Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

wanted a full show of Acker calling Weirdo Plastica everything but a white woman. 

I wonder if she shares the same plastic surgeon (or "broker") as the Beverly Hills landlord from earlier this week on JJ. As several other posters said, it's baffling to me how many women (and some men) can pay fortunes for surgery that turns out like this.

[zillabreeze]

Full disclosure: I dislike most children and don't get the appeal of having them around.   BUT!  I REALLY hate the ones that play up the cutesy act.  The little girl in the dog case was like nails on a chalkboard with the baby voice, look at my dimples crap.  Such a put-on. I'll bet she's more like Rhoda Penmark back at the house.

[AZChristian]

26 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

Full disclosure: I dislike most children and don't get the appeal of having them around.   BUT!  I REALLY hate the ones that play up the cutesy act.  The little girl in the dog case was like nails on a chalkboard with the baby voice, look at my dimples crap.  Such a put-on. I'll bet she's more like Rhoda Penmark back at the house.

I got the feeling she was already acting in community theater . . . and just expanded her audience.

[AZChristian]

That Yorkie in today's case was the spitting image of our beloved Yorkie, Summer, who blessed our lives for 13 years.  Same size, same coloring, same haircut.  I watched the whole episode through tears.

[Florinaldo]

Goat-lady defendant was really one of the most distateful litigants seen on any court show. As Acker said, she seems to think the world and people around her need to function according to her rules and preferences. She also wore this big Native American pendant, as if to generate sympathy from the judges and buttress her absurd claim of racism on the part of the plaintiff. Much like many people wear giant crosses to demonstrate their impeccable morality.

Animal Control needs to take those goats away from her since she obviously lets them roam free in the streets and is unrepentant about continuing to do so.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Animal Control needs to take those goats away from her since she obviously lets them roam free in the streets and is unrepentant about continuing to do so.

I think someone had already removed them from her.  She had the cajones to thank the plaintiff for showing the video of her goats running loose, and commented that it was nice to see them because she missed them so much.

I wish the plaintiff had called the police on the unattended child in the vehicle; it would have been interesting to hear her defend THAT as part of her tribal culture.

[Florinaldo]

Just now, AZChristian said:

think someone had already removed them from her.  She had the cajones to thank the plaintiff for showing the video of her goats running loose, and commented that it was nice to see them because she missed them so much.

Thanks, I missed that since I was also doing other things. That comment is another example of how much of an insufferable ass she is.

[JenMcSnark]

On 2/19/2019 at 5:30 PM, Florinaldo said:

Thanks, I missed that since I was also doing other things. That comment is another example of how much of an insufferable ass she is.

And didn't she have the nerve to countersue him for their value?  I'm pretty sure she did.  Unbelievable. 

[Carolina Girl]

Okay, can someone explain to me the case where the dad was suing the mom for defamation and personal injury and not only did those three judges NOT award him defamation for her instagram post telling his older son that he had AIDS and herpes and that he had died, but didn't award him damages for his documented injuries WHICH THE DEFENDANT admitted because "well, you know, we don't know what went on, they had words..."

I sometimes just can't even with these guys.   Did they listen to that phone message?  The woman is a psycho.  It was evident that they were pissed at him for questioning paternity of the kids.   They attacked him about the four-month-old, where he wanted a DNA test, for not paying child support.  

[Florinaldo]

4 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Okay, can someone explain to me the case where the dad was suing the mom for defamation and personal injury and not only did those three judges NOT award him defamation for her instagram post telling his older son that he had AIDS and herpes and that he had died, but didn't award him damages for his documented injuries WHICH THE DEFENDANT admitted because "well, you know, we don't know what went on, they had words..."

What I think I got from their deliberations is that they felt his behaviour contributed in part to the dysfunctional relationship between the two and decided he deserved to pay a little and also were more stringent than usual in their criteria for "preponderance of the evidence" which meant they did not find her responsible for some of the allegations. Dubious ruling at best.

