Hot Bench - General Discussion

[patty1h]

The case of the woman subleasing her Mercedes to a man (friend?) for $500 more than she pays was janky.  As all three judges sensed, there was something really not right going on.  The blowhard car buyer was full of nonsense stories about his family lending the male plaintiff millions and being too busy to find a car on his own, and how he had a previous car from this "business" where he had to pay zero.  Probably they're all tied up in something illegal and are lying through their teeth - what real estate business gets involved in car leasing?  I was wracking my brain to try to figure out what these folks are involved in and the first thing that came up was an escort service - the troll car buyer has racked up lot of "fees" to the "realtor" and was paying them back disguised as car payments. 

They're probably doing something not as sordid, but that's where my imagination took it.

Edited April 18, 2018 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

Her vet now says the horse has possible navicular issues, and she must 'get rid of' asap.  All sympathy I had for her left in a hurry.  I hate, hate, HATE that phrase when pertaining to a living, breathing creature

As someone who did animal rescue for years, I hate that phrase "Get rid of " just as much as you do. You "get rid of" a disease, weeds, a broken down car, a debt or other unpleasant things, not a living being with feelings. I have a 20-year old feral cat who still thinks I'm the Cat Murderer and won't let me approach her, but I never considered "getting rid of" her because she's what she is and not what I want her to be. She never asked to be trapped and brought into my home.  These people make me sick and makes me hope that when that person gets old and decrepit that their family will "get rid of" them and shove them into some nasty old age place or set them adrift in the ocean.

Thanks for the preview. I"ll skip this one.

[SRTouch]

On 4/18/2018 at 2:19 PM, patty1h said:

The case of the woman subleasing her Mercedes to a man (friend?) for $500 more than she pays was janky.  As all three judges sensed, there was something really not right going on.  The blowhard car buyer was full of nonsense stories about his family lending the male plaintiff millions and being too busy to find a car on his own, and how he had a previous car from this "business" where he had to pay zero.  Probably they're all tied up in something illegal and are lying through their teeth - what real estate business gets involved in car leasing?  I was wracking my brain to try to figure out what these folks are involved in and the first thing that came up was an escort service - the troll car buyer has racked up lot of "fees" to the "realtor" and was paying them back disguised as car payments. 

They're probably doing something not as sordid, but that's where my imagination took it.

 

I caught this case just as I was about to head to work (ended up turning around and coming home - too many drivers for this time of the month when pizza delivery is slow). Like you (and the judges) I have no idea what sort of scam these litigants have going. But geewiz, wasn't little Miss Plaintiff something. After being told she was illegally subleasing the vehicle, she still acted insulted at being called a scammer when asked about charging double for the sublease. Heck, as I understood her, her boss was actually paying to lease the car - it wasn't leased for her use - so rent her lease was a scam. Then when Acker questioned her about obviously inflated damages she produces an estimate for $2100. Good grief, not only is the estimate for things not shown in her damage photos, that's 1/2 what she's asking judges to award her... and, again, she's shocked and appalled when they look at HER evidence instead of just giving her everything she claims is due. Maybe THAT'S the scam.... leasing out vehicles they don't own or have a right to lease, charge double the going rate, then claim outrageously inflated damage when the vehicle is returned. Hard to believe people like defendant exist, but then I hear about celebrities who make megabucks and end up bankrupt. Heck, maybe Nicholas Cage rented from these folks (assuming he REALLY is broke like I've heard.)

Edited April 21, 2018 by SRTouch

[AlleC17]

I did not get what the hell was going on in the lease a Mercedes case at all.  Neither side was at all credible.  At one time the defendant added that he thought the $860/ month included insurance, which would make annual premiums around $6k.  That seems pretty high, but I have no clue if that is near what one expects to pay on a Mercedes?  I would hope not!  Damn.  Weird case.

