Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Silver Raven]

I really don't understand NewGuy's reasoning in the case of brother suing sister over their mother's house.  He only had the sister's word for it that the brother had cheated their mother out of the house.  HE is on the ownership papers.  It's HIS house.  Until they get the mother there to contradict him, they have to believe the state, which, as far as they are concerned, the brother owns the house.  NewGuy had no business putting his own opinion into his reasoning.

[Eliza422]

2 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

I really don't understand NewGuy's reasoning in the case of brother suing sister over their mother's house.  He only had the sister's word for it that the brother had cheated their mother out of the house.  HE is on the ownership papers.  It's HIS house.  Until they get the mother there to contradict him, they have to believe the state, which, as far as they are concerned, the brother owns the house.  NewGuy had no business putting his own opinion into his reasoning.

 I totally agree. He has no evidence of any of that except the sister's statement with no proof! I hate when they moralize like this. No one there knows what the mom really did. If brother had legal paperwork, well that's that.

[DoctorK]

Agree about newguy. The defendant was obviously a blood sucking parasite, moving herself and husband in to Mom's house becasue they couldn't manage to put a roof over their heads, then moving in daughters, nieces, boyfriends, I couldn't keep up with the head count. Then stopped paying rent, and decided, in the face of all the evidence, that she owned half the house. The poor plaintiff sounded sincere, and I think the $100k/$90K was a red herring, it wasn't clear exactly what happened, and he had been using his own money before that for the roof and flooring. Besides, if it was his house as all of the paperwork showed, that money will come out of sale price of the house when it goes on the market and thereby reduce his proceeds from the house sale by the same amount (plus interest if this was a home equity loan).

[SRTouch]

1 minute ago, DoctorK said:

Agree about newguy. The defendant was obviously a blood sucking parasite, moving herself and husband in to Mom's house becasue they couldn't manage to put a roof over their heads, then moving in daughters, nieces, boyfriends, I couldn't keep up with the head count. Then stopped paying rent, and decided, in the face of all the evidence, that she owned half the house. The poor plaintiff sounded sincere, and I think the $100k/$90K was a red herring, it wasn't clear exactly what happened, and he had been using his own money before that for the roof and flooring. Besides, if it was his house as all of the paperwork showed, that money will come out of sale price of the house when it goes on the market and thereby reduce his proceeds from the house sale by the same amount (plus interest if this was a home equity loan).

Yep, sounds like plaintiff has been subsidizing the rest of family all along. Then in hallterview we learn the straw that broke the proverbial back was bail for one of the niece's bf. Most telling for me was that he wasn't really asking for that much considering he let them skate for thousands in back rent that he forgave.

[Miss Ruth]

I agree with Silver Raven, Eliza422, Doctor K and SR Touch about today's episode and the way Judge Corriero behaved.  Judge Acker did not allow hearsay from the defendant, but Judge Corriero did, and no one seemed to notice, nor called him on it.  It wasn't about who owns the house, nor about a home improvement loan, yet he questioned the plaintiff's motives in both.  Unlike many posters, I like Judge Bakman and wish he hadn't left.  He was a no-nonsense "judge" who dealt with the law, not emotions and suppositions.

[Eliza422]

3 minutes ago, Miss Ruth said:

I agree with Silver Raven, Eliza422, Doctor K and SR Touch about today's episode and the way Judge Corriero behaved.  Judge Acker did not allow hearsay from the defendant, but Judge Corriero did, and no one seemed to notice, nor called him on it.  It wasn't about who owns the house, nor about a home improvement loan, yet he questioned the plaintiff's motives in both.  Unlike many posters, I like Judge Bakman and wish he hadn't left.  He was a no-nonsense "judge" who dealt with the law, not emotions and suppositions.

I miss backman as well. I liked him and felt like he was fair - and at least he had personality, unlike this new wet blanket.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Unlike many posters, I like Judge Bakman and wish he hadn't left.

I had mixed feelings about him but he was never boring. I give him points for a case involving NFA (National Firearms Act) which is an obscure part of federal firearms law where he was the only one who knew about and understood the federal hoops the defendant had to jump thorugh to perform the gunsmithing work involved. The newguy is so bland he might as well not be here.

[Silver Raven]

3 hours ago, Miss Ruth said:

Unlike many posters, I like Judge Bakman and wish he hadn't left.  He was a no-nonsense "judge" who dealt with the law, not emotions and suppositions.

Backman was nothing but emotion.  His yelling was worse than Judge Judy.