[AngelaHunter]

I won't say I enjoyed the case of Sheila's Daddy suing Sheila's ex-paramour, but I did think, "Finally!" when judges Acker and DiMango gave her a serious dressing down, instead of treating her like an innocent victim. Sheila is a grown woman who has been with the ferret-faced, felonious and idiotic def for six years. He's always been abusive, so she decides he needs to move into Daddy's house too, since he can't take care of himself  - neither of them can - and then decides to get knocked up, while still mooching off Daddy. She's sure he'll change, you see. "Oh, how I love that man of mine!" The fact that Daddy is seriously debilitated didn't influence her decision to have the abusive creep live there and I guess Daddy either couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it. Sheila wanted him, really badly, well, until he threw her on the floor and hit her with a coat hanger. Now Sheila says she lives in her own place and is a "stay-at-home-mom". Baby Daddy has no visitation because he exposed the child to a sexual predator, and this is the man she wanted for a happy-ever-after fairy tale. I wonder who's supporting her now? The judges have their doubts that Sheila won't go back with this POS and advised her to get therapy. Even Judge Corriero was mildly perturbed.

[Florinaldo]

28 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Sheila is a grown woman who has been with the ferret-faced, felonious and idiotic def for six years. He's always been abusive, so she decides he needs to move into Daddy's house too, since he can't take care of himself  - neither of them can - and then decides to get knocked up, while still mooching off Daddy. She's sure he'll change, you see.

She must have wished they had filed with TPC, because instead JM would probably have held her hand and coddled her for all her pain and suffering, while giving her a comforting heart-to-heart.

[AngelaHunter]

24 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

JM would probably have held her hand and coddled her for all her pain and suffering, while giving her a comforting heart-to-heart.

Probably she would have been treated like a helpless child, instead of an adult who chose not only to subject herself to the brutality of that dull-eyed cretin, but her kid and her father. If a woman wants to be a punching bag (or a drug addict or a hooker), that's her choice, but don't involve anyone else, especially helpless infants.

I liked how Judges Acker and DiMango didn't beat around the bush with her. I hope Sheila watches this over and over and realizes how ridiculous and stupid she sounded when Judge Acker said this is an abuser, both physically and mentally and has been for years, so you thought it was a good idea to have a baby with him? And Sheila says, "Yes. I thought he would change." Yah, I'm sure fatherhood would magically turn a scumbag into a paragon of virtue, a knight in shining armour! Considering how flawed and skewed her thinking and judgment are, I kind of doubt she should be entrusted with little children.

[zillabreeze]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

wonder who's supporting her now? 

Pretty good odds that it's you, me and Byrd.

[Florinaldo]

16 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

Pretty good odds that it's you, me and Byrd.

The Canadians on this board can be grateful we have nothing to do with supporting her.

[AngelaHunter]

23 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

The Canadians on this board can be grateful we have nothing to do with supporting her.

Yes, we have enough people of our own we're forced to support.

[zillabreeze]

10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yes, we have enough people of our own we're forced to support.

Come on AH!   We all know you'd rather support the SSMs than waste that money on adult beverages.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

We all know you'd rather support the SSMs than waste that money on adult beverages.

Definitely. Who really needs Grand Marnier anyway? I'll sacrifice it for the greater good. I'm just a really nice person with a big heart, you know.

[patty1h]

After countless Bridezilla cases on the various court shows, HB has a Groomzilla.  At least it's not just women who nitpick about "their special day" being ruined.

The defendant complained that the photographer he hired the day before the ceremony didn't make his City Hall wedding look grand enough, so he didn't pay the $600 they agreed on, so the plaintiff was suing to get his fee.   The pictures shown looked nice, though I did think that they guys looked a little orange, which I'm sure could have been adjusted with some color correction.   

[Florinaldo]

12 hours ago, patty1h said:

After countless Bridezilla cases on the various court shows, HB has a Groomzilla.  At least it's not just women who nitpick about "their special day" being ruined.

A great day for gender equality all around since it's a gay couple whose day was "ruined forever". I am sure others in the LGBT community will rejoice with me that we now have the opportunity to behave as ludicrously as straight people when it comes to marriage, based on unrealistic expectations. Although in the hallterview, he proved that his personal idiocy was more of a factor in filing this frivolous lawsuit than his sexual orientation.

