the yard, but in the end the owners returned and the dog was home and had not been injured in any way.)

 

The owners of the dog insisted that their daughter went over every day to give the dog food and water, and to check on the house.  Since the daughter insisted that she hadn't left the gate open, the defendants felt that was enough to make their dog innocent of all charges.

 

Judge DiMango apparently didn't hear the plaintiffs wife when she said she saw the dog from next door chasing her dog around her back yard, because she wanted the case dropped because there was no way to determine if the dog in question was the one chasing the cat.  When assured by the other two judges that the dog was identified by one of the plaintiffs, who recognized the dog from living next door to it every day for years, DiMango then wanted the dog to get a pass because it didn't bite the cat when the cat collapsed on the ground.

 

Judge Acker felt that if the neighbor's dog got into the plaintiffs yard and the cat got injured, the owners of the dog were at fault.  No bite needed.

 

Judge Backman wanted the plaintiffs to bear half the burden of the vet bill because they let their cat out into their yard to sit in the sun each afternoon.

 

Judge Acker failed to fight for her decision and deferred to Judge Backman, so the plaintiffs only got $2000.

 

My thoughts:  If that dog had been chasing livestock and the livestock got injured trying to get away, the owners of the dog would be liable for restitution and the dog would have been euthanized.  But because it was a cat...

Edited February 17, 2016 by Zahdii

[SRTouch]

Regarding the case yesterday where the neighbors dog got out and into the yard next door. 

 

The dog was happily chasing a cat that wasn't quite as happy with the situation.  The cat tore some ligaments trying to get away.  The surgery to install replacement ligaments so the cat would be able to walk again cost the plaintiffs $4000. 

 

The owners of the dog said that their dog wasn't at fault.  The fact that they were in Mexico at the time and had left the dog home alone didn't allow them to concede that their dog may in fact have gotten out.  When called by the owners of the cat and informed that their dog was in their yard, the wife asked the plaintiff to see if he could check the neighborhood and try to find the dog.  When the plaintiff checked the house, he found that the gate was ajar.  The owners of the dog insisted that their daughter went over every day to give the dog food and water, and to check on the house.  Since the daughter insisted that she hadn't left the gate open, the defendants felt that was enough to make their dog innocent of all charges.

 

Judge DiMango apparently didn't hear the plaintiffs wife when she said she saw the dog from next door chasing her dog around her back yard, because she wanted the case dropped because there was no way to determine if the dog in question was the one chasing the cat.  When assured by the other two judges that the dog was identified by one of the plaintiffs, who recognized the dog from living next door to it every day for years, DiMango then wanted the dog to get a pass because it didn't bite the cat when the cat collapsed on the ground.

 

Judge Acker felt that if the neighbor's dog got into the plaintiffs yard and the cat got injured, the owners of the dog were at fault.  No bite needed.

 

Judge Backman wanted the plaintiffs to bear half the burden of the vet bill because they let their cat out into their yard to sit in the sun each afternoon.

 

Judge Acker failed to fight for her decision and deferred to Judge Backman, so the plaintiffs only got $2000.

 

My thoughts:  If that dog had been chasing livestock and the livestock got injured trying to get away, the owners of the dog would be liable for restitution and the dog would have been euthanized.  But because it was a cat...

I really didn't understand why they had so much trouble. I believe the plaintiff recognized the dog, the dog came onto their property chasing the cat, and the cat was injured because of the dog. To me it's open and shut, injury caused by defendant's dog on plaintiff's property, so defendant should pay.

[SRTouch]

Today we saw case of vintage car driving recklessly colliding with a couple cars. Owner of vintage car lost all credibility when he said he didn't know if his car was damaged. I don't believe a car guy with a restored 69 car doesn't know if his car hit two cars. He may not have been driving, but he's lying about knowing if his car was.

[Zahdii]

Weather conditions are causing my signal to cut in and out so badly I can't tell just what's going on.  If anyone cares to provide recaps, I'd appreciate it.

[SRTouch]

We had three cases today, but the first was a waste of air time. Second case was a single mom going out on a limb to help another single mom avoid eviction. So, after borrowing money from her friend, they get into it a fight and defendant stiffs her long time friend. She comes to court claiming it was a gift, can't even come up with a lie when questioned by judges. Plaintiff took out cash advance to keep defendant from being evicted, and defendant stabs her in back because she doesn't like text messages. Plaintiff says her kids didn't have Christmas because defendant didn't pay by agreed upon date. Defendant doesn't answer when judge asks if her kid got presents -- despicable defendant.