[Miss Ruth]

While it's true he yelled, I never saw Bakman base his rulings on sob stories.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Miss Ruth

[Silver Raven]

20 minutes ago, Miss Ruth said:

While it's true he yelled, I never saw Bakman base his rulings on sob stories.

DiMango hates it when people cry.  Or pretend-cry.

[AlleC17]

I think I sort of got where he was coming from:  the plaintiff mentioned that *he* paid for improvements on the house, making it sound like it came from his own pockets (new roof, new floors etc) when in fact, it came out of the home equity loan he had his Mom obtain.  So he paid nothing for the improvements and gets the house, which looks like it is the vast majority of what Mom is going to leave behind, so sister will get nothing.  However, if Mom did sign over the house to him and did so of her own intention then too bad, too sad.

[AlleC17]

Yikes, but they have some real low lifes on this show!  The brick throwing moron and hi ex GF and baby momma were both pretty revolting.  She got $5k and then gleefully stated that she did chase him with her car.  Blech, they were gross. 

[hoosier80]

Oh I missed part of that brick throwing episode (working from home and had a stupid call that interrupted my viewing!!).  New guy is bland.

Bakman could get over the top, but it seemed like only when he really got po'd at the loser litigants - where they were lying or trying to pull a fast one.  Seems like they had to get a replacement really quickly, because new guy is as exciting as watching paint dry.

[ElleMo]

Had an episode on my DVR of a dog trainer suing his friend for money for a service dog that the man returned.

Trainers like this are the reason that service dogs aren't taken seriously by a lot of people any longer.  Granted, a dog for PTSD probably doesn't need as much training as a seeing eye dog , but training a 2+ year old dog for a few months is not the way to get a real service animal.  I don't believe the problem was with the defendant at all.  Service dogs are supposed to be able to be around all types of people at all times and attacking the mailman and friends is never a good thing.  The dog clearly did not have the disposition to be a service dog and the plaintiff had no business being in the business of training service dogs.

I was on vacation this summer and there were several service dogs on the cruise.  One was clearly just somebody's pet.  He belonged to a gentleman in a wheelchair and the dog was on a really long leash and was active all the time, pacing back and forth and walking up to people.  He probably helped the owner psychologically,  but he was not a true service dog by any means and I wouldn't have been surprised if he had bitten someone or got into a tussle with another one of the service dogs.  (fortunately this did not happen). By comparison, one evening, we sat next to a lovely lady with a seeing eye dog.  She had a German shepherd who was very well behaved and sitting at her feet.  She told me all about how she picked her dog -- she has had labs in the past, but she wanted a German shepherd because she feels that people are more wary of them than loveable labs and she feels safer with the shepherd. She also mentions that he acts very different when out if his harness and will play and run around. ( though I assume he doesn't start biting and attacking people.) When working, he doesn't approach anyone and sits right by her side.   Seeing eye dog's training starts from birth where they are continually placed in all sorts of different settings, crowds, etc. to get acclimated to people before the more serious training occurs. She also mentioned that there is only one See eye dog facility that always trains German Shepherds, which I found interesting.  I wonder if it is because retrievers are easier to train or because more people like labs and goldens.

And don't get me started on the people who take their pit bull everywhere and claim it is a service dog.

[SRTouch]

18 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

Had an episode on my DVR of a dog trainer suing his friend for money for a service dog that the man returned.Trainers like this are the reason that service dogs aren't taken seriously by a lot of people any longer....

Totally agree - well mostly anyway. Thing is, at least this trainer provided some training. Quite awhile back a question arose about what is needed to register a dog as a service dog. The answer is... a check for under a hundred bucks and any dog, trained or not, can be put on a registry of service dogs. Heck, forget training, the folks who maintain those registries don't even need to see the dog (or even a picture). I remember thinking at the time I ought to register my Frank. He fits all the requirements, and I'm sure I could get him his very own certificate and vest once they got my paypal info. And no need to volunteer the unimportant fact that he's a domestic long hair CAT.

[Zahdii]

2 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Trainers like this are the reason that service dogs aren't taken seriously by a lot of people any longer.  Granted, a dog for PTSD probably doesn't need as much training as a seeing eye dog , but training a 2+ year old dog for a few months is not the way to get a real service animal.  I don't believe the problem was with the defendant at all.  Service dogs are supposed to be able to be around all types of people at all times and attacking the mailman and friends is never a good thing.  The dog clearly did not have the disposition to be a service dog and the plaintiff had no business being in the business of training service dogs.