Judge Acker should not have held back in her tongue lashing him just to make him a wedding gift as she said; he deserved a full dressing down.

Colour correction would indeed have done the trick, although I think that fact would have gone over his head. Further, he seemed to believe that every single picture should have come out as a perfectly framed shot, whereas in every kind of photo shoot there is a certain amount of rejects. They got good results, especially a that low price. It's a bit frustrating that he does not even have shell the money out of his own pocket since the show pays the award; I suppose his punishment is looking totally foolish on national TV.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Florinaldo]

The woman suing a former boyfriend for not reimbursing loans and taking advantage of her in today's episode was quite something. She kept calling him a "narcissist", but if she took a long hard look at herself, there is a (very slight) chance she might realise how much she acts like an obsessed spurned woman who just cannot let go. With a bit of narcissism thrown in judging from her "I am right and everyone else, including the facts, are incorrect" attitude. She even argued in the hallterview that he had used his mystical manipulation powers to win over end ensnare the two female judges, so that is why she lost.

Even though he was not the most stellar person around, he deserved the compensation he got for her harassment and slander; her 16-year old daughter getting involved through FB postings was truly despicable.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Florinaldo

[ElleMo]

7 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Even though he was not the most stellar person around, he deserved the compensation he got for her harassment and slander; her 16-year old daughter getting involved though FB postings was truly despicable.

1

Ugh.  When the judge said it disturbed her that the girl was on communication with the guy and knew so much about her mother's sex life, all she said was it disturbed her too.  Excuse me?  Then why did you tell all your business?? How did she get his number? And if it is disturbing, why are you letting someone read that on national TV? I think mom had a huge hand in this "disturbing" behavior.   I hope the father of that child is involved in her life, because her mother is not doing her any favors.

[Florinaldo]

8 hours ago, ElleMo said:

When the judge said it disturbed her that the girl was on communication with the guy and knew so much about her mother's sex life, all she said was it disturbed her too.  Excuse me?  Then why did you tell all your business??

I think there is a good chance the mother put her daughter up to it. And even if she did not, she could not help her satisfaction at it having happened shining through.

[AngelaHunter]

On 2/25/2019 at 2:15 PM, Florinaldo said:

Judge Acker should not have held back in her tongue lashing him just to make him a wedding gift as she said; he deserved a full dressing down.

Just watched this. At least she used the words "Unconscionable" and "outrageous" to describe the despicable behavior of the whiny, meek-voiced, emotionally distressed def who had no problem stiffing the plaintiff and paying him not one dime for his services. And of course we got the usual deadbeat, lying crap: "All the pics you see are excellent, but he took so many horrible pictures! There was trash and I looked orange and all those pics on the staircase are not THE  grand staircase pic I wanted and OMG! I am so emotionally distressed!" And naturally, he expected assistants and a director for the Wedding of the Decade at City Hall, and all for 600$. Judges want to see all those horrible pictures. "Well, I didn't bring those."  I can just picture him and his little groom sitting there after the payment was turned back, "Hey, we can get FREE pictures. 600$ to us! Woo hoo!" Plaintiff showed up with 24 hrs notice and took wonderful pictures, but demanding his money brought threats of public complaints. How can so many people have no shame at all?

Not every pic at my wedding turned out perfectly. I chose the ones I liked and discarded the rest but we never stiffed the photographer.

Then I saw the guy who is old enough to have adult kids, suing one of his baby mammas. She is a bitch from hell guttersnipe, who drags their 9-year old out at midnight to go to plaintiff's house and harass him. She attacked plantiff, kicked and scratched him and threatened to burn his house down, but that didn't stop him from making another baby with her, oh no. He's been with her for 9 years, and I'm sure it's not the first time she's been violent. He gets a restraining order but she pipes up that the judge said, "He don't have no proof." This is the way even judges speak now? And she just told Judge Corriero that she finished high school. Sure she did.  I couldn't finish this sordid crap, although both of them saw something to smile and chuckle about here. The thought of helpless, innocent children having these two as parents - he, a spineless wimp and she,  a violent, vicious, uneducated beast  - was too much for me. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[Silver Raven]

I don't understand the tree case.  They kept talking about how the property owner had a responsibility to maintain her tree.  Her tree was being maintained, it was uprooted by a hurricane.  I hope the lady sues her insurance company.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Silver Raven said:

I don't understand the tree case.  They kept talking about how the property owner had a responsibility to maintain her tree.  Her tree was being maintained, it was uprooted by a hurricane.  I hope the lady sues her insurance company.

