Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

I  just watched the mom who let her daughter's friend, who was having "problems" move into her house. Def was supposed to pay rent, then she couldn't get to her job so she COULD pay rent because she had no transportation, so Mom sells her an old car at a very inflated price. Def doesn't pay for the car or the rent, stating that the '97 car needed repairs and was a "piece of junk." She says she left 400$ in cash under plaintiff's doormat. Why did she do that, JDiM wants to know? She doesn't know. She did have checks but "doesn't like to use them." I did believe that because I'm sure she doesn't know how to fill out a check. Surprisingly, Mom did have the sense to go to def's new digs and have her sign a promissory note. Def was disgruntled that Mom came early in the morning.  Plaintiff gets the rent and the balance owed on the car, but in the hall states she'll probably do this again - let some deadbeat sponge off her. I really hope she doesn't get a dime back when it happens again because she's a fool who can't learn from her mistakes. She should have told her daughter that the dress she was wearing was not appropriate, but neither of them seemed overly aware of much of anything. 

[DoctorK]

I just watched today's new dog case (nothing too graphic). The plaintiff claimed lots of medical expenses to treat a dog bite (from a dog she alleges did not have up to date shots), choosing acupuncture and refelexolgy treatments. Good luck with that to treat infection, tetanus or rabies. The icing on the cake was during deliberations, one of the judges pointed out that the only medical treatment documentation provided by the plaintiff said that she was treated for arthritis, not dog injury. The defendants were acting weird, lots of grossly exaggerated facial expressions and bodily stances and gestures by both of them, talking really fast, looked to me like they were really wound up tight. Maybe it was just their personalities, but it reminds me more of some of the suspects I have seen on COPS and Live PD. I liked the verdict, the plaintiff definitely was injured by the dog and was frightened by the attack, the dog owner was responsible, and the judges awarded the plaintiff what I feel was a reasonable amount.

[Florinaldo]

A real assortment of kooks in the dog case. @DoctorK perfectly described the defendants' behaviour, which I might consider at least as frightening as a confrontation with a dog. As for the plaintiff: who in their right mind treats an infection with acupuncture and (even crazier) reflexology, another form of pseudoscientific quackery? I know she kept claiming auto-immune disorders of various kinds to justify those "treatments", but there must be workarounds around those that do not involve nonsense like that.

[SRTouch]

P suing for damages after D rammed 22yo daughter on busy road. Oh yeah, I remember this idjit from the first airing! D actually wrote in answer that daughter must have been distracted because she was texting or on Tinder. J Patricia asks idiot how he knew the 22yo was on tinder - his answer, "just look at her!"

[DoctorK]

Last case on today's new episode was a mother suing her son. Even though she documented that she was the majority support of her son and that she was claiming him on her tax return, sonny boy went ahead and claimed that he was independent and filed taxes based on that. That smarmy spoiled entitled little snot nose didn't have any problem with tax fraud, putting his mother (and possibly himself) in legal jeopardy. Nope, not him, not a trace of remorse, regret or even acknowledgement that he was in the wrong. After all, he needed money so why not commit fraud and jeopardize your own mother? The best answer he could come up with when the judge pushed him on why he did it was "just because ...". I can't let Mom off the hook completely, she has raised a spoiled self centered brat with no moral compass. Shame on her but I didn't want to slap her silly, unlike her son who needs something harsh and painful (jail time would be my second choice) to make him grow up.

[Florinaldo]

For once, I approved of Corriero's sanctimonious pronouncements in the tax case. I don't believe, like he obviously does, that a mother is always a morally unassailable madonna deserving to be worshipped by her offsprings. But in this case, the young guy was so dismissive of the callousness of his actions and tax fraud that he deserves all the scorn in the world to be directed at him, "just because".

[AngelaHunter]

On 7/23/2019 at 5:24 PM, SRTouch said:

J Patricia asks idiot how he knew the 22yo was on tinder - his answer, "just look at her!" 

He also added that she must be "desperate". This coming from a short, fat, ugly creep.

