Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Carolina Girl]

I don't believe that scammer in the "continuation" case has MS or any other disease.  HPV is not cancer; it is implicated in CERVICAL cancer but she didn't say she had that.  Apparently she didn't do enough research to scam people on the "I had cancer" sympathy ploy to realize HPV is a condition and not the form of cancer itself.

And I'm sure she researched what symptoms and manifests of MS that she could reasonbly replicate in court.  I did notice that her accent wasn't even convincing.  First it was soft British and then got to be almost Cockney.  Like "My Fair Lady" in reverse.  Loved the tears, bitch.  Nice touch.  

And doesn't bring a SINGLE piece of evidence supporting her MS claims.  

And frankly, Judge Corriero, go fuck yourself.  You're being nasty to parties that don't deserve it.  In the airplane ticket case, you're asking him to produce records from TWO.YEARS.AGO.  And you screech at him "WHERE's ROBIN??"  Uh, had you even been paying attention, ROBIN doesn't work for him anymore.  He can't compel her to show up.   I feel for the plaintiff, but she produced absolutely NO proof that the airline blamed the travel agent for the flight cancellation.  And all the travel agent said in his answer is that maybe she misinterpreted what the airline said or maybe she missed her flight and wanted to blame someone else.  It's his defense.  For which you yelled and snotted at him.  He isn't smearing the lady.  And his agency DID get her replacement tickets.  

Get rid of this clown.  

[patty1h]

Those sisters feuding over a laptop, a dead son and bingo gave me a headache!  With all of the wailing and ranting, I don't think I saw 1-2 tears fall.  I think black dress sister (BDS) spun her sons death to make it blue dress sisters (BLDS) fault was a stretch.  This was a grown man and I don't see that anyone could MAKE him babysit and take kids to school.  And if BDS knew that her son was in such bad pain and suffering, why didn't she step in and demand that he stop.  Seems like she may be transferring her guilt for this death to the sister.

Judge Judy has made the statement that when someone dies, some people would rather feel anger than grief and both of these women seem to be doing that exact thing... they'd rather fight other a laptop than deal with their feelings.  BLDS was wound tight (and her job was listed as mental health technician!) and she should have just given the GD laptop to the bereaved mother.

Edited November 14, 2019 by patty1h

[Florinaldo]

Oh, how appearances can be deceiving! In the case of the two sisters, at first look the defendant seemed to be the hard-edged iron-fisted type, while the plaintiff was all smiles and sweetness. And then SHE turned out to be a demented hysterical hag.

In an ironic twist frequent on TV court shows, her job is "mental health technician". Perhaps her accreditation is from the Church of Scientology.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

In the case of the two sisters, at first look the defendant seemed to be the hard-edged iron-fisted type, while the plaintiff was all smiles and sweetness. And then SHE turned out to be a demented hysterical hag.

A demented, hysterical and vicious virago/hosebeast. When she was screaming at JA (after her tears flash-dried)with her eyes bugging out she looked totally insane. I was waiting for one of the judges to request that Sonya put the cuffs on her.

So, was this 38-year-old-man in a state of bondage, or indentured servitude that the harridan could literally work him to death? The little milquetoast boyfriend looked scared to death, with good reason no doubt.  I'd be terrified of that big, bellowing brute too. He might want to get out while he still can.

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

her job is "mental health technician".

I missed that. Speechless at the irony of a lunatic working in mental health.

[Florinaldo]

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was waiting for one of the judges to request that Sonya put the cuffs on her.

That screaming harridan might have enjoyed it. She succeeded in eliciting sympathy for her sister, who certainly does not look like she overflows with the milk of human kindness.

I found this description for what a mental health technician does: "Mental health technicians, also known as psychiatric aides or mental health assistants, work primarily in a supporting role to give care to mentally ill or emotionally disturbed patients. Mental health technicians work in hospitals or institutions under the direction of supervising mental health care professionals, such as psychiatrists or other medical doctors. Typical duties of a mental health technician include coordinating mental health care services, assisting in patient assessment, monitoring and documenting care, escorting patients and identifying the personal needs of patients. (...) To succeed as a mental health technician, it is important to be patient, flexible and able to deal with demanding situations. Because mental health technicians work as part of a team of caregivers, it is also important to have strong interpersonal and communication skills."

She obviously fulfills that last part hands down.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

To succeed as a mental health technician, it is important to be patient, flexible and able to deal with demanding situations. Because mental health technicians work as part of a team of caregivers, it is also important to have strong interpersonal and communication skills."

Yessir! I'm sure she deals with "demanding situations" like disruptive, angry or difficult patients with endless patience, flexibility and a wealth of calm empathy. Maybe she does -  after she finishes shrieking at them and crying.