Edited April 19, 2018 by AlleC17

[TresGatos]

The Hot Bench case today (I think it was a repeat - the TV didn't identify it was new) really irritated me today. A man who had been incarcerated for about 2 years was suing his ex (baby momma - I don't think they were ever married) because they had a joint bank account. She filed taxes and claimed the tax preparer ripped her off by having her $3,000+ income tax refund go into his bank account and then he (I think it was a he) issued the woman a check that bounced. The Plaintiff became aware of this when he tried to open a bank account after his release only to find out that he couldn't pass the credit check because of the situation with the tax return. The Defendant claimed she didn't know anything about the tax preparer other than his name. The bank had cashed the bad check and gave her the money rather than holding it until it cleared. The judges decided that they had both been scammed and dismissed the case (maybe without prejudice?). In any case, they did not ask the Defendant anything about the tax preparer like how did she find him and where did she go to actually have him prepare the taxes? Why wasn't it set up to direct deposit into the existing bank account? They didn't make her show a police report or that she had made a report to the IRS. Nothing. I thought they should have awarded the Plaintiff what he was asking for with payment being made directly to the bank and the Defendant, who received and spent the money, should be on the hook for finding and suing the "tax preparer."

[TresGatos]

And then today with the case of the Plaintiff whose roommate threw everything the Plaintiff owned into a Dumpster. The Judges awarded her $1,000 because she couldn't provide receipts or other proof of what she owned except they took her word on a $350 desk that there was a photo of and clothes visible in the photo. The Defendant was a smirky little wench who was totally unrepentant for her behavior. The Plaintiff said the Defendant threw out jewelry, and the Defendant admitted it, and the Plaintiff said it was jewelry she had collected over her 24 years, gifts, inheritances, things she bought, sounded plausible. She had a letter from her mother, a jeweler by profession, but the judges would not accept it (wonder why mom wouldn't show up?). In any case, I think $1,000 was low for the desk, clothes, work uniforms, shoes, and I believe her about the jewelry, and everything else she had in the room. It would add up fast. She was asking $5,000. I would have awarded her $3,000 and tacked on another $1,000 in punitive damages for Little Miss Smirky McSmirkinson.

[AngelaHunter]

Just when I thought women couldn't make themselves look any more pathetic, we had Lisa Canman - a teacher -  who met the fugly, sociopathic, convicted jailbird embezzler who took the time to style his hair into a pointy douchebag 'do for us, on Tinder. She could barely wait to start giving him money, because - gee, he was "turning his life around" (yes, instead of embezzling from insurance policy holders he decided to merely start hitting up desperate women and there's no shortage of those), so she started showering him with the big bucks. 5K she gave him in the first 5 weeks of knowing him. Just the fact that Mr.BigShot blew the 1/2 million he stole on "mistresses", wine, cars, trips around the world etc, instead putting any of it away is enough to prove he's an asshole of the highest (or lowest) order and not too bright. Lisa didn't care! She thinks she's nothing if she can't attach herself to a man, even a degenerate POS like this one. I'm really sorry she got one cent back. I hope she got some sort of counselling, because her self-esteem is in the toilet and her judgement is really messed up.

[Intocats]

On 4/27/2018 at 7:05 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Just when I thought women couldn't make themselves look any more pathetic, we had Lisa Canman - a teacher -  who met the fugly, sociopathic, convicted jailbird embezzler who took the time to style his hair into a pointy douchebag 'do for us, on Tinder. She could barely wait to start giving him money, because - gee, he was "turning his life around" (yes, instead of embezzling from insurance policy holders he decided to merely start hitting up desperate women and there's no shortage of those), so she started showering him with the big bucks. 5K she gave him in the first 5 weeks of knowing him. Just the fact that Mr.BigShot blew the 1/2 million he stole on "mistresses", wine, cars, trips around the world etc, instead putting any of it away is enough to prove he's an asshole of the highest (or lowest) order and not too bright. Lisa didn't care! She thinks she's nothing if she can't attach herself to a man, even a degenerate POS like this one. I'm really sorry she got one cent back. I hope she got some sort of counselling, because her self-esteem is in the toilet and her judgement is really messed up.

Word, word, triple word to all of the above. It seemed like all three judges liked Lisa, felt sorry for her and as a result, ruled in her favor. The whole time I was wishing that Douchebag was receiving a richly deserved Judge Judy smackdown. 

I agree, some counseling is definitely in order (and not from Dr. Phil). 