[AngelaHunter]

So I've known this for a while, but now it's official: "Dating" sites are a career choice for an army of opportunistic losers. Plaintiff, a mature woman who seemed of normal intelligence, meets the pudgy, smarmy def on a dating site and within 28 DAYS had showered 2300$ on him. I guess his company was worth nearly 100$/per day. He defends himself by saying plaintiff "forced" the money on him, since he's a middleaged man ("Ex-military" he makes sure to get in as though that makes what he did admirable) who needs to beg mommy and daddy for money, but they've had it with their POS loser son and won't give it to him. His bank account was "frozen" although he has no proof of that and never says why this occured. I guess that needs to be added to the list of "Biggest lies in the world." OH, the plaintiff was in love! She thought they'd spend their lives together! She smiles, grins, giggles and tosses her ringlets around. She says def told her he loved her "first." Yeah, okay when someone this amoral and shameless needs money he'll say anything. 

Plaintiff thought she was adorable, and the judges did nothing to disabuse her of that or to stop her constant shouting out. They completely saw her as an innocent victim instead of a grown woman who decided to give all this money to that little creep to keep him around because any man, no matter how marginal, is better than no man. 

Personally, if that happened to me I'd take the loss rather than demonstrate to the world how terminally, pathetically desperate I am.

Edited July 29, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[AngelaHunter]

I don't know if this was a repeat, but did anyone see the drawn-out, highly emotional battle for the 26-year-old Lexus?

Plaintiff sold the car to def. for 1700$ and she stopped paying, owing approx. 500$. This caused the plaintiff, a 32-year old man, and student of psychology, such terrible emotional distress he not only had to QUIT school but see a psychologist. When did people become so fragile that a messed up car deal can unhinge them to this extent? Plaintiff was very afraid of the def, even though he glared at her here and had to be told to knock it off. 

Def - who bought the car to live in and needed an ancient Lexus for this purpose -  says she stopped paying because the car overheated even though the plaintiff's ad clearly said it needed a water pump. She's disabled and had 4 foster kids. She had to get rid of three of them and now only has one. JA wants to know how she has a foster child living in a car and then concludes def. is a big liar. Def was so disturbed by the Lexus overheating and the plaintiff demanding what was owed him that she had to seek counseling as well. 

Plaintiff was allowed to call def. "this heifer" without being reprimanded for it, but Papa Mike got mighty annoyed with his "She's a liar!" interjections and told him to "Shut your mouth." 

Plaintiff gets the money owed for the car and JDiM laughs at him for expecting to get paid for his life-ruining emotional trauma. Def sits and quietly weeps but her tears move nobody. In the hall, plaintiff again calls def a heifer and says her son threatened him with a knife. Def says her son is 6'3" and if he wanted to kill the plaintiff he could have.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

This caused the plaintiff, a 32-year old man, and student of psychology, such terrible emotional distress he not only had to QUIT school but see a psychologist.

Didn't he say that he was reduced to taking the bus to school because he had no money for a car, hence the emotional distress for that unspeakable fate.

Having to use public transit? The horror, the horror...

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Didn't he say that he was reduced to taking the bus to school

Omg, yes. A bus. How utterly unthinkable. I see why the 32-year-old student quit school. I mean, a bus on top of his life-altering distress over the car is more than a person should have to bear.  I wonder who I can sue for having to endure taking a bus to work every day for about 12 years. No wonder I have PTSD.

Now I'm not sure if he knows what "heifer" means. Def was hardly a girl. 

[zillabreeze]

I'm just not sure why I suffer this court show.  Because there's new ones peppered in, I suppose.  

Let's just give Judge Acker her own bench and bring back Judge Eyebrows occasionally.  

Acker suffers no fools, I keep a girl crush there.  DiMango has never understood a car or home repair in her life. 

Then, there's poor bleeding heart dude, he could figure out how to excuse Ted Bundy.  I know he's a foil for our watching fodder, but jeez.  Dial it back.

Delete it from my DVR?  Nah. Not a chance.

[DoctorK]

Just and FYI, I sat through one case on Judge Jerry before I had to change to a Live PD rerun. Looks like he is just another version of Corriero, a smarmy bleeding heart who doesn't think whiny sweet young things need to live up to their voluntarily assumed financial obligations. I could vent more, but that is for another thread.

Edited September 10, 2019 by DoctorK

[AZChristian]

Today's defendant  - Karl  Winchell- worth googling. 

[SRTouch]

9 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Today's defendant  - Karl  Winchell- worth googling. 