[Guest]

I caught the case today of the charming former professional boxer who beat the holy hell out of the mother of his children.  He was suing for damages he believed the plaintiff caused by scratching his beloved car. 

He lost of course but my focus was on the safety of the defendant. I am deeply concerned that the judgment against him is only going to make him angrier and perhaps more violent. 

I would not be opposed to her packing heat, a sharp knife or a taser (maybe all three).  He scares me and this coming from someone who have visited more than a few prisons in her lifetime...for work, not personal reasons 

Edited November 19, 2019 by PsychoKlown

[Carolina Girl]

16 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I caught the case today of the charming former professional boxer who beat the holy hell out of the mother of his children.  He was suing for damages he believed the plaintiff caused by scratching his beloved car. 

He lost of course but my focus was on the safety of the defendant. I am deeply concerned that the judgment against him is only going to make him angrier and perhaps more violent. 

I would not be opposed to her packing heat, a sharp knife or a taser (maybe all three).  He scares me and this coming from someone who have visited more than a few prisons in her lifetime...for work, not personal reasons 

SIX MONTHS?  That dirtbag should have done a couple YEARS for what he did to that woman.  I LOVED Judge Acker forcing him to look at those photographs.  Yeah, you fucking dirtbag, you did that.  

I hope she has a restraining order.  And damn straight I would make sure she gets sole, FULL custody of the children and he only has supervised visits overseen by a third party - his mother sounds like an enabler.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

SIX MONTHS?  That dirtbag should have done a couple YEARS for what he did to that woman.  I LOVED Judge Acker forcing him to look at those photographs.  Yeah, you fucking dirtbag, you did that.  

I hope she has a restraining order.  And damn straight I would make sure she gets sole, FULL custody of the children and he only has supervised visits overseen by a third party - his mother sounds like an enabler.  

Yep.

And to add...I am concerned for the defendant and her family but I'm also concerned for some innocent person who crosses his path when he's angry.  Can you imagine the fallout if you accidentally bumped him in public?

I would do whatever was necessary to keep him from me and the children.  Six months is absolutely outrageous.  I am amazed that the only permanent physical damage was hearing loss.  

Plaintiff needs to be in a psych ward.  He's dangerous, mentally unstable and just itching for a fight.  

[AngelaHunter]

23 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I caught the case today of the charming former professional boxer who beat the holy hell out of the mother of his children.

I just watched this. The boxer - short, dumpy, fugly, narrow-headed creep - has had 6 boxing matches. I bet he lost every one of them, got knocked on his ass and finally found an opponent over whom he could emerge triumphant. Three cheers for him. What a man. I am concerned that the def stayed with him and had a kid(s?) with him (I'm glad the dead baby story was cut off as I certainly didn't want to hear anything about that) when you know it's not the first time he's been violent. If a woman wants to stay with a violent, abusive man that is her choice to make, but to force children to live with this is unconscionable. They didn't choose this. Ms Mendoza, learn to be less desperate for a man. You can't think only of yourself when you have children.

6 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I LOVED Judge Acker forcing him to look at those photographs. 

That was excellent. Let him take a good look at his handiwork. Maybe he was secretly proud of it. "I would never damage my car. I LOVE that car." Well, at least got his little remote control back. I was hoping he would mouth off against the judges or Sonya, but naturally he didn't have the balls to do that.

5 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Plaintiff needs to be in a psych ward.

No care in a psych ward for him. He needs to be in prison, although these days nothing short of murder in the first degree merits any kind of meaningful sentence. Let's see what he does when some huge guy challenges him. I bet his pudgy fists wouldn't be nearly so effective as they are against a woman. I hope someone kills him. He really doesn't need to be sucking up oxygen.

[Carolina Girl]

Judge Acker has been on a ROLL lately.  Today's case with the deranged defendant and neanderthal boyfriend claiming that her mother damaged a house to frame her was another example.  Snotty defendant answers "heh" to a statement and Acker ends a question with "heh" right back at her.

Debbie Delusional apparently wants us all to believe she moved into a house covered in filth and just left it alone for the three years she was there.  Apparently she believes the majority of the world's population is made up of morons like herself.  

I'll wager she was hoping for that big "split" payday for the leftover litigation money pot.  She got at max $800.  I'm sure she and Cro-Magnon found the national humiliation worth it.  (I'll also bet her current landlord is immediately scheduling a home inspection).

[Florinaldo]

In the ski collision case yesterday, the judges did not seem to appreciate that the defendant came to the hearing after doing his research and citing relevant legal doctrine. He certainly came across as a bit of a know-it-all, but he was a well-informed one, a quality not often found in their litigants.