Granted I was only half listening as I got ready for work. But from what I heard, her very large tree was leaning due to the storm. The city notified her it was unsafe. She contacted her insurance and a tree service company. Insurance denied claim and tree service colony wanted to be paid upfront. She didn't have the money, let it slide a couple days, did nothing, tree fell on neighbor's car. What did her in was the delay after the city notified her that her tree was a danger. She had time to call her insurance company and a tree service company for an estimate, but presented nothing showing she actually tried to hire the tree service company. She claimed tree service company wanted money up front, but had nothing to prove her claim, and even if true what was she doing to raise the money. She could fight the insurance company later, but tree was leaning and needed to come down before falling and potentially killing someone.

[Florinaldo]

I understood the tree case the same way. She was put on notice it was posing an immediate  danger but she delayed taking the necessary measures. Which means liability.

[Silver Raven]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I understood the tree case the same way. She was put on notice it was posing an immediate  danger but she delayed taking the necessary measures. Which means liability.

She did what she could.  She didn't have the money to pay the up front costs.  What was she supposed to do?

There have been bark beetles killing the trees in the mountains in Southern California.  The county has told cabin owners in the local mountains that they're going to have to pay thousands of dollars per tree to take the trees down.  People are just abandoning their land and telling the county to foreclose.

[Florinaldo]

11 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

She did what she could.  She didn't have the money to pay the up front costs.  What was she supposed to do?

I do not think that lack of funds means liability magically disappears. Just as it does not excuse a debt or allow you to wiggle out of an obligation to reimburse a loan or to pay your parking tickets (although many litigants on these court shows have tried that excuse in all those situations).

She could have borrowed the money,  taken a second mortgage, used her credit cards, etc. It is an obligation under the law for homeowners to correct a situation that presents a clear danger and they must manage to find the money to do so. Dura lex, sed lex.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I do not think that lack of funds means liability magically disappears.

I didn't see this case so may be talking through my hat. Knowing only what I read here, I agree with this. Last year in a storm one of my huge trees broke in half, with the treetop ending up in my neighbour's yard (miraculously doing no damage to his deck or other property). The tree previously looked fine but I guess it wasn't. Had I told my neighbour, "Sorry, I can't afford to have it removed," that would definitely not have washed and I'd rightfully have been told, "You better find the money".  The truth is that often a person doesn't want to spend money on something that is so ungratifying.

[Taeolas]

At the very least she could have roped off the area the tree was leaning and marked it as hazardous. A cheap solution to limit liability until she could afford a better solution. If the area was her neighbours, she should have gone to him and warned him as well, making it clear she'll handle it as soon as she could but she couldn't handle it immediately. 

[Florinaldo]

26 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

At the very least she could have roped off the area the tree was leaning and marked it as hazardous.

That could have been an interesting temporary mitigation measure, assuming the neighbours involved would have heeded the warning. If not, she might still have been liable for damage or injury.

The defendant in the painter's case today was another one to add to the ever-expanding gallery of loathsome litigants; arrogant, dismissive or everyone else invoved, interrupting all the time, taunting the plaintiff, looking at the judges with her hand on her hip as if saying "I don't care about anything you can say".

Her adult daughter, acting as a witness, seemed to be constantly seeking her approval, as if in fear of deviating from the version of events mommy had coached her to put forward. She is probably like that all the time in her business dealings and private life, and I would have to be in very dire straits indeed to accept any kind of job involving her as a client.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Taeolas]

11 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

That could have been an interesting temporary mitigation measure, assuming the neighbours involved would have heeded the warning. If not, she might still have been liable for damage or injury.