Trainers like this are the reason that service dogs aren't taken seriously by a lot of people any longer.  Granted, a dog for PTSD probably doesn't need as much training as a seeing eye dog , but training a 2+ year old dog for a few months is not the way to get a real service animal.  I don't believe the problem was with the defendant at all.  Service dogs are supposed to be able to be around all types of people at all times and attacking the mailman and friends is never a good thing.  The dog clearly did not have the disposition to be a service dog and the plaintiff had no business being in the business of training service dogs.

Agreed.  I once knew a guy that had 'service dog' for his PTSD.  The thing is, he left the dog home most of the time.  The dog didn't know how to walk on a leash, would bark at anything that looked interesting, wouldn't come when called, etc.  Basically the dog was a pet.  It was no surprise to me to find the the guy didn't have PTSD, and the dog wasn't really a service dog.  It was just a cute dog he used as a prop.

And as mentioned above, anyone can go online and get a certificate to declare their pet a service animal.  Look online about how many pets people have declared to be service animals. 

http://servicedogcentral.org/content/fake-service-dog-credentials

[ElleMo]

Today's episode featured a woman who bought clown pajamas to seduce her husband. Unless there's some Harley Quinn-Joker fetish thing going on, I don't see it. Neither does Judge DiMango.

She says that the seamstress made the pajamas too short. Seemstriss   says she doesn't know what the plaintiff did with the clothes. Maybe she washed them and they shrunk. I believe the defendant because plaintiff does not have the clothes with her; only photos. She said she gave them away because she had no use for them. Plaintiff wins the case but I think it's a bad verdict on the part of all three. Why would you  get rid of something when you're sueing?

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, ElleMo said:

Today's episode featured a woman who bought clown pajamas to seduce her husband. Unless there's some Harley Quinn-Joker fetish thing going on, I don't see it. Neither does Judge DiMango.

She says that the seamstress made the pajamas too short. Seemstriss   says she doesn't know what the plaintiff did with the clothes. Maybe she washed them and they shrunk. I believe the defendant because plaintiff does not have the clothes with her; only photos. She said she gave them away because she had no use for them. Plaintiff wins the case but I think it's a bad verdict on the part of all three. Why would you  get rid of something when you're sueing?

And wasn't it odd that she paid $56 EACH for basic pj bottoms, then paid more to have them altered, and then gave them away for being a little too short - and then SUED for what she paid? She needs to have more to be upset about; her life is way too simple if she sees this as worth a lawsuit.

[Eliza422]

Ok, this pit bull puppy case drove me crazy. Isn't the typical arrangement a stud fee or pick of the litter? Not half the litter?

 

the male doesn't do 50% of the work!

[TresGatos]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 6:36 PM, Eliza422 said:

Ok, this pit bull puppy case drove me crazy. Isn't the typical arrangement a stud fee or pick of the litter? Not half the litter?

 

the male doesn't do 50% of the work!

That's exactly what I Thought and would have really liked to have asked the plaintiff's pregnant witness what she thought about that! It bugged me how the judges went on and on about how well planned out this breeding was, more so than a lot of people they see, one said, but apparently not so well thought out that anyone thought to put anything in writing! I really wish the Defendant had countersued for half of any vet bills related to maternity care, and any vet bills for the puppies, and half the cost of any food for the puppies and increased food for the mother while she was nursing even though she shouldn't have been breeding the poor thing in the first place imo.  

[patty1h]

Today's case was the first one that made me wonder if this show was going the route of being a scripted production.  The flower crown on the plaintiff was my first indication, then all of her new-age drivel was next.  It was so outlandish it made me suspicious.  The defendant was so normal though - the two of them were a strange combo.

[Silver Raven]

The flower lady with the reiki sessions, the spiritual healing, the full moon session burning the lease, the alternative facts.  Oh, my God.

[DoctorK]

I am glad that I didn't miss the flower lady case. At first, I thought she was just a slightly addled space cadet. By the end, I am more in line with the judges that she is a hustler and scammer.

[Silver Raven]

3 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I am glad that I didn't miss the flower lady case. At first, I thought she was just a slightly addled space cadet. By the end, I am more in line with the judges that she is a hustler and scammer.

I wish the defendant had gone into detail as to whether she was that flaky while he was staying there.  Crystals and spiritualism, wise.