Interesting reading, wonder if judge D knew the background when she asked about other arrests? Hmmmmm 😒

[Carolina Girl]

On 9/13/2019 at 5:31 PM, SRTouch said:

Interesting reading, wonder if judge D knew the background when she asked about other arrests? Hmmmmm 😒

I also seriously question whether this dick was ever a Navy SEAL.  I'm willing to bet he has pulled this "give me the non-refundable deposit" and then the room is never available over and over again - probably gives back half the money and pockets the rest; the victims are willing to do this just to get something and out of the deal.  

Edited September 17, 2019 by Carolina Girl
Proofread the post first, idiot!

[SRTouch]

Catching up, so not sure when this was aired - talking about hot headed baby daddy setting ex gf's car on fire while it was sitting in carport next to her door. All kinds of stuff wrong with this guy. He's already copped to setting the fire and pled guilty. Result of arson case was court ordered restitution - which he has yet to pay. Now wants to retry the arson case and claims he was actually innocent - even Judge Mike ready to lend a hand pulling on the rope to hang this guy...... then D concludes his hallterview by saying "yes, I definitely did it" ..... WTH  was new gf thinking when she heard that!

[patty1h]

I did not agree with the judges on the case of John Suhr, the older man who gave money to pretty little Marissa Woody in the local store.  I didn't buy that vague story why the plaintiff signed over his lottery ticket to her, after hearing him describe that he went to get the forms and took them to her to fill out.  He could have filled out the forms with his own info, but put hers instead.  IMO, as soon as he put her name on everything, it's over.   

Neither of them are spotless and they both need a lesson in morals, but I would have let Marissa keep the lottery winnings because it seems that he gave/gifted it to her.

Edited September 18, 2019 by patty1h

[AZChristian]

On 9/18/2019 at 8:08 AM, patty1h said:

Neither of them are spotless and they both need a lesson in morals, but I would have let Marissa keep the lottery winnings because it seems that he gave/gifted it to her.

I thought maybe he asked her to sign the ticket so that he wouldn't have to pay (higher) taxes on the winnings.  She'd have paid less taxes, so he probably tried to get her to help him scam the government - but once she signed it, he could hardly complain to the lottery folks that she scammed him . . . because he was trying to scam them.

[SRTouch]

Again today we had litigant reverse testimony in hallterview. Not nearly as blatant as arson dude who ended his hallterview with 'I definitely did it.' Today's wacky cleaning lady in parking smash-up case. All through hearing she insists she was in act of parallel parking when P hit HER. In hallterview she decides that, well, just maybe she did pull into traffic without looking. (of course she had no insurance). Oh and hubby (?), owner of car, says he's going to sue plaintiff for lost wages/waste of time when he gets home - yeah right, we know how that'll end

Edited September 20, 2019 by SRTouch

[Carolina Girl]

13 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Again today we had litigant reverse testimony in hallterview. Not nearly as blatant as arson dude who ended his hallterview with 'I definitely did it.' Today's wacky cleaning lady in parking smash-up case. All through hearing she insists she was in act of parallel parking when P hit HER. In hallterview she decides that, well, just maybe she did pull into traffic without looking. (of course she had no insurance). Oh and hubby (?), owner of car, says he's going to sue plaintiff for lost wages/waste of time when he gets home - yeah right, we know how that'll end

The judges totally ruled incorrectly it in that case.  All you need to do was look at the plaintiff's damage to realize that idiot pulled out without checking her blind spot and whacked his car as it was going by (I'm willing to bet she didn't even signal).  She was completely at fault.   She even blew her own case when she stated that she was "done for the day" and was pulling out - then quickly said "oh, I, uh, was delivering laundry" or some such nonsense and changed it to "no, I was parallel parking."   To add insult to injury, the idiot boss gave her a car that was not insured.  

And he did deserve lost wages.  He's a Lyft driver and this birdbrain's asshattery left him without a way to earn a living.   But I was confused about one thing.  I would assume that since he's a Lyft driver, there was insurance coverage on his vehicle.  When I briefly drove for Lyft, I had to advise them of my carrier and coverage.  Did he explain why he didn't turn this over to his own (or even Lyft's) insurance carrier and let THEM deal with this idiot and her boss?

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

The judges totally ruled incorrectly it in that case.  All you need to do was look at the plaintiff's damage to realize that idiot pulled out without checking her blind spot and whacked his car as it was going by (I'm willing to bet she didn't even signal).  She was completely at fault. 