Arbitration courts try to be fair to both sides as much as possible. No one realistically expects an owner to handle a tree the moment they discover it is becoming a hazard. If she could show she took actions to post warnings in the fall zone and/or notified the neighbour of the fall risk, then the neighbour can't just park under it and start trying to will the tree to fall down. 

Now if the owner did that and didn't take any further action for months, then it swings back against her. She knows the tree is a risk but she isn't taking action in a reasonable time frame and depraving her neighbour use of that space. If she can hire a tree company and they say "We'll be there on *date 2 months away*" then she'd probably be covered, even though it's a long time away, because there is a set date when the issue will be handled. 

Basically, all the tree-owner has to do is show she is taking action on the issue, both to immediately mitigate the risk, and to permanently handle the problem, and then she would have been in the clear. Ignoring the problem and saying "Woe is me, I can't afford it so I'm doing nothing" is not mitigating the problem one way or another. 

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Her adult daughter, acting as a witness, seemed to be constantly seeking her approval, as if in fear of deviating from the version of events mommy had coached her to put forward.

That woman, loaded with attitude, was a vile witch and her daughter, the mutant? I wouldn't believe anything she said while trying to please Mommy.

Plaintiff may be a bit of an annoying twerp, but he did work and deserved to be paid. 

Today(could be a rerun): If you look up creepy, slimy, lying, scamming, underhanded, smirking pieces of shit, you would find a picture of Alex Kovich. Ugh. He doesn't remember anything about the accident. He has no time for such petty BS. He's a very important person who needs no evidence. Take his word for it.

[Carolina Girl]

OMG the jerk and his mother from yesterday.  

Man is awakened by his 7-year-old at 2:30 a.m. to find that some idiot has run over his gas line.  Good police work trails the car to a nearby home, showing damage.  Plaintiff is owner of the car.  Claims that his 17-year-old drunken friend "borrowed" his car, yet refuses to give up the name of the friend.  (Police - you probably could have assumed the name from the underage drunk who was LIVING at the house).  Meanwhile, injured party puts in a claim against homeowner's insurer of the car OWNER, only to have it denied as insured is saying car being driven by another.  Meanwhile, asshole plaintiff and his mother have one excuse after another for not giving up the name to the police (apparently officers can only work on ONE case at a time where they live).  As "proof" asshole plaintiff produces a video taken at 2:58 that morning showing how drunk he was and therefore he could not possibly have been driving.  Judge DeMango cleverly points out that it's interesting that they made this convenient video 28 minutes AFTER the accident has occurred.

Meanwhile, plaintiff's mother, who says she works for an attorney, is an equal asshole, trying to be a victim herself.  AWARD to plaintiff of $3,000.

My take - this entitled little schmuck has not seen the last of a courtroom.  And I have a feeling the next time it's going to be in front of a judge who is not going to have the slightest appreciation of his "why are you wasting my time" attitude.  

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

And I have a feeling the next time it's going to be in front of a judge who is not going to have the slightest appreciation of his "why are you wasting my time" attitude. 

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it? Mommy will be fiercely defending her smart-ass Hellspawn forever. 

So, like, did anyone catch the poor, pitiful 41-year old desperate cougar, who would pay any amount of money for the attention of the stupid-looking dull-witted 28-year old Ichabod Crane def? God, that was embarrassing for her - well, I was embarrassed for her -  especially when the judges read her texts to him, pouring her heart out and threatening suicide. His response to everything here was, "She's crazy." He's right. He's just a regular jerk/asshole but she needs help. The judges awarded her the money she loaned him, but added they hope she'll use it to get THERAPY!

[zillabreeze]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

witted 28-year old Ichabod Crane def? God, that was embarrassing for her - well, I was embarrassed for her -  especially when the judges read her texts to him, pouring her heart out and threatening suicide. His response to everything here was, "She's crazy." He's right. He's just a regular jerk/asshole

If he knew all along that she isn't of sound mind, then he's extra special dispicable for taking money from her.  And again, there's the mommy right next to him.  Making excuses....