[Eliza422]

10 hours ago, patty1h said:

Today's case was the first one that made me wonder if this show was going the route of being a scripted production.  The flower crown on the plaintiff was my first indication, then all of her new-age drivel was next.  It was so outlandish it made me suspicious.  The defendant was so normal though - the two of them were a strange combo.

I too was thinking that this was a fake case. It was just too ridiculous.

[TresGatos]

On 2/21/2017 at 9:47 AM, patty1h said:

Today's case was the first one that made me wonder if this show was going the route of being a scripted production.  The flower crown on the plaintiff was my first indication, then all of her new-age drivel was next.  It was so outlandish it made me suspicious.  The defendant was so normal though - the two of them were a strange combo.

The flower crown lady did come off as totally fake but the defendant seemed sincere. I wish scripted court shows would have to state that they're scripted even if the cases are "based" on real cases. I hate "Judge" Ross and sometimes I suspect Judge Faith. She seems sincere but the halterviews always seem scripted and her plaintiffs/defendants seem just a little too well put together. A poster on another forum stated that you can tell the scripted shows by the lack of titty tats on the plaintiffs/defendants. If I knew Hot bench was a scripted court show I would be more inclined to watch Judge Mathis during my lunch hour. I know a lot of people can't stand him but he, and the people appearing before him in the courtroom, are really real.

[DoctorK]

Quote

the people appearing before him in the courtroom, are really real.

Sadly, too true.

[ElleMo]

19 hours ago, Eliza422 said:

I too was thinking that this was a fake case. It was just too ridiculous.

I think it was a fake case on behalf of the plaintiff, but that defendant was real.  She knew she had to pay him his money back and didn't have it so concocted and bizarre way to get some cash.

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, ElleMo said:

I think it was a fake case on behalf of the plaintiff, but that defendant was real.  She knew she had to pay him his money back and didn't have it so concocted and bizarre way to get some cash.

I agree - I think the defendant's assessment of her in the halterview put it perfectly.  "I think she was auditioning for something."  She was ridiculous and contentious.  She was so over the top I began to think "this bitch cannot be real."  But I agree with your assessment - she knew this was a way to get out from under the debt she owed to him.  Have the show pay for it.  Plus I'm sure she didn't mind pocketing half the leftover appearance fee.  And maybe get people talking about her.  

I loved the second episode with the idiot who sideswiped the car and then try to talk her way out of why she pulled over and gave the woman her information if she hadn't caused the accident.  Oh, and "well I cancelled my insurance after the accident so of course they would say there's no coverage."  Yeah, Cupcake, because only a gerbil doesn't know that the insurance company providing coverage at the time of the incident remains on the hook for coverage even if you cancelled it the next day.    

[TresGatos]

Another instance where I pinged on "Is this really real?" was the case where the one Eastern European lady basically stole a $1,500 from another Eastern European cat breeder lady, I think the kitten was a beautiful blue British shorthair. In any case, at the beginning of the case, one of the Judges asked where they two first connected and the Plaintiff said "eBay' and the Judge seemed to look at the papers and confirmed it was eBay but I don't think eBay allows people to sell live animals through their site. I thought that was really weird at the time.

[Eliza422]

4 hours ago, ElleMo said:

I think it was a fake case on behalf of the plaintiff, but that defendant was real.  She knew she had to pay him his money back and didn't have it so concocted and bizarre way to get some cash.

Yes. And I didn't mean that it was fake from a production point of view, but from the participants. Occasionally hucksters get through on these real court shows, and I thought this might be one.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Eliza422

[SRTouch]

REALLY! To go along with recent looney flowerchild girl, today we have rude idiot who ran up thousands in parking tickets, then comes to court and tells the judge's to shut up and let him talk - ok, paraphrasing a little, but he does say to let him finish having his say and then he'll let the judge talk. Both these litigants make me wonder if the cases are real, or maybe the staff that scouts for real cases need to spend a little more time screening yahoo's before sending them tickets to be on the show and get a free lunch.

My other question about today's case - I thought I heard that the litigants have a child in common, but maybe not, and I'm not going back to check. If he is the baby daddy,  I wonder if he has ever made child support payments, seeing as how he so generously offered to pay some of the tickets - not because he admitted they were his fines, but out of the goodness of his cold-cold heart for the single mom who let him put the car in her name.

Edited February 24, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[JenMcSnark]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

REALLY! To go along with recent looney flowerchild girl, today we have rude idiot who ran up thousands in parking tickets, then comes to court and tells the judge's to shut up and let him talk - ok, paraphrasing a little, but he does say to let him finish having his say and then he'll let the judge talk. Both these questions make me wonder if the cases are real, or maybe the staff that scouts for real cases need to spend a little more time screening the yahoo's before sending them tickets to be on the show and get a free lunch.