I agree, and was very surprised at the decision. I felt it happened exactly as the plaintiff said.

Today's case (rerun?) of the def who hit plaintiff's car in an intersection (naturally, she's yet another irresponsible idiot who claims plaintiff has a car with a cloaking device and "came out of nowhere") Of course he shouldn't have confronted her and snatched her keys away, but the best part was her being so smirky and righteous, when she has never had a license, no insurance and doesn't seem to know what a stop sign actually means was infuriating.  "What if you had killed him?" Judge A asks. "He has a family." Horrid def snarks, "So do I."  I guess she doesn't give a shit about her family either. I almost wish he had hit her. She really deserved a pounding. Maybe it would have inspired her to get a frickin' license and insurance. The nerve she had is mind-boggling.

[SRTouch]

In the case of the kitchen fire...... disappointed Judge Mike didn't take the opportunity to educate viewers on grease fires. D said she stuck pan of burning grease in sink full of water. Good grief, she's lucky fire went out instead of spread - water and grease fire is a recipe for disaster!  🔥🔥🔥

Otoh, WTH is with the complex management that they don't have someone on call that knows on to turn off the water? 

2nd case is yet another case where I sit and scratch my head wondering WTH were they thinking. These two strangers, a male and female, find each other through CL ads where each on looking for a roommate. In no time, they agree to rent an apartment together, despite having no idea of the other's lifestyles or history. Isn't long before he meets her cousin, they hook up, and cuz moves in.... oh, did I mention this is a 1 bedroom apartment and he's sleeping in the living room?... they disagree on exactly where cuz was bunking - he says in her room, but she says on his mattress in the living room.... oh well, not even sure what the case was about as I couldn't get past these two strangers getting together on CL and renting a 1 bedroom apartment - and then accepting her cousin into the mix

Edited September 24, 2019 by SRTouch

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

In the case of the kitchen fire...... disappointed Judge Mike didn't take the opportunity to educate viewers on grease fires.

That is an important point, but some other aspects don't smell right. At a minimum, I believe the defendant was grossly understating the extent of the fire. In large buildings I have worked in with fire suppression systems, the smoke detectors (which detect smoke particles and gases optically and by ionization) and alarms go off well before any sprinklers activate; the sprinklers are triggered by dangerous temperatures at the sprinkler head (although some more complicated systems control several sprinkler heads over a specific area) and open up at higher temperatures than just the smoke from a grease fire. The amount of soot and swirl patterns looked more like the patterns I saw on OSHA training videos when I was involved in construction which suggest that the flames were substantial and got close to the ceiling. Sprinkler systems and codes vary quite a bit, but I think the defendant left the pan on the stove, left the room and the oil smoked  for a while then burst into flames which is negligence. As always, YMMV and other input on fire suppression could be enlightening.

ETA: Would renter's insurance cover the smoke and water damaged apartment contents?

Edited September 25, 2019 by DoctorK
Clarification plus font quirks from my tablet

[patty1h]

The woman (Ms Minerd) in the pitbull vs pigeons was so stuck in denial that I wanted to smack her.  She was shown all the evidence of her dogs guilt but she stands there saying "why should I pay?".  Her and her son should have been apologizing instead of making excuses. 

I liked Judge Acker throwing those truth bombs at her, but I'm not sure hard-headed Minerd was receiving.

[Carolina Girl]

On 9/25/2019 at 6:57 AM, patty1h said:

The woman (Ms Minerd) in the pitbull vs pigeons was so stuck in denial that I wanted to smack her.  She was shown all the evidence of her dogs guilt but she stands there saying "why should I pay?".  Her and her son should have been apologizing instead of making excuses. 

I liked Judge Acker throwing those truth bombs at her, but I'm not sure hard-headed Minerd was receiving.

I finally got around to watching this today.  What a walking turd that defendant was.  And she claimed that perhaps her fearless pit bull had gone into the pen to scare away the bear or the coyote that had gotten in there?  This, of course, before she knew that the door auto closes and cannot be opened.