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

If he knew all along that she isn't of sound mind, then he's extra special dispicable for taking money from her.

You just know he was laughing at her with his goofy friends about how this old broad was so hot for him she'd give him money whenever he wanted. 

Ladies, if you really want a toyboy to shower with money, at least get a good-looking one so it's not a total loss. 

[AngelaHunter]

I really think Judge Corriero needs to retire. His benevolent smile as he encouraged the hard-rode, crude "I seen...I seen" rude hag, Tammy Delvaux, to ramble on and on as she related how she drank like a fish and drove even though she never drinks and drives, charged someone 20$ to feel her shriveled-up breasts (times must be hard in Wisconsin if anyone thought that was a good deal and Judge Corriero seemed to think even that was charming!) was beyond belief. She said the fugly, revolting def, who has the same last name as Tammy and who, although married (so many desperate women!) spends evenings cruising bars and looking for drugs, slashed her tires because he gave her money to buy drugs and she didn't buy the drugs? Or some shit like that. 

Thank goodness Judge DiMango was there to rip that WAY overaged party girl/skank up one side and down the other. I thought Papa Mike was on the verge of giving her a big hug. Then Tammy tried to snow JDiM by attempting to squeeze out some crocodile tears over her cat which is a therapy animal. Lucky for her that her disability doesn't prevent her from bar-hopping until 4:00a.m., getting piss drunk and then driving. I stopped watching at the crocodile tears. Showcasing the dregs of  society does not make for an interesting case, IMO.

[SRTouch]

What started out as the usual roommate fight over rent evolved into a stereotypical abusive relationship. Two long time best friends moved in together, but one of defendant's conditions was that plaintiff's free loading abusive jerk of a bf was not welcome. P insisted bf wasn't living there - no he lived with his dad - he just slept there half the time. Also insisted he didn't have a key, but the big kerfuffle that ended with D leaving two months before end of lease began when he overheard D venting to a friend. Oh, and he overheard the conversation from P's bedroom while P was at work. Apparently when P came home she and bf got into it, which ended with him in handcuffs and her with bruises on her neck - but P insists he never choked her, just pushed her onto the bed. Not sure if this was when he crossed the line, but at some point he threatens to get his female cousin to beat up D. That's what gets D out of having to pay rent - if abusive a**hole is getting put in handcuffs for abusing his true love, judges figure it's reasonable for D to worry about her safety, sort of the definition of a constructive eviction. D moves out and P is left having to pay last two month's rent.... not sure why Prince Charming couldn't pay something, after all he claims to have a job and was living at home with his daddy when not sacking up with P. Bet P wishes now she had never agreed to do the show. Not only did she get nada for rent, but all three judges tore into her as a typical abuse victim who needs to wake up and get away from the bf. Oh, and bf made the mistake of coming along as her 'witness.' The Judges took turns ripping into him, with Judge Mike ending by saying he had to quit his examination because bf was such an abusive jerk. When he passes on to Acker, she continues to give bf a hard time before telling him to sit down. Uh oh, jerk didn't go quietly, he headed towards the seat mumbling under his breathe, and got the boot. Hallterview more of the same - P continues to defend abusive bf and whine that she had to pay the whole rent when D bailed.

Edited April 2, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

What started out as the usual roommate fight over rent evolved into a stereotypical abusive relationship.

Ah, this stupid roommate BS is never-ending. Today I saw a woman and her mentally challenged adult son who put up an ad, looking for a total stranger to move in and live with them. We see this over and over but I can never understand it. Anyway, they find the def, a middle-aged man, and it's on! He's cooking in his little bedroom, she says. No, he says. Someone gifted him a toaster oven but he never even plugged it in! She says she could smell fish cooking! He says plaintiff asked him to marry her so she could get naturalization papers or whatever but she denies it. She says he broke her drone, but has absolutely no proof. He says she said awful things about why he was separated from his wife and that she barged into his room whenever she wanted. He told her he had a gun and would shoot her.  Well, that certainly escalated and on and on they go, sounding nuttier and nuttier. The whole gang is batshit crazy and no one gets anything.