Today's second episode is taken up by long case of my least favorite type of person - a completely unreasonable man looking to cash in on lawsuit and willing to invent and inflate damages. Defendant is new neighbor who is putting on new roof. JJ would be happy to know his contractor removed old shingles, but he made mess in plaintiff's yard. Plaintiff throws a major fit, and refuses to let them come onto yard to clean up mess. He wants defendant to pay to repaint house, restain fence (which wasn't stained before they dropped shingles over fence) and pay some bloated estimate for someone else to pick up trash. Being completely unreasonable, keeps interrupting in court, and can't seem to answer judges questions, instead wants to expand upon how he was wronged. He even goes so far as to try to bring in race as an issue, but repeatedly doesn't answer when asked for an example of racism. He ends up receiving $125 to pay for an asbestos test of the dust from the roof demo.

[DebbieW]

The roof case plaintiff pissed me off, too.  Every time the judges mentioned that he simply needed to let the roofers onto his property to clean up, he whined "I have children."  I guess he thought the big, bad roofers would hurt them in some way, but all he needed to do was lock the door for the half hour they would have been in his yard.  I'm sure they would have sprung to powerwash his unstained fence too, if he hadn't been such a horse's ass.

[Rick Kitchen]

What was up with the guy with the hat?  I missed what the judge said to get him to remove it.  Both of those guys were ... odd.

[Eliza422]

What was up with the guy with the hat?  I missed what the judge said to get him to remove it.  Both of those guys were ... odd.

The douchbag said he was wearing it due to his religion. When she originally asked him to take it off he said it was his first amendment right to wear it. When she asked what religion he said it was his own nature based religion. She said the court doesn't recognize it so it needs to come off.

[SRTouch]

As I heard it, he claimed his religious beliefs required he wear the hat. Acker asked what religion required he wear that particular hat, and he responded it was a religion he established himself. To which she replied that the court did not recognize HIS religion, and that he needed to respect the court. The one guy wanted to pretend he was Thoreau and live in the woods on mommy's property. At least no one can complain about the kids' vocabulary ; -) I wish someone had asked what their majors were - I suspect theater.

[patty1h]

There was a case today, plaintiff last name Chichinsky, that had me thinking it was fake.  The plaintiff was so like a caricature of a redneck bumpkin it was crazy.  His Southern accent was so thick and his big crooked teeth seemed so over the top as to be fake. Also, he was dressed in sloppy, loose clothes, like he was too "country" to know that his outfit was bad.  All he was missing was some suspenders to hold up his pants, or a rope for a belt.  To top off this picture, he had his hair combed forward onto his forehead.

 

It was quite a performance, folks.

[SRTouch]

There was a case today, plaintiff last name Chichinsky, that had me thinking it was fake.  The plaintiff was so like a caricature of a redneck bumpkin it was crazy.  His Southern accent was so thick and his big crooked teeth seemed so over the top as to be fake. Also, he was dressed in sloppy, loose clothes, like he was too "country" to know that his outfit was bad.  All he was missing was some suspenders to hold up his pants, or a rope for a belt.  To top off this picture, he had his hair combed forward onto his forehead.

 

It was quite a performance, folks.

Ah, it's obvious you never met my Uncle Jack. Uncle Jack had an even thicker accent than this guy. Really though, Uncle Jack's accent got thicker as he aged. At one time it was no thicker than normal for someone from Oklahoma who spent most of his life in Texas. There are a couple differences. Uncle Jack had a full set of store bought teeth, and he was almost ocd about maintaining his clothing. Heck, he ironed his sheets and pillowcase, yeah ironed, with an ironing board and everything.

[teebax]

There was a case today, plaintiff last name Chichinsky, that had me thinking it was fake.  The plaintiff was so like a caricature of a redneck bumpkin it was crazy.  His Southern accent was so thick and his big crooked teeth seemed so over the top as to be fake. Also, he was dressed in sloppy, loose clothes, like he was too "country" to know that his outfit was bad.  All he was missing was some suspenders to hold up his pants, or a rope for a belt.  To top off this picture, he had his hair combed forward onto his forehead.

 

It was quite a performance, folks.