[SRTouch]

Just watched today's dog park case. Not much to say about actual case - P took her two dogs to an off leash dog dog - her 5 month old puppy got scared, took off with several dogs in pursuit - by time owner caught up D's dog had a hold on puppy's neck - D doesn't dispute her dog caused injury to P's dog (actually wants credit for getting her dog to release P's dog's throat), but has a couple lame excuses to dodge liability. P not asking for big bucks - she was bitten but was only asking for the vet bills and a $50 copay for treatment for bite to her hand - judges award her the 8 hundred odd she sued for.

Ok, that's the case, but real reason for my post is to rant against the whole concept of off leash dog parks. The idea seems good, owners have a place to take Fido or Rover where they can run around and have play dates with all the other nice doggies. Thing is owners humanize their furbabies to point where they forget that dogs are in fact animals and not little humans with 4 legs. Dogs are basically pack animals, and when 3 or more get together you have the beginning of a pack. Unless they've been properly socialized, they're going to almost immediately begin jockeying for their position in the pack - often leading to fights. Then, frequent park visitors may have territorial feelings and aren't happy with visitors encroaching on their territory - often leading to fights. Then you have protective dogs which view their humans as their pack and aren't happy with strange dogs getting too close - which, you guessed it, can lead to fights. And, on and on - not at all surprising to me that we hear about so many fights at dog parks. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by SRTouch

[TresGatos]

15 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Just watched today's dog park case. Not much to say about actual case - P took her two dogs to an off leash dog dog - her 5 month old puppy got scared, took off with several dogs in pursuit - by time owner caught up D's dog had a hold on puppy's neck - D doesn't dispute her dog caused injury to P's dog (actually wants credit for getting her dog to release P's dog's throat), but has a couple lame excuses to dodge liability. P not asking for big bucks - she was bitten but was only asking for the vet bills and a $50 copay for treatment for bite to her hand - judges award her the 8 hundred odd she sued for.

Ok, that's the case, but real reason for my post is to rant against the whole concept of off leash dog parks. The idea seems good, owners have a place to take Fido or Rover where they can run around and have play dates with all the other nice doggies. Thing is owners humanize their furbabies to point where they forget that dogs are in fact animals and not little humans with 4 legs. Dogs are basically pack animals, and when 3 or more get together you have the beginning of a pack. Unless they've been properly socialized, they're going to almost immediately begin jockeying for their position in the pack - often leading to fights. Then, frequent park visitors may have territorial feelings and aren't happy with visitors encroaching on their territory - often leading to fights. Then you have protective dogs which view their humans as their pack and aren't happy with strange dogs getting too close - which, you guessed it, can lead to fights. And, on and on - not at all surprising to me that we hear about so many fights at dog parks. 

Judge Aker agrees with you. She's said on more than one occasion that she would never take her dogs (standard poodles?) to an off-lease dog park and that dogs are dogs and don't think like the owners oftentimes like to think their dogs think.  

[Silver Raven]

You spent two weeks in the hospital for food poisoning. How dare you sue so soon?

[SRTouch]

Two new cases today, but only watched the second.

First had to do with hair extensions. I'm with Judge C on these - totally lost (and I really couldn't care less). 

Second case was realtor suing pool contractor. I enjoyed this one. Realtor lady didn't remember the lies she wrote in her complaint, and all three judges slammed her. What happened was, she was selling a house with a pool, pool needed some work, so she hired defendant. She put down a deposit so he'd  schedule the work. Then her client decides not to get the pool repair done, so she cancels day before he's to start. She insists he didn't do any work, so she wants full refund. As judges point out, the deposit was paid so that he would schedule the work, he scheduled it and was ready to start, then she sent text at 9pm (which he didn't read until 4am) canceling job. Judges say he would have been within his rights to keep whole deposit, but instead he kept a small portion and mailed her - not one, but two refund checks. First refund was personal check and never cashed, second was a cashier check - which came back undelivered and he has it in court (admits he should have sent it certified with signature required). Not satisfied with pool guy returning partial refund (remember judges all say he could have kept all the money) realtor goes on yelp and calls him a crook. Case today is realtor suing for rest of deposit, while contractor wants money for the false negative review. At first Judge D doesn't find the negative yelp, but Judge A finds it and REALLY blasts realtor before they go back to deliberate. P gets nada but being called a liar and being lectured - defendant gets big money for the false negative review (think he said first review was replaced by a second - still negative but legally acceptable to judges - I think Judge D read second while Judge A read first).