My other question about today's case - I thought I heard that the litigants have some child in common, but maybe not, and I'm not going back to check. If he is the baby daddy,  I wonder if he has ever made child support payments, seeing as how he so generously offered to pay some of the tickets - not because he admitted they were his fines, but out of the goodness of his cold-cold heart for the single mom who let him put the car in her name.

That guy was out of his mind.  And did I see him crying at one point?  Or was that sweat?  Anyway, yes they did have a child in common. 

[Eliza422]

Did I dream it or did that scuzzy guy bring a dog into the courtroom? I meant to rewind and I forget to. 

[SRTouch]

29 minutes ago, Eliza422 said:

Did I dream it or did that scuzzy guy bring a dog into the courtroom? I meant to rewind and I forget to. 

Yep, I expected an explanation, like maybe pooch custody dispute, or maybe pup was therapy dog for some anxiety or PTSD,  but nothing was said and I forgot.

[Hockeymom]

I'm always fascinated by the difference in the judges' opinions. I always thought that the law was cut and dry. You know, this is legal and that is not. I knew judges had some leeway in sentencing, but thought that was about it.

Here though, you have three people all hearing the same case, but coming away with different interpretations. You will also see the same kinds of cases on other "judge shows", sometimes with vastly different outcomes. I have seen the exact same dog bite cases more than I'd care to admit.

I like the new guy though. He seems animal friendly. On a recent episode a guy was suing his ex for the return of his dog. The guy had landed in the hospital, in a coma, for a month because a nasty drug habit made his blood sugar plummet. The dogs were abandoned in the apartment and were taken to the pound. The guy's sister called the ex and asked her to go rescue the dog. She did, and was keeping it until he went to rehab. He never did, and she wanted to keep the dog.

The other two were pretty rough on the ex. Accused her of giving fraudulent info. to the Humaine Society, stealing the dog, etc. The Plaintiff was a complete disaster. He couldn't take care of himself, much less a pet. Only new guy saw the potential for disaster. He got out voted on returning the dog, but I loved that he tried!

[Hockeymom]

One more thing...

Why does Tanya yell so much? She gets so morally outraged and seems to decide the case before all the facts are stated. I know the judges have everything before the case begins, but I don't. This is the only information I get to hear. I'd like to actually hear it. I believe she is the only one who wasn't a judge IRL.

She gets so off track berating people. It's so cut and dry decided, and then the next judge takes a completely different track. How is a litigant such a monster to one judge, and so reasonable to the next?

Is she trying to be Judge Judy? Because Judy does it right. I get generating a little drama and excitement, but she just grates my nerves. When Judy yells, I understand why. When Tanya yells, I really want to switch channels.

[Eliza422]

6 hours ago, Hockeymom said:

One more thing...

Why does Tanya yell so much? She gets so morally outraged and seems to decide the case before all the facts are stated. I know the judges have everything before the case begins, but I don't. This is the only information I get to hear. I'd like to actually hear it. I believe she is the only one who wasn't a judge IRL.

She gets so off track berating people. It's so cut and dry decided, and then the next judge takes a completely different track. How is a litigant such a monster to one judge, and so reasonable to the next?

Is she trying to be Judge Judy? Because Judy does it right. I get generating a little drama and excitement, but she just grates my nerves. When Judy yells, I understand why. When Tanya yells, I really want to switch channels.

Maybe she thinks when JJ finally retires she could take her place.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Maybe she thinks when JJ finally retires she could take her place.

I think it really takes a lot of years to build up to a JJ level of cantankerous little old lady.

[Hockeymom]

12 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I think it really takes a lot of years to build up to a JJ level of cantankerous little old lady.

Exactly!! Judy has seen it all, heard it all, and knows what Boo-Hoo bullshit is about to come out of your mouth! She gets to be cranky. She earned it. Enough years in family court will turn anyone sour.

I actually find her to be kind. Yes, she's cranky. Yes, she cuts to the chase. Yes, she has zero threshold for nonsense. But, I have watched her from the beginning. She never gives a hard time to people who are mentally challenged - even if they are litigants. She is patient with kids. I have seen her softer side in animal cases.

I'm glad she's producing other shows now. I really don't want her to retire. But, if she can get some "fresh legs" to take over, she can go relax in the sunshine and enjoy all that money!!