Corriero seemed especially offended and found a way to argue for joint liability and getting DiMango to inexplicably agree with him. I thought that by cutting through a number of downhill trails, the plaintiff bore all of the responsibility for the collision, as Acker argued.

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

In the ski collision case yesterday, the judges did not seem to appreciate that the defendant came to the hearing after doing his research and citing relevant legal doctrine. He certainly came across as a bit of a know-it-all, but he was a well-informed one, a quality not often found in their litigants.

Corriero seemed especially offended and found a way to argue for joint liability and getting DiMango to inexplicably agree with him. I thought that by cutting through a number of downhill trails, the plaintiff bore all of the responsibility for the collision, as Acker argued.

Yes...... it seems obvious to me that it is unreasonable to expect a skier - or in this case snowboarder - on an expert downhill slope to be going slow enough to avoid someone crossing traversing several slopes to get to a different ski lift..... maybe I'm missing something as I've never been skiing....... more than anything, I think D hurt his case insisting he never saw P before the collision - that's why I wasn't upset with the split liability idea..... I can't imagine why he didn't see her, while I could readily accept not being able to avoid the collision as he was in a controlled slide on an icy slope

Edited November 21, 2019 by SRTouch

[Carolina Girl]

15 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

In the ski collision case yesterday, the judges did not seem to appreciate that the defendant came to the hearing after doing his research and citing relevant legal doctrine. He certainly came across as a bit of a know-it-all, but he was a well-informed one, a quality not often found in their litigants.

Corriero seemed especially offended and found a way to argue for joint liability and getting DiMango to inexplicably agree with him. I thought that by cutting through a number of downhill trails, the plaintiff bore all of the responsibility for the collision, as Acker argued.

Unfortunately, his use of the assumption of the risk doctrine is the affirmative defense used by the ski areas, not individual skiers.  I used to work for the law firm that represented Mammoth Mountain and that was our No. 1 defense when they sued the ski area.  However, it was not a defense against the behavior of other skiers.  

But I totally agree that it was in fact the plaintiff that was not skiing responsibly.  You don't move at a 90-degree angle across the face of the run - you move downhill.  And these are black diamond runs.  People ski them specifically to be able to go fast.  She was absolutely ridiculous.  "I was thrown 30 ft!"  No, you were on an incline.  You were probably thrown 5 feet and slid the next 25.  

And her witness saying "and her skis even came off her boots!"  Uh, idiot?  The skis came off the BINDINGS, which are designed so that if you get into trouble they immediately detach.  

[Florinaldo]

57 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

And her witness saying "and her skis even came off her boots!"  Uh, idiot?  The skis came off the BINDINGS, which are designed so that if you get into trouble they immediately detach.  

I also had a good laugh at that one. I haven't skied in a very long time, but I do remember these being very sensitive and coming off at the slightest move out of alignment on the part of the skier. Which happened a lot in my case...

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

No, you were on an incline.  You were probably thrown 5 feet and slid the next 25.  

I think that the basic understanding of Newtonian mechanics necessary to understand that is quite beyond her grasp since she thought that all the other skiers would magically melt into immaterial nothingness as she was crossing their paths.

[SRTouch]

36 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I think that the basic understanding of Newtonian mechanics necessary to understand that is quite beyond her grasp since she thought that all the other skiers would magically melt into immaterial nothingness as she was crossing their paths.

But but she might have died! Really, Might Have Died!! DIED!!! and after Judge Mike tells her Enough! SHE repeats I might have died!

[Carolina Girl]

Yesterday's case regarding the poor dupe that fell for one of those "you can sell part time and make big money - just give us $600 and we'll send you some worthless jewelry but not take it back if you fail" schemes gave me some pause.  It involved that "sales associate" that he reported to.  EVERY time he advised her he wanted to sell at a particular event, her immediate response was to tell him "I'm already appearing at that event" which made it impossible for him, under the rules, to also sell.  

Personally, I think the sales associate was a smarmy liar.  It would be one thing if she sent out a weekly notification of events she was planning to appear at ahead of time.  But I don't think that's what she did.  She just waited for the other sellers to tell her about events, immediately told them that SHE would be appearing (so they couldn't) and then scheduled herself, which let her get a monopoly on appearances.  She wouldn't even have to make any effort to learn about events - the poor suckers who needed to get her approval were giving her all the information.   Ideally, I would have called the event ahead of time and ask if a Paparazzi representative was already scheduled.  If they said no, then I would have called Smarmy the Sales Associate and if she said "I'm appearing", then say "not according to them."  Enough of these happenings, and I'd be on the phone to the head sales office.