Edited October 11, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

I just now watched the case of the "I turn topaz into emeralds." Fascinating, and I can't help but wonder why we can't get more cases like this on court TV, instead of stupid roommates fighting about water bills, and baby mommas suing their baby daddies for whatever dumb shit and vandalizing cars and brawling in the streets. But then I thought that most intelligent, educated people don't want to make fools of themselves on TV. However, in the jewelry case, both parties, although they spoke well did end up being and looking rediculous. Neither of these brilliant people ever thought of putting their business agreement in writing. Gemologist blowhard def announces the faux ruby he created for his wife could be owned by the Queen of England, and that he can't remember anything about the deal he made with the "brilliant" plaintiff because he's 73 and senile. Yeah, right. His silent, subservient wife has nothing to say and is told to sit down. That tray of silver rings he brought looked to be flea-market quality - I'm no gemologist and I really don't know - which plaintiff dumped in def's driveway and now wants to be paid for it, but we never got to see the topaz he miraculously coloured to look like an emerald. JDiM knows he's full of shit and calls him on it. It was a struggle to make him STFU. No one gets anything, but it was fun.

[Florinaldo]

I was disappointed they did not let the gemmologist carry on with his spiel about his process to turn a topaz into a ruby because I am sure it would have been a prime example of pseudoscientific flim-flam; "high heat and subatomic particles" was as far as he got. The judges would probably have been very impressed since I doubt they are able to see through this.

Subatomic particles indeed. Does he have access to a collider in his backyard? Although photons are also subatomic particles so perhaps he only exposes the gem to a powerful lightbulb. Or to an electron gun salvaged from a school physics lab. Medieval alchemists would no doubt be proud to see their brand of tomfoolery still being practiced.

Also, his demeanor is not even a fraction as cute as he thinks it is.

[DoctorK]

15 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I am sure it would have been a prime example of pseudoscientific flim-flam

Sounds reasonable, if his process worked as he described, why isn't he rich from licensing the process? I am willing to believe that he is a competent gemologist but the comparison to alchemists sounds spot on and he knows less about materials science than he thinks. Meanwhile, I find it hard to imagine a world class organic/inorganic chemist would be working swap meets. The whole mess sounds like one of the history channel's bogus documentaries. I am also not happy for people with academic doctorates referring to themselves as "Doctor" in every day environments. In scientific, technical or academic environments it is appropriate to call me Doctor (though by no means necessary, "Hey You!" works well enough), but outside of that, just don't. My experience has been that the person who is most insistent on being called "Doctor" while opining on scientific or technical issues is the one who turns out to have a PhD in Urban Planning or Medieval Literature; this was especially my experience in politicized DoD environments. If you want to be called Doctor on planes or in restaurants, what are you going to do when you are called on to deal with a medical emergency? As always, YMMV.

[AngelaHunter]

26 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Sounds reasonable, if his process worked as he described, why isn't he rich from licensing the process?

Yes, I was wondering why he still, into his dotage (according to him), has to go and peddle his stuff at flea markets. He reminded me of an old-timey carnival flim-flam artist. "Getcher magic emeralds right here, folks! Topaz turned into emeralds! Step right up!"

36 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

My experience has been that the person who is most insistent on being called "Doctor" while opining on scientific or technical issues is the one who turns out to have a PhD in Urban Planning or Medieval Literature; this was especially my experience in politicized DoD environments.

That sounds like it could be the case with the plaintiff.

59 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Although photons are also subatomic particles so perhaps he only exposes the gem to a powerful lightbulb.

I'm sure I, without a doctorate, have no idea but that sounds as plausible as anything else. I have a very large, good quality blue topaz ring which is not worth much. How much would a green topaz be worth? A green topaz is not an emerald, just as my blue topaz is not a sapphire.

But gee, weren't these litigants a nice change of pace from the usual Springer crap?

[AZChristian]

48 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

. . . alchemists . . . 

Is his name really Nicholas Flamel?  Has he created a Sorcerer's Stone, and is he over 600 years old?  (Harry Potter reference!!!)

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Is his name really Nicholas Flamel?  Has he created a Sorcerer's Stone, and is he over 600 years old?  (Harry Potter reference!!!)

How odd. I was thinking of Harry Potter when we heard the tale of the magical transmutation of stones.