Some court shows are fake and use actors. This isn't one of them. That dude was real.

[Rick Kitchen]

One of the judges said today that people shouldn't discard refrigerators because kids can suffocate in them.  That used to be true, but it hasn't been for years now.

[Eliza422]

One of the judges said today that people shouldn't discard refrigerators because kids can suffocate in them.  That used to be true, but it hasn't been for years now.

That's what I said! Maybe 50 years ago, but not now!!

[SRTouch]

The new episode had two cases, both imminently forgettable. First is a male dental hygienist who moves in rents room from uncle's gf. He agrees rent was $500 monthly, but he's $4000 behind when he finally moves out. He's also blamed for bed bugs, but no proof that he brought them. He has to pay back rent, but nothing on bed bugs. Only notable thing about these litigants is how ignorant they sounded - and the idea that this joker is even remotely employed in a health care profession.

Next up, plaintiff suing ex because of bad breakup. Couple met, moved in together, broke up and we're evicted - all within a couple months. Plaintiff has pictures of what he says is damage caused when defendant moved out. Defendant has bunch of text messages where plaintiff is threatening to cut himself or overdose if she leaves him. Case dismissed when judges agree only evidence of someone acting out shows plaintiff acting suicidal.

1st rerun case is old but goody. Landlord has building with 3 apartments. County comes out because he's having problems with septic system. County checks the books, and building was never permitted so they condemn the building (despite fact he's been renting them 15 years). He gives tenants, who are month to month, eviction notice. Tenants finally leave 2 1/2 months after receiving notice. Now tenants are suing for moving expenses, harrassment, all the rent they ever paid, etc. Case dismissed.

Last up is event organizer suing defendant because her event was a flop. Plaintiff says she gave defendant tickets to sell for event, and she didn't sell enough tickets. Problem with her claim is that while defendant agreed to sell tickets, there was no agreement on how many she was supposed to sell. Plaintiff claims she never turned in unsold tickets or any money for sold tickets - then her mother comes up and says defendant gave her (the plaintiff's mother) unsold tickets, but no money. Judges don't believe there was an agreement, and plaintiff's own witness contradicted plaintiff's testimony - case dismissed.

[SRTouch]

Today is dog day before Hot Bench, dog attack on first epsode, and sick puppy on second. Defendant in first case is a candidate for most annoying owner of a dog. Woman has absolutely no evidence, just a bunch of poor excuses and theories of why she is not responsible. Her defense may not make any sense, but she is going to constantly interrupt to loudly present her non-defense. Case is open and shut. Plaintiff was walking his leashed, tiny dog. Defendant's unleashed, unsupervised dog attacked tiny dog. Out of control dog pays the bills under strict liability rule. Defendant, who was not present at time of attack, offered several possible defenses. Only possible witness for defense who might have seen attack is 11yo son, who is not in court. The only possible defense is defendant's claim that there was in fact no attack, and vet bills resulted from preexisting condition. Nope, plaintiff showed up in court with a binder full of papers, which include vet report which explains how a dog attack which does not cause bite marks can cause injuries consistent with those tiny dog is presently. Guess this defendant doesn't realize that many animals kill their prey by violently shaking, just like plaintiff claims to have witnessed.

Second case is roommates fighting on over toxic living arrangement. Roommate who moved out wants lots of money for moving, ptsd, pain and suffering, and the rent she paid for period she was not there. She gets back the rent.

Next up is woman suing the pet store where she bought a dog. First let me say I don't particulary like the idea of pet stores selling dogs and cats. If someone wants to spend $1000 for a puppy with papers, let them do their research into the breed and buy direct from the breeder. Puppies at a pet store - too much chance of impulse buying (how much is that puppy in the window?) and there's no guarentee you're getting a healthy dog with good temperament. The store owner in this case kept harping on a 2 day period to get the puppy vet check, but there are a myriad of problems which would not be apparent in two days. Hell there could be something in the puppy's genetics that make it prone to long term problems that a buyer would know if he/she looked into the breeder's dogs, that are completely hidden for years. Much as I hate to say it, I'm with Bakman on this one. I don't know if the store should be held responisble for more than the purchase price, but am glad he was outvoted (and extremely happy the puppy was purchased by a caring family who had the money to spent for his care).

[Rick Kitchen]

The woman in the first case was a cold stone bitch.  She actually said that she shouldn't have to pay the vet bills because they were higher than the value of the dog and it would have been better off it it had died.