[ElleMo]

Feeling bad for the cake lady.  Not only is she horrible at decorating with fondant, she is horrible at business. What an idiot she was to go on TV. Now everyone knows that she messed up this Woman's wedding cake and had an attitude about it. She should have just given a couple their money back and let it be that. It was even in the contract!  I wouldn't hire her to bake a birthday cake for a toddler.  And such a 'tude;  the way she said "most people don't like fondant" (paraphrasing) was like there's something wrong with the bride because she wanted fondant on her cake. That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. First of all, there are plenty of people who love and use fondant. I'm not one of them, I don't like how it tastes, but I know plenty of people who do. Secondly, even if it were true that not many people like it, you're in the service business, this is what your customer wants, if you want to continue in this career and make money, you don't get to be snooty about it. If you don't like fondant or don't know how to use it, turn down the job. She could have found somebody else to do it. And in the hall, cake lady called the bride a brideZilla simply because she was upset that she didn't get what she ordered. And it wasn't like it was a minor thing, the cake was nothing at all like what she wanted. What app B$+H. I would never order a cake from that lady.

[AngelaHunter]

Cake lady:

11 hours ago, ElleMo said:

What an idiot she was to go on TV. Now everyone knows that she messed up this Woman's wedding cake and had an attitude about it.

No kidding. Usually I find brides who get hysterical and sue because one little thing was wrong with the cake or a flower was wilted to be petty and ridiculous, but in this case that woman was outrageous. Yeah sure told plaintiff that she had never done that before and plaintiff said, "Oh, that's okay. Just do your best." She was up at 3:00a.m., slaving over this cake! She's the one in business and if she doesn't know her business that's on her. "Most people don't like fondant" is not an excuse to make that mess and call the day of the wedding to say, "Guess what? I can't do it." As one of the judges suggested (DiMango?) she should have done a practice cake first. That's what I would have done were I doing a paying job for someone.

IMO, plaintiff would have gotten over it (it IS only a cake after all) had def. apologized profusely and given the money back and even offered to make a cake for her for free for some other occasion. It was her rotten, nasty "You shouldn't have asked for fondant, you Bridezilla, so it's not my fault!" attitude that landed them here.

[SRTouch]

Watched the auto rear-ender case last night/early morning before hitting the sack. Good grief, wasn't plaintiff something - such a bad litigant that even her Leo Getz (comic relief lawyer from Lethal Weapon) ambulance chasing lawyer dumped her. Her claim was so outrageous even she couldn't help laughing...

My thoughts are that about time her lawyer threw in the towel and dropped her the show producers contacted her and she was here for the experience.

[SRTouch]

Whoa, family drama case belonging on Springer. Mom and dad divorce after 20 years (mom emphasizes divorce actually 4 months shy of 20 year mark). They have at least 3 kids - 2 daughters and a son. This case is 21yo daughter suing mommy over a GoFundMe account. Daughter had a stroke, and even though mom and daughter were estranged at the time, mom started a charity drive on GoFundMe. Today daughter, with daddy and bf at her side, is suing mommy, who has son on HER side. Son gets excited and almost gets booted when he comes to mommy's defense. Seems GoFundMe account raised over 8 grand, and mommy kept half the money. Well, actually, she says she ONLY kept $1700, but evidence says otherwise. Not only did she keep some of the money, which daughter still needs for speech therapy,  but the ad she put up claimed daughter was without medical insurance. Dad is here saying she was covered by his insurance. Mommy's excuse seems to be that daddy owes back child support for younger daughter.... though why that would entitle mommy to keep money donated for older daughter's medical bills is anybody's guess. Oh, and mommy is countersuing for 5 grand since older daughter and her bf went on FB and called her a crook before filing this case. Surprise, judges find for older daughter.

[AngelaHunter]

Okay, who saw the "He was hitting on me and took me to gay bars 15 times and I don't owe him anything?" It was surreal. I can't even comment on it because it left me dazed and confused and my only thought is that plaintiff came directly from auditions for "Thinner: 2". OMG. Oh, and that Sonya had to herd the gargantuan freak out the door when he pitched a temper tantrum. Yikes.

 

 

 

[Florinaldo]

That was quite a turnaround case. However, it did not deserve to fill a whole episode, especially since they blew the big reveal of plaintiff being a temperamental  bully in the teaser segments. I was funny to see him fold immediately when confronted by Officer Sonya.

Assuming the defendant was not putting on an act, he does need to take some legal protection measures against this guy who lives in the same building.

[lenny]

3 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

That was quite a turnaround case. However, it did not deserve to fill a whole episode, especially since they blew the big reveal of plaintiff being a temperamental  bully in the teaser segments. I was funny to see him fold immediately when confronted by Officer Sonya.