[ElleMo]

On 2/28/2017 at 0:28 PM, Hockeymom said:

One more thing...

Why does Tanya yell so much?

 

I think she is taking the place of Bakman.  I don;t recall her yelling as much when he was on.  And they need someone to be disagreeable to the litigants. 

[Hockeymom]

5 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

And they need someone to be disagreeable to the litigants. 

The old good cop - bad cop!

[mochamajesty]

I am watching the lady with the erased cell phone pictures.

Can I meet someone like the plaintiff?  She barely knows the lady and writes her a check for 4 grand?

This just does not happen to me lol.

[patty1h]

I have a weird nitpick - when Judge DeMango says "we're going to retire to deliberate.  Thank you".  It's the 'thank you' part - it feels unnecessary to thank the participants for the judges to go backstage to do their jobs.  I guess Judge D. is just hella polite.

[ElleMo]

I was unsure why they ruled the way they did with the car and the dog.  Shared negligence crap was ridiculous (at least I am pretty sure that was how they ruled;  I heard the deliberations but then my DVR had some technical glitches.)  Anyway, the judges seemed to agree that if he had been going only 20 he wouldn't have hit the dog.  Huh?  If the dog runs right out in front of your car you can be going 5 miles an hour and still not be able to stop.  The scratches could have come from the dog collar. The fact that the defendants had this bizarre claim that the dog was trying to protect her hubby from the car made no sense to me and made them less reliable witnesses than the plaintiff.  But then what do I know?  

[Silver Raven]

I wonder if the judges flip a coin ahead of time to figure out which one will be the "bad cop" in each case.

[Hockeymom]

23 hours ago, ElleMo said:

I was unsure why they ruled the way they did with the car and the dog.  Shared negligence crap was ridiculous (at least I am pretty sure that was how they ruled;  I heard the deliberations but then my DVR had some technical glitches.)  Anyway, the judges seemed to agree that if he had been going only 20 he wouldn't have hit the dog.  Huh?  If the dog runs right out in front of your car you can be going 5 miles an hour and still not be able to stop.  The scratches could have come from the dog collar. The fact that the defendants had this bizarre claim that the dog was trying to protect her hubby from the car made no sense to me and made them less reliable witnesses than the plaintiff.  But then what do I know?  

YES!! I was thinking the same thing. The guy was driving his car in the street, exactly where he belonged. Where was his negligence? The dog should have been leashed. If it wasn't in the street, it wouldn't have been hit. And I'm saying this as someone whose dog once caused an accident. I paid for everything because It Was My Fault!!

We just have their word that he was speeding. There is no police report.

He wasn't asking for much in the way of damages. The plaintiffs were so  incredulous that their "protective" dog might have been at fault.

The "fact" that the dog wasn't hurt, hurt the plaintiff's case. I don't get that. It seems to show he wasn't speeding. So, either he was speeding and hit the dog, in which case it would have been dead - or, he was actually going 20. The dog ran out in front, got bumped, got up, and walked away.  Why was the plaintiff even partially at fault? They should have been thrilled, not throwing shade!!!

[Silver Raven]

No comments from any of the judges about the statutory rape implications of the case of 18 year old suing 23 year old former girlfriend for her tuition?  Presumably they were together when 18 year old was 17.  Doesn't matter that they were both female, it's still statutory rape.

[Hockeymom]

1 hour ago, Silver Raven said:

No comments from any of the judges about the statutory rape implications of the case of 18 year old suing 23 year old former girlfriend for her tuition?  Presumably they were together when 18 year old was 17.  Doesn't matter that they were both female, it's still statutory rape.

That assumes they had sex when she was 17. We don't know that. Plenty of teenagers date without "going all the way".

As far as the age for statutory rape, I'm pretty sure it differs by state. Here, I believe, the age of consent is 16.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Hockeymom

[AngelaHunter]

I just started watching this, and I'm offended! I'm uncomfortable! Plaintiff suing some 17 year old girl for breaking his phone on St.Patrick's Day. One judge asks him if he was drinking. He says he wasn't and she says, "With a name like McKuen, you weren't drinking?" If she had dredged up any sort of stereotype - of course anyone with an Irish name is a drunk -  about ANY other segment/race/creed/species or orientation of the population anywhere on the planet, the outrage would shake the country and there would be an outcry for her to be boiled in oil.

Okay, as someone of Irish descent, I really don't give a damn, but if everyone else gets to spend their lives looking for something to offend them, I can do it too.  Oh, and I'm not a drunk.