[SRTouch]

Today's new episode is a landlord vs tenant case. Plaintiff, landlord, wants $5000 for back rent, cleaning, damages, unauthorized sublet, etc etc. Not to be outdone, tentant, defendant, has $5000 countersuit for constructive eviction, medical bill for asthma problems made worse by roach infestation, return of deposit, Yada yada. Tenants are actually three generations, dad, his adult college student daughter, and his mom, who was paying the bills. In chambers we learn that tenants had been involved in car accident, which is why mom is paying bills (late), so dad may have been hurt and/or lost his job.The plaintiff says dad's gf is the unauthorized tenant. Defendant says, yes, his gf lived out of town and sometimes spent the night when visiting on the weekends. Nothing in the lease about overnight guests, but plaintiff arbitrarily decided he should charge for gf's visits. Most outrageous claim by landlord that there was a Marijuana grow operation and syringes left behind - his evidence is one black light in the bathroom and a syringe which conveniently can't be seen in picture. Does this mean every college student with a black light is growing pot? If I got and checked, I know I have at least 1 syringe I was given by the vet to give meds to my cat, and no telling how telling insulin syringes are around for my diabetic roommate. Does that mean if I'm sued someone should put in court papers that I have syringes? Both sides agree that there were roaches, with landlord saying the roaches were mainly under the fridge. Defendant says the roaches appeared when HOA dug a hole in the hallway and left it open for 6 months, he set out bug bombs roach motels, etc, complained to landlord but couldn't get rid of them with the hole right outside his door. Was it clean were they moved in/out? - should tenants be held responsible for carpet cleaning/replacement? - lots of back and forth but little evidence. What it comes down to is tenants gave 30 day notice and lease required 60 days, and after 4 years what cleaning was required was normal wear and tear. Tenants given back $1100 deposit, and landlord gets $1600 for 1 month rent, or $500 to take home.

Next episode has two cases. First up mom is suing daughter and ex son in law for repayment of loan to pay delinquent taxes. Judges decide it was a marital debt, but let daughter out because she's already paid her half of loan. Ex son in law is a real piece of work (or at least a piece of something) who insists he doesn't owe anything because his now ex wife is the one who borrowed the money. He's really something, as the reason they didn't have money for taxes is that he owed $17,000 (?) back child support for his 5 kids. If I heard right, he's making 75k a year, not paying his child support and needs loan from MIL to pay taxes. In court he'said insisting he didn't want the loan, that he would have been happy paying the tax and penalties to the IRS. He owes MIL, only real question is how much? Ex wife/daughter paid back half. But, was that before or after the divorce? If her repayment was while they were still married, than he would owe half the remaining balance (so half of $3000+ or $1500+). But, if her payment was post divorce, he owes the remaining $3000+. Judges don't like him, so they say he owes the balance - and I agree he's a piece of sh*t, especially if he's abusive as accused by plaintiff.

Edited March 31, 2016 by SRTouch

[RitaS57]

Judge Acker appears to be just a bit extra!!! She tends to overreact and doesn't put in time to listen. I think judge Acker should watch herself from TV (if she haven't already) no offense, but she seems to be the weakest link

[insomniac]

She's okay, but I would also be fine if she were replaced.

 

Too often she's the one who still has "to think about it," which makes it seem (to me) as though she feels the other two are making snap decisions.

[teebax]

She's by far my favorite of the three.

i feel like DiMango is always trying to insist litigants are in live with each other or have ulterior motives. Bakman is okay sometimes but he also can be condescending to the other judges. I like Acker a lot. 

[Rick Kitchen]

The mother suing the daughter and boyfriend for "loans" for rent and for damages to a house that she doesn't own and couldn't prove that she had power of attorney to claim damages for, was a piece of work.  You just know that she isn't going to let this go, she is going to do everything she can to make those people's lives a holy hell.  And she will try to take the daughter's son away from her.

[Rick Kitchen]

The landlord's mold remediation guy told him that you have to make sure not to let your house get above 75 degrees or mold will build up?  Really?  that's ridiculous.