Assuming the defendant was not putting on an act, he does need to take some legal protection measures against this guy who lives in the same building.

Oh, I think we're safe in assuming the defendant was full of it. He would have loved an excuse to call the cops on the brute. I'm sure that if as he said, there were 2 pevious attacks, there would be 2 coinciding police reports. Asking for a tissue, oh puhleeez. I rewound several times and didn't see a tear until after he had the tissue and appeared to jab it in his eye. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't stand the plaintiff. These were two of the phoniest, most unlikable liars I've seen in awhile. They kinda deserve each other.

[AngelaHunter]

I really thought the "Greaseball Mommy from Hell" category was all wrapped up, but then we get the girl who had what seemed to be a pretty severe stroke at the age of 20, and whose momma set a up a GoGimme account for her and then stole part of the money. Mom is a malignant, virulent, sociopathic blight on the earth and I hope the very worst for her in the future. May she have a stroke that leaves her unable to speak at all - ever again. It's not her fault she stole the money. She thought some of it was actually back child support from her estranged hubby, right? Honest mistake. I"m sure the donators didn't mind throwing their hard-earned money into the voracious maw of this witch. Her overly-toothy, idiotic son is following in her footsteps.

I had a stroke too and I know how hard it is to come back, how hard this girl had to work to get where she is now. She needs speech therapy and that vicious creature who bore her stole the money for that. This case disturbed me enormously. I just hope that vampire gets a comeuppance sooner than later, and hope the girl continues to recover and doesn't let the fact that her mommy is a despicable ghoul ruin that.

People need to think very carefully before donating to anyone begging for money on GoFundMe. There are a lot of scammers and con artists there just looking to exploit the naive.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

People need to think very carefully before donating to anyone begging for money on GoFundMe. There are a lot of scammers and con artists there just looking to exploit the naive.

Not just GoFundMe (though it may be just about the worst since - as far as I know - that is no oversight). Really, before you donate to ANY charity you ought to take a look at it's track record. Some of the big time, big name charities spend a very high percentage of every dollar they collect on fundraising and "administration costs" with just a small percentage ending up going to actually help anyone...

[DoctorK]

I don't trust gofundme, when a close friend had medical issues (that turned out to be terminal) one of his friends started a gofundme site for him. I didn't use it, I went to see my friend and handed him an envelope with as much cash as I could afford.

[jhlipton]

I think the judges messed up on one case.

Defendant 1 has a dog (Frank) who is a rambunctious husky.  D1 needs to go out of town so he hires Defendants 2 and 3 as dog sitters (I don't recall if they were a business or how he found them.  The point, to me, was that they took responsibility for the dog.)  The sitters allow Frank to run free.  So Frank runs out into the street and, per the Plaintiff, hits his car, doing thousands of dollars in damage (insurance pays for most, so P is only suing for the $500 deductible).  Frank was fortunately not harmed.

It is definitely not clear how a 60 pound dog could cause the damage that was shown, especially since said dog was perfectly fine.  Judges Tanya and Patricia said that since the insurance company paid for the damages, it didn't matter if Frank was the cause.  Judge Michael said that the cause was unproven and wasn't convinced that Frank was the cause.  Final judgement was for $500 split equally among the three defendants.

I say that even if Frank did cause the damage the car, D1 should be relieved of liability since he took what he thought was prudent action in having sitters look after Frank.  I would not have held him liable at all.

[patty1h]

The crying defendant (Rebecca Seitzinger) in the $500 loan scared me with the level of emotion she exhibited over $180 dollars.  I can only imagine that she's a nightmare to deal with if things don't go her way.  Sobbing and dabbing her eyes about a minimal amount of money, she seemed to be on a roller coaster of feelings.  With all those dramatics, did anyone see actual tears coming out of her eyes?

Then again, the stepson plaintiff could have just dropped the whole thing and forgave that amount instead of dealing with those two women who seemed like they have a lot of baggage.

EDITED TO ADD:   The next case about two friends and a car that was impounded.  Gotta wonder about the mindset of plaintiff Kimberly Rogers - she made the decision to appear on national TV with big holes in her sweater.  I wonder if that was to gain sympathy for her case.  I did notice that she was vain enough to put on fake eyelashes before she showed up, though.  *Looking at Kimberly a little closer, I started to wonder if she started out life as a male...