[Florinaldo]

Nicolas Flamel really existed, although he was no alchemist. That is a myth which was created shortly after his death. Books and articles were also devoted to this invented aspect of his biography during a 60s-70s occultist craze  in France. And it seems that JKP later decided to recycle the old canard.

But the Flamel as alchemist story is as bogus as this litigant's claim. As with real practicing alchemists before him, it looks like he cannot manage to generate wealth from his alleged wondrous discovery. Perhaps he is as deluded as most of them were.

[AZChristian]

19 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

JKP

As the world's biggest Harry Potter fan, I cannot remain silent.  JKR.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yes, I was wondering why he still, into his dotage (according to him), has to go and peddle his stuff at flea markets. He reminded me of an old-timey carnival flim-flam artist. "Getcher magic emeralds right here, folks! Topaz turned into emeralds! Step right up!"

I was able to watch this episode on Friday and that's the first thing that came to mind.  Why is this (supposed) knowledgeable, competent and creative individual  packing up his wares in Tupperware tubs and schlepping them to flea markets?  Not even a large convention center, flea markets!!

My impression was that he really did want to pick the brain of the Ph.D. and extract as much from her so that he could spout information to make him sound knowledgeable on the subject of gems.

I did laugh when Judge DiM told the wife to sit down because she didn't want to see those two make out in front of her....gold.

And for the record - his chopped "do" really annoyed me.  Was that a wig?

And one more thing...DoctorK sings my song.  I get so annoyed with Ph.D.'s and Ed.D's who float the "Dr." title in everyday life.  No.  You are to be addressed as such on campus or conferences.  It is a professional title and should be used according to the rules.  I'll end here but I am always suspect of the people who use Dr as their first name.  It's as if they're unsure of themselves so they must use that as a demand for respect.  

A colleague with a Ph.D. actually has "Dr." on her bank checks.  It has been the source of a lot of jokes in the office.  

Edited October 13, 2019 by PsychoKlown

[SRTouch]

Just one case today, and it's neighbor suing neighbor over dog attack. I saw the intro and zipped ahead to decision being announced.  No defense to speak of, as defendant admits her dog ran into P's yard to attack. P not totally blameless, as her fence is falling down and pretty much useless as a fence. Still, despite fact that P's fence does nothing to keep her dog in or other dogs out, as soon as D admitted attack began in P's yard the case was over. I didn't hear it, but apparently D had secondary defense, claiming she had her dog tied up so that it couldn't leave her yard - but the tether/chain broke allowing the attack. Like I said, I didn't watch most of the case - but I did hear P assert she had no responsibility to maintain/repair the fallen down fence because she was renting.... grrrrrr, that was it for me - she's right that the landlord should maintain the fence - but it sure as hell is her moral responsibility to safeguard her two dogs, which are schnauzers. Schnauzers, as a breed, can have issues with other dogs/animals. D's dogs are pitbulls. Don't know anything about the temperament/size of the dogs - so morally both owners are irresponsible owners even though only D is legally liable 

[AngelaHunter]

Watched today the perfect, entitled millennial idiot (a grown man) in the def, who admits that, yes, he was riding his bike on the wrong side of the road, and no, he didn't bother stopping for a red light and crashed into plaintiff's car.  He shouldn't have to follow any rules of the road and he shouldn't have to pay for the damages he caused. She - who was obviously driving her car sideways -  hit him even though her damage was on the side of her car.

JA wants to know, if he admits he didn't bother stopping at the red light, why are they here? Well, he feels he's not responsible and he's countersuing for the aspirin he had to take after he smashed her windshield with his flying body. Too bad plaintiff made herself look bad by trying to get a windfall. She gets the value of her car, period.

[Carolina Girl]

Watching the pitbull breeding case from yesterday - I have a feeling that the defendant has pulled this bullshit before.  I have NEVER heard of the owner of the stud being given "choice of puppy" instead of pick of the litter; and if there is no stud fee, two-pick.  Add the fact that the defendant first LIED to him about how many dogs there were (he said 8; there were actually 10 (an 11th sadly died) and then only showed the stud owner 5 when he came to visit (at 4 weeks) tells me he had already made deals to sell the other 5 and didn't want him to see them.   And I didn't believe that defendant's daughter's testimony for a minute, especially her bullshit claim that he was going to take nursing puppies from their mother.  