[Katt]

May 3rd: Episode # 394. A lady is suing a landlord for her rent back on an alleged uninhabitable apartment. Does anyone know where I can dress like the defendant's? lol

[DebbieW]

I hate when the judges give a douchey plaintiff an out.  Re:  the dumbass defendant who claimed that the plaintiff that she hit in a crosswalk actually jumped on to her car to scam her.  One of the judges told her that they understood it was a stressful time for her because no one wants to hurt another person so that's the song the defendant sang in the hallterview, never acknowledging all of the accusations she had made against the plaintiff during her testimony. 

[Rick Kitchen]

Country and western guy is apparently touring throughout Texas, and has been all year so far, and his schedule indicates he will be touring all though the year, so I don't know how sick he is.  Plus, what exactly was he sick with?  He seemed upset that the judges wouldn't let him say.

[DoctorK]

Quote

 Plus, what exactly was he sick with?

Same question struck me. At one point he said something about the immune system which could be any of several things, but what the heck was he talking about when he said he was "quarantined"? I don't think there are very many medical situations these days that require quarantine.

Quote

He seemed upset that the judges wouldn't let him say.

It sounded to me more like he wanted to introduce his illness, after setting the melodramatic stage with feigned reluctance, but the judge blocked him from saying it. If I actually cared about this show, I would rewatch it, but my level of interest is not that high.

[ElleMo]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Same question struck me. At one point he said something about the immune system which could be any of several things, but what the heck was he talking about when he said he was "quarantined"? I don't think there are very many medical situations these days that require quarantine.

It sounded to me more like he wanted to introduce his illness, after setting the melodramatic stage with feigned reluctance, but the judge blocked him from saying it. If I actually cared about this show, I would rewatch it, but my level of interest is not that high.

Antibiotic resistant bacterial infections require a quarantine, not sure if they attack the immune system.  Ebola, which attacks the immune system, also requires a quarantine. But if it were Ebola I think the press would have caught wind of it.

At the end of the episode, when he talked about the immune system - along with the plaintiff's comment that she thought he was gay initially -- I assumed it was AIDS.  I can't imagine what disease would do that that they wouldn't want to talk about on live TV. If he had Lupus, for example, why wouldn't he say it? 

But I found it really strange.  If you don't want people to know about your illness, why go on Nat'l TV and talk about it and describe it?  Even if I am wrong and it is not AIDS and it is something else, that impression is still out there.

If it were AIDS, I don't think the quarantine was to protect people from him, but to protect him from picking up infections from others, which is very important when someone has full blown AIDS (as opposed to just being infected with HIV).  He would get treated with a number of drugs until a drug or combination helped get the virus in check.

It's really nobody's business what illness he has, but it is sad that there is such a stigma about it that he wouldn't even name it after it was mentioned several times.

Edited May 26, 2016 by ElleMo

[BubblingKettle]

During the case, my mind went to Ebola too, since the timing of the Ebola scare was similar to the timing of the complaint. I kept wondering if the defendants were using "quarantined" as a synonym for "in isolation" (but they're not really the same thing). If he was quarantined, then he had something that could have infected others in an airborne or other fairly easy way. If he was in isolation, then he was put into a highly sterile environment to avoid catching things from other people. In the hallterview, he said that he had a compromised immune system -- there are dozens of possible reasons for that to have happened. So, maybe he had kidney disease, cancer, or a syndrome or something.  

[AZChristian]

Saw the episode this morning with the young man who rented out rooms in his house to (usually) young women.  He wouldn't let them put locks on their doors and insisted that they not have a real shower curtain in the shared bathroom - just a clear liner.  And he apparently made a habit of showering in that bathroom with the door open.  A real creep-o.

The judges had agreed that the defendant would have to reimburse the creep for a washer and dryer she took when she left the house.  Then when they went out, he was so obnoxious that Judge Acker threw him out, dismissed his case (no money for the washer and dryer), and awarded the defendant $5,000 on her countersuit (including punitive damages).

Well played, Judge Acker.  That guy was the creepiest thing I've seen on a court show in a long time, and that's saying a lot.

[Rick Kitchen]

Damn, that pastor got his head handed to him!

[AZChristian]

He's pretty impressed with himself, isn't he?  I googled him . . . what a piece of work.

 

ETA:  I wonder if he owns the house, or if the church does.  IRS may need to do a check on where the money goes when he rents it out for events.