[patty1h]

I'm in a catty mood, so I'm going to bust the plaintiff in the "wonky wig" case today.  Rebecca Agege had a terrible makeup job - it was not blended well and it was all I could look at.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, patty1h said:

I'm in a catty mood, so I'm going to bust the plaintiff in the "wonky wig" case today.  Rebecca Agege had a terrible makeup job - it was not blended well and it was all I could look at.

Just coming here to comment on this. Really, IMO, she looked like a man and even a wig that was not too tight can't change that. 

And then we had the hoodie that wasn't paid for. Devious, lying, sneering def with the stupid dye job and douchebag hair scammed the kid out of a measly 85$, yet at the end, Judge Michael tells him, "We don't think you did anything wrong." Oh, please! Scamming, lying and cheating is not wrong? Can he be any more of a bleeding heart?

[SRTouch]

Ah, been waiting for this one since I saw the previews when Judge Patricia slams wishy washy litigant for not being able to answer simplest questions - were you arrested? - uh, maybe, not sure - what did you have for breakfast? - I don't understand question - I think you're full of baloney!... 

Case great - P showed up with plenty of evidence and D clueless with laughable nonsense (even bit where she started to put her name on paperwork, got confused partly through, and put down "Martin" instead of her name, "Marshall" (I could have that flopped around,  but she wrote "Mar" and then finished with wrong name). P buying some car, and when she goes to DMV to register it cops are called because it's a stolen vehicle - car returned to legal owner - P wants back money she paid plus money for lost wages for time wasted dealing with mess caused by D - D says she can't return money 'cuz she spent it  (partly on bail money for the arrest she's not sure was made). Only question is whether or not P gets lost wages - yep, unanimous, P gets everything she asked for and even Judge Mike doesn't try to soft pedal when he announces verdict. 

2nd case has D firing off gun into P's home and striking a recliner. P actually pretty nice, they agree with replacement recliner at reduced price instead of involving cops and going after lotto money for anxiety, pain and suffering - couldn't ask for lost wages because these folks look to be long retired. Then whole deal falls apart. D figures he bought the recliner with the bullet hole, so refuses to pay for replacement when P decides to give it to grandkid. This gets P all upset, now she wants full replacement cost and decides she DOES deserve extra for the stress (replacement cost was $1399 but was going to accept $800).... I don't think she's that far off - I'd agree to replacement cost, would tack on something for the gunshot hole in the wall, and agree with awarding money for stress as bullet hit recliner 18" from where she was sitting. Not at all against guns, but I am against unsafe gun handling. Unless old dude has hell of a story he's due some heartache over and above making P whole - but that's not what small claims cases are about. And, no he doesn't have good excuse. According to Judge Pat, dude was examining a firearm thinking about buying it and shot off multiple rounds - says 2 or three, but recliner had 4 holes, but then there may be exit holes in chair.... ok, now things descend into a mess when the gunslinger starts mumbling - gramps says he never had a gun in his life, it was an accident, etc. He ended up offering $400 for bullet ridden chair if he could have old chair, but now doesn't want old chair nor willing to pay towards replacement (P hasn't bought replacement - don't know if granddaughter has old chair, if it's still in P's living room, or it was tossed). I'm about to give up on case when gunslinger can't get, even with all three judges trying to explain, he can't put conditions on restitution, and it doesn't matter if it was an accident. No surprise, P gets what they asked for, and judges all agree could have gotten more if they had asked.

Edited April 11, 2019 by SRTouch

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I am against unsafe gun handling

Great, I just typed a long response and it all disappeared. To recap, the defendant was let off far too easily for his negligent discharge that almost killed a neighbor. He said that he had never owned a gun before and he was trying out (i.e., playing with) a gun he was thinking about buying. He obviously never took any basic firearm safety course, he admitted he pulled the trigger but thought the safety was on (and apparently fired THREE shots!). To do this without ensuring there was not a round chambered was unbelievably negligent, if you are testing (where you might do this) you absolutely check the chamber and make sure there is no live ammo in the room. At the end, he said that he decided that he would never own a gun, good decision, he is a complete idiot. The judges were far to easy on him, they should have skinned him alive.