What was priceless was his ridiculous counterclaim that stud owner owed half of the vet bills for ALL the puppies.  Yeah, I seriously doubt this was his first time at the puppy rodeo and he found someone who knew nothing about breeding contracts and completely duped him.  LOVED the "I am planning to train them to be service dogs.  Dirtbag probably realized he was going to look like the POS he was and wanted to get that "altruistic" factor in there early.

And Judge Acker was wrong - there WAS a meeting of the minds.  The plaintiff knew very well what the deal was - stud service in exchange for two-pick of the litter.  No mention of vet bills (never heard of stud owner paying that anyway, although I would make allowance for first exam and vaccinations only).  Defendant wanted to put one over on the guy and discovered he messed with the wrong dude this time.  

[SRTouch]

Today was bunch of nonsense with employer suing ex-office manager (24yo ex-teacher being paid minimum wage as office manager?). Claim has to do with an 'investor' who wrote check to the office manager instead of the business owner or business itself. Lots of silly doubletalk, but I think Judge DiM offered only plausible  theory - tax scam with P giving minimum wage employee $500 'bonus' to hide business income. Nothing P said made sense - new business operating about a year - but owner has no personal bank account and the business account was 'brand new' and only way he could access the 8 grand from the investment money was for investor to write personal check to an employee (said investment check would have had 2 week hold if deposited in new business account) - the investor reeks, too, he writes 8 grand personal check to the minimum wage employee to invest/buy into this company based on some Internet ad seeking investments. Those two on P side don't have unclean hands - they have muddy hands. Case dismissed with Judge A hoping someone watching has authority to investigate what all judges feel is fraud

Real reason for my post..... heard D's witness say she was suing P for 10 grand - then on tomorrow's preview I'm thinking today's D witness is back as P suing today's plaintiff. I was actually watching real time today, so unable to rewind, but were my eyes/memory wrong, or are these the same folks who will be here tomorrow but with costume change ?

Edited October 17, 2019 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

are these the same folks who will be here tomorrow but with costume change ?

I also thought that I recognized the sleazy employer switched to the plaintiff side on tomorrow's show, but not the other litigant. It went by so fast, I may have missed that.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I also thought that I recognized the sleazy employer switched to the plaintiff side on tomorrow's show, but not the other litigant.

Yes! The plaintiff in tomorrow's case is going to be the def's witness in today's case, the one who said she has a case against him too. Same oily dirtbag is on the other side for tomorrow. Today's plaintiff's witness seemed either really, really stupid or shady too.

All the years I worked at the stock exchange, not once did my boss say, "A client sent a cheque for his stock purchase. Let's put in your personal bank account, okay?"😄

[Florinaldo]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yes! The plaintiff in tomorrow's case is going to be the def's witness in today's case,

Well observed. I must confess she did not register at all with me in yesterday's case.

What a dumb flake she is. She does not know how much money she lent him, has no idea of the exact repayments, etc. Keeping records seems to be a notion entirely foreign to her meager intellect. She must be a truly crappy businesswoman.

In the second case, I snickered when the plaintiff gasped with surprise upon hearing what the defendant had written in his response. Don't they get the other party's filings before coming to court? Then again, many apparently do not bother to read them or if they do, they do not have the mental abilities to understand them.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

^^ I forgot to watch it! I do love litigants suing for money owed and saying, "I don't know how much it was, but I wanna say somewhere around..." If they don't know, how the hell do they expect anyone else to know?

[Florinaldo]

10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

If they don't know, how the hell do they expect anyone else to know?

The other party, who else? She even told the judges "you can ask him how much he received" , which prompted a rather harsh response from Corriero.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

which prompted a rather harsh response from Corriero.

Papa Mike got a little hot under the collar? Looking forward to this one. That sleazy guy seems to have only one requirement in the women he hires: They must be really, really dumb.

[SRTouch]

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

^^ I forgot to watch it! I do love litigants suing for money owed and saying, "I don't know how much it was, but I wanna say somewhere around..." If they don't know, how the hell do they expect anyone else to know?

but but Beth knows - just ask Beth. Beth is the ex-school teacher who was D's business' minimum wage office manager from previous case. Alas, none of the judges would let Beth talk.

Edited October 19, 2019 by SRTouch