Edited May 16, 2018 by patty1h

[Silver Raven]

I couldn't figure out how old Rebecca Seitzinger is.  She's been divorced from the plaintiff's father since 2011?  She didn't look older than 30 herself.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Silver Raven said:

I couldn't figure out how old Rebecca Seitzinger is.  She's been divorced from the plaintiff's father since 2011?  She didn't look older than 30 herself.

Actually, what I gathered was Rebecca and the dad were never married, she left his pops in 2001 after he abused her for 5 1/2 years.... like you, I'm wondering if she was a child bride. And, supposedly she had children by dear old pops - did we ever hear how many? Good grief, with bald plaintiff I would have pegged him as the older of the two. Not saying that can't happen - when my grandparents married, grandpa had a son older than grandma... but that was before WWI.

OH, and to answer the question from @patty1h, no, nary a tear drop did I see, despite all the two handed rubbing and dabbing with tissue.

[DoctorK]

50 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

nary a tear drop did I see, despite all the two handed rubbing and dabbing with tissue.

It looked sort of fake to me during the hearing, but the hallterview nailed it for me, watching Seitzinger when she was front and center doing the overwhelming sobbing etc., but when she was behind the plaintiff and he was talking, her face was perfectly calm other than doing the cud-chewing movements we have seen before. The interviews switched back and forth several times, and every time she wasn't talking her face was relaxed and every time she was talking she was loudly sobbing. Looked faked to me.

Edited May 16, 2018 by DoctorK
clarifying

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, patty1h said:

*Looking at Kimberly a little closer, I started to wonder if she started out life as a male...

My uneducated guess would be "yes" but I guess she could just be a very a large and masculine woman. Def was a total lowlife sleazebag who couldn't even bother trying to act decent. All that hugging at the end? Gimme a break.

 

8 hours ago, patty1h said:

The crying defendant (Rebecca Seitzinger) in the $500 loan scared me with the level of emotion she exhibited over $180 dollars.

Thank you. I was in and out and thought I'd missed something. I couldn't believe the blubbering over 180$. Apparently the plaintiff told her she could pay it back even at 10$/month. She had no problem stiffing him so maybe her high emotions just bubble up when she's confront with said stiffing. Did she marry plaintiff's daddy when she was 12? Very weird all around.

Judge Corriero just thinks the best of everyone, doesn't he? Good thing the other two are there to bring him down to the real world.

[jhlipton]

Another really bad decision by the judges in Ogler vs Zhou (aka Yorkipoo vs Doberman).  The defendant was minding her own business when two dogs came up (just strolling across the street?  I don't think so) definitely off-leash and started messing with her dog.  She got her dog under control as quickly as she could,  They never answered the defendant's question "What was I to do?" So for them to say that she "couldn't control her dog" was pure BS.  The plaintiff's dog, by her own testimony, initiated the incident.  And what one dog sees as "play", another might see as "attack", regardless of size.

Judgement for the defendant; the plaintiff's case is dismissed.

[jhlipton]

Another screw-up by the judges.  Plaintiff said that under Indiana law, she was entitled to triple damages, but didn't think she needed to do the court's work for them and print the page. A minute Googling showed me that she was right.  If they don't know the law in a jurisdiction, they need to look it up!

[jhlipton]

So let me get this straight:  three bougie judges don't know anyone who carries thousands of dollars on them, and certainly doesn't keep them in cheap-ass hotels, hear that a guy admits that he stole the plaintiff's car, and she's not credible???  Oh, it's OK for him to show off all his money on the Insta, but her locking it up in her car is bad!!!

This was a no-brainer and they all three muffed it.

[aprilnelson]

I Think She Is Good But If She Left I Think There Ratings Would Go Down She Is Good They All Are. 

[AngelaHunter]

What's going on with teen girls these days? The two - "Kennedy" and "Katalin"(gotta love these millennial names given by parents who want their kid to stand out) who crashed plaintiff's golf cart? Not only are they out and about getting into mischief at 1:30a.m. while Grandma and Grandpa visit the Sandman, but they looked - especially Kennedy -  at least 25 years old. WTF? They were downright scary. Oh, well, could have been worse. They could have come home pregnant.