Edited April 11, 2019 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/10/2019 at 10:42 PM, DoctorK said:

To recap, the defendant was let off far too easily for his negligent discharge that almost killed a neighbor.

I just watched this and a few things about it actually shocked me. First, can any bumbling nitwit buy a gun just like that? Then, I was shocked by the jocularity seen, by both the audience and the judges (except, surprisingly, Judge Mike who took it a little more seriously) as though this were something amusing. Is recklessly shooting guns into people's homes something to joke about? Is this something that happens so often it's no big deal? That woman is lucky to be alive. omg. The nitwit def, instead of being grateful til the day he assumes room temp that he didn't kill anyone, starts issuing orders and making demands about what HE wants, and it utterly clueless and shameless. How is this possible? Why wasn't he arrested? The old fool can't possibly have a license to buy a gun. Plaintiffs should have sued for 5K and they would have gotten it, also ensuring the def got nothing. 

I really wish this case had been on JJ, who would have definitely skinned that little rat alive in the way he deserved. NOT funny.

[AZChristian]

What a royal asshole on today's case.  Tax preparer had done Louie Prieto's taxes, for which he was going to get a $5,000+ refund.

When the next customer came in, the tax preparer (who makes a whopping $22,000 per year) inadvertently put in Louie's banking information for the new customer's refund of $4,200.  So the money went to Louie.

Louie decided that he was going to consider it a "generous gift from the IRS."  The tax preparation company for which the preparer works (as a contractor) loaned her the money to pay the second customer.  So the preparer went to Louie and explained her mistake and asked him to return the money to which he wasn't entitled.  

Bottom line:  Louie never returned any of the money.  Until after today's case.  Judge DiMango told him that he was lucky that he wasn't charged CRIMINALLY for keeping the money.  At that level, he could have been charged for a felony.

At the end, Judge Corriero gave him the opportunity to acknowledge that he knew he had done wrong.  He didn't even do that.

Did I mention he was an asshole?  Despicable.  Great lesson for your kids, single father Louie Prieto.

[Florinaldo]

That guy was such a slimy amoral bastard that I felt like taking multiple showers just from watching him. His complete disdain for the law, his personal responsibilities and the burden placed on the tax preparer were truly beyond abysmal, even for the general character of litigants on these TV court shows.

I hope there is a chance that the statute of limitations has not run out and that after watching that episode and listening to the evidence, authorities in his local jurisdiction or the IRS at least open an inquiry on him.

The most galling part of it is that the award to the plaintiff was actually paid by the show, so that he gets to keep the money he wrongfully received, which may explain his smug uncaring attitude.

[zillabreeze]

K.  Asshole claimed the IRS told him they wouldn't follow up.  He was either lying or didn't give all the details to whomever he supposedly talked to.  No way, the IRS would give the go ahead to keep money knowingly meant for another taxpayer.  The judges should have explored that more.

I get that poor girl just needed that money back ASAP,  but dropping that asshole in the grease with the feds would have been so much more satisfying.

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Tax preparer had done Louie Prieto's taxes

That bloated, smirking asshole puke deserves a severe flogging. He has kids (another terminally desperate woman out there) and no doubt is raising the kids to be amoral assholes just like Daddy. Take whatever you can get, kids! How can anyone be so shameless and show themselves to be scum of the earth, on national tv, no less? But what does he care? There's no doubt a long line of pathetic women ready to take him on and he got to keep the 4K.

Today's case of the so-aptly-name "Bull vs. Bland." When you see someone like the watery-eyed, fugly Bland, who can get a woman, even one who must be as desperate as the squat Bull, to shower 6,000$ on him, there is no hope. Yeah, some dick from high school hits me up on FB and sends me a text telling me I should pay his car insurance because he LOVES me, for sure I'd do it. To see women in such a state that they'll take anyone, no matter that they are revolting losers as long as they have a pulse, and do absolutely anything to keep them makes me embarrassed to be of the same sex. I would not be inclined to give these women their money back, just so they learn a lesson.