Edited August 3, 2016 by AZChristian

[ElleMo]

Yesterday's episode with the car was rather odd.  First, who buys a car sight unseen?  Second, I would think it easy to prove is a car was a replica built in 2015.  Wouldn't a 2015 car have a vin number?  Take a photo of the vin number and get a carfax report or something from the manufacturer.  My guess is that a part or two was replaced with a modern part; probably not an unusual occurrence for an almost 60-year-old car but I am sure it would bring down the sale value of the car, which is why it was being sold for $5,000 and not $20,000.  

Sounds like this couple wanted to take advantage of a seller's  lack of knowledge of cars, buy it at a low price and sell it for a really high price.  Turns out, the couple were the ones who had little knowledge of cars.  Really stupid to sell the family jewels for this.

Was anyone else disturbed by the wife?  She was so overly emotional, I worry if something else is going on there. Like an underlying depression or anxiety or something? Like life was so overwhelming and this was the final straw?

Perhaps she didn't want to sell her jewelry and husband talked her into it or did it without her consent?  I don't know how much money they get from being on the show, but they got a nice trip and they will get paid a little money.  Then they can sell the car for a few thousand dollars and buy some more jewelry.  Antique car shows are  a big thing, I am sure they can find someone who would want the car. If they are lucky, they will come out ahead.  At worst case, they may be out some money,  but they are not at a complete loss. But she seemed inconsolable and at the end, through tears, complained the car wasn't running and a few other things.  Again, who buys a car site unseen??? And I am guessing that those two are not enjoying the trip at all. Which is too bad;  could have made the whole fiasco worth it.

People, you do not buy cars from the internet.  You find a car you like, then go look at and have a mechanic look at it.  I cannot believe the number of people who buy used cars without having a mechanic look at it.  

I've never bought a used car from an individual;  always from a car lot because you have a little more protection when it is a business selling you the car. Our last car, DH found on the internet, then went to the car lot to see it. But now we just lease cars instead.  Much less maintenance and upkeep to deal with.

Edited September 13, 2016 by ElleMo
because site and sight are not the same thing

[Carolina Girl]

They seem to be getting some seriously interesting cases lately - way beyond the rent fights and you owe me for a cell phone.  Yesterday's was no exception.  Car is hit and destroyed - defendant claims - get this! - that the PLAINTIFF pulled him out of his car when he got lost, carjacked his car and then drove it into his own car.  No.  Seriously.  With a straight face.  Plaintiff brings his sister as a witness who drove by the accident scene, saw the defendant crying to cops and saying "I'm sorry."  Where was plaintiff?  Uh, Las Vegas.  I don't know whether the defendant thought since he was literally caught red-handed at the scene that he'd make up the most implausible defense possible, but what the hell, it was entertaining.   Oh, lest I forget - defendant says that he didn't call police immediately after the "carjacking" because his wallet was still in the car and the plaintiff is a known gang member who will no doubt retaliate.  When asked, Plaintiff says he's never seen the defendant before in his life.  

Other new case was a dog bite case - but wait! There's more.  Plaintiff ran by defendants on a jogging path, was bitten by their dog, asked ONLY for her medical bills (not pain and suffering) and these twits, after first admitting that their dog did it, including bringing the defendant (hurt and injured after falling after the bite) to their home to assess the damage and giving her $100 (which they now say was out of the goodness of their hearts).  "Our dog is sweet" they say, and basically say that they will continue to run with their dog off leash.  I hope that Mr. and Mrs. Clueless McDumdum like courtrooms - I have a feeling they'll be spending a lot of their time in one.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Carolina Girl

[SRTouch]

53 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

Other new case was a dog bite case - but wait! There's more.  Plaintiff ran by defendants on a jogging path, was bitten by their dog, asked ONLY for her medical bills (not pain and suffering) and these twits, after first admitting that their dog did it, including bringing the defendant (hurt and injured after falling after the bite) to their home to assess the damage and giving her $100 (which they now say was out of the goodness of their hearts).  "Our dog is sweet" they say, and basically say that they will continue to run with their dog off leash.  I hope that Mr. and Mrs. Clueless McDumdum like courtrooms - I have a feeling they'll be spending a lot of their time in one.

Sounds like the worse thing about Mr and Mrs Clueless is that doggy now has strike one with Animal Control. Their continuing to run with the dog off leash could turn into a death sentence for the dog if it's declared a vicious dog. Course, in some jurisdictions one bite means vicious dog, then we sometimes see idiots where their dog terrorizes a neighborhood and their local Animal Control does nothing.