Edited June 23, 2018 by AngelaHunter
cuz - wine

[DoctorK]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

They could have come home pregnant.

You might be a little premature for this conclusion. It's not that boys aren't out at that time of night.

Edited June 24, 2018 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

I have to say that I find it interesting that in the olden days if someone asked for help because they were "on hard times" it might have meant they needed money for food, heat or other necessities of life. Now it seems that "hard times" means that a person is in desperate need of the latest phone and an iPad, although they apparently have plenty of money to eat, get tats, buy wigs, etc. How times have changed.

[momtoall]

I had tried to watch Hot Bench when it started but after watching an episode or so, I bailed.  Now since TPC is in reruns and I can't watch JJ anymore, I decided to give the show another try. I've watched 4-5 episodes (all new to me) and I can't believe JJ has anything to with this show.  From the small sample I've seen, the judges appear to be more in tune with the real world and they have a sense of humor.  I don't think I'll watch it on a regular basis but it is a refreshing change.

Edited July 20, 2018 by momtoall

[SRTouch]

13 hours ago, momtoall said:

I had tried to watch Hot Bench when it started but after watching an episode or so, I bailed.  Now since TPC is in reruns and I can't watch JJ anymore, I decided to give the show another try. I've watched 4-5 episodes (all new to me) and I can't believe JJ has anything to with this show.  From the small sample I've seen, the judges appear to be more in tune with the real world and they have a sense of humor.  I don't think I'll watch it on a regular basis but it is a refreshing change.

Actually, if you have the chance, watch the couple episodes where JJ filled in as a guest judge (her hubby has also filled a chair on occasion). Watching JJ during her guest appearance, we saw a totally different demeanor - she took on the role of the lenient, compassionate judge... heck, JJ even commented that it is a role she seldom fills.

[AngelaHunter]

Today? Lawyer plaintiff suing her uncle (I think he was her uncle) for a 20-year old TV from her Grammy's house, saying that she lost the 1200$/month rental that some producer of plays was going to pay her for the use of it as a prop in one of his/her plays? "LOL. Whut"? I didn't finish watching this nonsense because the whole premise had me rushing for my booze bottle. Seeing what the lawyers on these court shows are like makes me fervently hope I never need the services of one.

[AZChristian]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Today? Lawyer plaintiff suing her uncle (I think he was her uncle) for a 20-year old TV from her Grammy's house, saying that she lost the 1200$/month rental that some producer of plays was going to pay her for the use of it as a prop in one of his/her plays? "LOL. Whut"? I didn't finish watching this nonsense because the whole premise had me rushing for my booze bottle. Seeing what the lawyers on these court shows are like makes me fervently hope I never need the services of one.

I haven't been watching HB since our local channels recently shifted times of some of "my" shows . . . but I did catch this one.  Good grief - instead of paying $1,200 per month for an old TV rental prop, wouldn't they have just had their propmaster find one somewhere that they could BUY cheaply?  This wasn't a major Broadway production . . . and it was a prop, not a starring actor!!!

[SRTouch]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Today? Lawyer plaintiff suing her uncle (I think he was her uncle) for a 20-year old TV from her Grammy's house, saying that she lost the 1200$/month rental that some producer of plays was going to pay her for the use of it as a prop in one of his/her plays? "LOL. Whut"? I didn't finish watching this nonsense because the whole premise had me rushing for my booze bottle. Seeing what the lawyers on these court shows are like makes me fervently hope I never need the services of one.

Uh, surely you forgot the decimal.... like maybe 12.00 instead of 1200 ?

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

instead of paying $1,200 per month for an old TV rental prop, wouldn't they have just had their propmaster find one somewhere that they could BUY cheaply?

I just put one of those dinosaurs at the end of my driveway last year. If only I had known I could rent it out for big bucks! Never mind propmaster - they could have just cruised the streets on Big Item Garbage Day.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Uh, surely you forgot the decimal.... like maybe 12.00 instead of 1200

No - her 20-year old TV was special! I guess.

 

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

This wasn't a major Broadway production . . . and it was a prop, not a starring actor!!!

Probably so far off Broadway you'd need Indy Jones to find it. I bet even the star of the show wasn't getting anywhere near 1200$/month.

[AngelaHunter]

May I say how much I loved Naomi Aylsford, who cannot bother her pretty little head about contractors, insurance and all that other man-business stuff and who looks as though she came here directly from Sunset Blvd? I was just waiting for her to say, "I depend on the kindness of strangers."

I guess she feels that t his kindness should include people working for her for free.

[zillabreeze]

On 8/9/2018 at 5:04 PM, AngelaHunter said:

May I say how much I loved Naomi Aylsford, who cannot bother her pretty little head about contractors, insurance and all that other man-business stuff and who looks as though she came here directly from Sunset Blvd? I was just waiting for her to say, "I depend on the kindness of strangers."

I guess she feels that t his kindness should include people working for her for free.

She was a nasty little bitch.  You know damned well that she stiffed more than one contractor on that claim.  In the hallterview plaintiff said just that. 

I've grown up in the south...that petite, baby voice bullshit don't fly with me.  They use it all the time to wiggle out of obligations & stupid decisions.  

This may be court TeeVee blasphemy, but IMHO Judge Acker has a much better BS meter than JJ.

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

I've grown up in the south...that petite, baby voice bullshit don't fly with me.  They use it all the time to wiggle out of obligations & stupid decisions.  

I've never been to the southern US, but I got the same impression. I was glad her mealy-mouthed "Oh, I'm just a poor little widow. My head is all a-muddle and it's not my fault I paid the contractor ZERO" bullshit didn't fly here.

Parrish McGhaney Sr. and Parrish McGhaney Jr. - how heartwarming to see this kind of family tradition passed down to the generations. Jr. and Sr. get arrested but we don't know for what. Sr. gets incarcerated, Jr. claims false charges or something. Gov. is confused about the McGhaneys and their arrests and their names and their bail, etc and send the bail refund to the wrong McGhaney (Jr.) or so Sr. says, which is why he is suing the fruit of his loins. Jr.has a whole story, most of which I couldn't understand - nor could the judges - but he has a multitude of "situations" going on and "two twins" (as opposed to three or five, which gave the judges a chuckle) and their baby momma wants child support. I guess that's why he kept Daddy's bail. I don't know since I couldn't take any more at that point.

[Tenarife60]

I don't watch this show very often and I'm sure today's show was a rerun with Babs from Euless, Texas who met the man online and moved in without his permission, then he couldn't get her out of his house.  It was so funny how he had video of her at one point struggling with her walker carrying items out of his house like she was a cripple, then others times she was picking up large flower pots without the walker as if there was nothing wrong with her.  I still can't believe she uses face cream that's $400.  She said she wanted to look nice, LOL.  And at the end when she said she was done with men that she might become a lesbian now.  Good Lordy!!  I don't think a woman would put up with her either.

[AngelaHunter]

44 minutes ago, Tenarife60 said:

I don't watch this show very often and I'm sure today's show was a rerun with Babs from Euless,

Woman is a vile, parasitic sociopath and def needs to scrape up a backbone, after allowing that vicious hag to squat in his home. He's lucky he escaped with his life.

Today: Judge Acker? "He drug his feet." I do believe the acceptable past tense of drag is dragged.

[DoctorK]

Today was a day for truly despicable defendants on the second 1/2 hour.

First case, landlord with the huge (and unfortunate choice) hoop earrings was infuriating. She refused to say how long she has been a landlord when asked directly, just "for a long time", wanted to keep the security deposit for some alleged damage that was not discovered until four months after the plaintiffs moved out (with a walk through when they left) and new tenants had moved in, and sent the plaintiffs several checks (partly blank) all of which bounced (no matter how many times defendant said they really didn't bounce).  This was a case where the judges agreed that the defendant's behavior clearly warranted the double return of the security deposit plus all of the bounced check fees the plaintiffs had.

Second case, we had a defendant who just refused to believe that she was responsible when her dog (which had bitten people before and she knew it) got at a plumber who was working at her house. Defendant tried to doubletalk her out of it, tossing red herrings like a fish market: it was a room not a garage, he wasn't supposed to be working on the water heater, daughter (who sounded like she really didn't want to be in court) saw a door close so she let the dog loose, and (best of all), the plumber was at fault because he opened the door to leave (as a judge pointed out, was he supposed to just stay in the room/garage forever?). The icing on the cake was in the hallterview when the defendant insisted that she never said she wouldn't pay for the dog bite (contrary to what we heard throughout the case).

Two miserable excuses for humans.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

First case, landlord with the huge (and unfortunate choice) hoop earrings was infuriating.

Where on earth did she get those earrings? They seem to have been snatched from some wagon wheels. What a low-down cretin she was. She couldn't see the damage plaintiffs did. It was night, you see. She only realized it four months after they moved out. Shouldn't she be in jail for all those bounced checks?

I got the case of the delightful young ladies/students who ripped into each other in the street like wild animals ready to kill each other over a carcass, or this case, some prize of a guy they both wanted. Business management? Never mind their savagery, but I cannot imagine hiring anyone to manage any business - even ordering dollar store merchandise -  with their horrible grammar. I don't know why the judges were so shocked at the disgusting, vile videos of the wild battles. They can check YouTube or "WorldStar" and see hundreds of them just the same that take place day after day, and it's always women. JC.

[zillabreeze]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Business management? Never mind their savagery, but I cannot imagine hiring anyone to manage any business - 

If either of those gutter snipes worked for me,  regardless of the position,  I would fire them instantly.  Their personal property & last check would be delivered to their home by LE, along with the "no trespass" order.  That mentality is a massive liability to an employer and could bankrupt a business in a flash.

I would further fight any claim to unemployment money with my last dying breath.

Wonder why we don't have much chat here?  Hot Bench gets a really good selection of BSC litigants.

[patty1h]

Whoa - Judge Acker must have gotten a new makeup artist because I actually noticed her face today. She is contoured and blended and highlighted enough for three people.  She's already naturally attractive but whoever is slapping on the foundation, concealer, etc. has obviously gotten their training by watching some of these Youtube makeup tutorial videos.  

[zillabreeze]

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

She's already naturally attractive but whoever is slapping on the foundation, concealer, etc.

I'll check it out.  Today's episode hasn't shown here yet.   She's quite beautiful...less is more!

[Silver Raven]

Wow, what a case this morning.  This guy is suing a contractor he hired to do work for him on a house he was renovating (he refused to call himself a house flipper, though that's what the court papers described him as). The defendant said he had offered to fix anything the plaintiff didn't like, but P never let him fix anything.  Not only did the defendant pay for supplies out of his own pocket, and not only was the defendant suing him for $10,000, the plaintiff never paid the defendant for his work.

But the defendant didn't let things go there.  He went on Craigslist and found another guy that the P had done the same thing to.  And THAT guy came in, claiming he and the defendant had never met until that day, with lots of emails from other people (one of the judges said there were 13) that the plaintiff had hired and then never paid.  It seems that Plaintiff had a history of hiring non-licensed contractors and then didn't pay them, and they couldn't sue him under California law.

The judges told the defendant and the witness he brought in to tell the local DA about the plaintiff and show them the tapes from the show. They awarded the defendant $3800.

[Taeolas]

Yeah, that was quite the case today. And the Flipper was so cocky and sleazy even as he was losing. Hopefully the DAs throw the book at him. As we've seen many many times on these shows, work has to be paid for; at best you might get a refund if you can prove the work is redone afterwards, but this sleaze ball didn't even do that. He just claimed the work had to be redone, but as far as we can tell never actually redid it. 

[zillabreeze]

52 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

He just claimed the work had to be redone, but as far as we can tell never actually redid it. 

I wanted to slap his skeezy, smirking ass into next week!  AND he seeks out people clearly down on their luck, yet STILL willing to bust their ass to work, instead of calling on Byrd.

Of course he didn't he didn't redo shit!  That bathroom was lovely!  I'd gladly pay $3500.  to update my 1980 bathroom like that!  I shopped something similar last year and was staring down the barrel of $10k!  Obviously, not done, but at defendant's price I'd be talking to y'all from that soaking tub today!

Uneven grout & a few rough edges???? Easily corrected.  And poor defendant seemed willing to do it.

I know I'm superficial, but I sure hope the D spent his money on fixing his teef.   He was a nice looking man, but those front stumps were atrocious. 

Teef are an issue on all the court shows, but what I don't get is THE PAIN!!! Last week I spent 3x a mortgage payment to fix two teef you can't even see!   When they get even slightly infected & it hurts to chew, I'll sell my soul to Satan to get right.  How the hell do these people suffer the rotten brown stumps?  The pain, the odor,  must be debilitating.