Loved how she torpedoed herself right before they went to deliberate.  

[AngelaHunter]

I'm looking forward to the "might have DIED" episode, but just watched the "slumlord" suing his former tenants, a hipster-looking, high-pitched dweeb with huge ear plugs and stupid glasses and the nasty, brutal-looking broad, his girlfriend. Girlfriend says, with a smirk, that she doesn't owe anything to the landlord because she was "incarcerated" for domestic violence against earplug boy. HE doesn't owe the rent since he was disabled and on hard times. Must have been some violence that broad committed if she actually did time for it. Yes, she signed the lease, but didn't know what was in it. *shrug/smirk* You can't expect her to read all this petty shit before she signs.

Both of them smirked and rolled their eyes for the duration of the case, especially little dweeb boi, even when we saw large photos of the disgusting mess they left behind and holes punched in the walls, no doubt by the broad. It certainly was a slum when they left. JA gave them a pretty good tongue-lashing, although not a word penetrated their stupid, thick heads. So sweet that they're back together again. Ah, young love. Landlord gets every penny he's suing for. I hope he considers hiring a new management company, if these two freaks  were what they considered to be appropriate tenants.

[patty1h]

Today's case was a lawyer suing a neighbor for vet bills from her dog attacking his cat.   The neighbor had someone else walking her dog (not sure if it was a friend or it was a hired service).  The pitbull mix got away from the dog walker, who said that the dog pulled her off balance when it saw the cat running by.  After I heard the facts, I wondered why the lawyer was suing the dog owner instead of the person who let the dog get out of her control. 

I thought it strange that the owner would be held responsible when she turned over care of the dog to another person.   Just me?

ADDED:  For anyone curious, the judges split the responsibility for the vet bills between the parties because:  1) if you let your cat run loose you leave yourself open to it encountering aggressive dogs;  2) if your dog gets loose and attacks a cat, other dog, a child, you are liable. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

I just watched some of a heart-warming little tale of Love Gone Wrong. Def, Ms Nassef, who is no young girl, meets the plaintiff and moves in with him PDQ. Surprise! She discovers she's enciente, for which JA congratulates her(??) but oh, no! Shortly after the discovery of this upcoming blessed event, she finds out from the neighbours that her baby daddy who is suing her for half the 500$ for a couple of months,  is a registered sex offender. Ms.Nassaf, who apparently enjoys displaying the gaps in her grill, seems to find something highly amusing here and says she left LoverBoy immediately.

Her momma sits there, making exaggerated faces that convey shock, disbelief, etc. during the plaintiff's testimony in which he shares the info that Ms. Nassef has been a swinger for 10 years. Double restraining orders ensue. I couldn't take anymore of this cesspool, but the preview for the next part has plaintiff admitting he "touched" a girl. How old was that girl? Well, she was just a couple of months shy of 13, which makes it not really so bad, right? So - he comes here and is exposed as a disgusting pedophile who molested a 12-year-old child (he was 46) and does so in the hopes of recovering a few hundred dollars. Good lord. I'm wondering why he was with def, since she's way too old for his tastes.

[Carolina Girl]

Normally I can't wait for assholes to get a come-uppance from the judges, but yesterday's case of the hair extension brouhaha really made me get angry at everybody.  First of all, the rolling mountain of fat husband of the defendant should have had his ass removed from the effing courtroom the second time he mouthed off.  Then that cheerleading "thumbs up" of his made me hope he and his asshat equally mouthy wife got hooked for the whole $4K that plaintiff was seeking, especially after the video of their jerkweed behavior was played.

Then.....well, it looks like plaintiff wasn't the poor victim that she appeared to be.  The idiot changed the price of her services three....no four....no five times as to what the cost of beading the extensions would be.   Apparently she believed their nasty texts would help her prevail and that somehow the judges would completely ignore her ridiculous position regarding the extensions.

Still think the jerkweek husband should have gotten the heave-ho, however; maybe they were worried that his stomping out of the courtroom would set off the seismic sensors at UC Berkeley.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

Normally I can't wait for assholes to get a come-uppance from the judges, but yesterday's case of the hair extension brouhaha really made me get angry at everybody.  First of all, the rolling mountain of fat husband of the defendant should have had his ass removed from the effing courtroom the second time he mouthed off.  Then that cheerleading "thumbs up" of his made me hope he and his asshat equally mouthy wife got hooked for the whole $4K that plaintiff was seeking, especially after the video of their jerkweed behavior was played.

When we get these jerks that seem to be begging to get tossed and the judges do nothing, I look for a switcheroo. Here both defendants needed to get the heave ho, but judges restrained themselves because they already knew "the rest of the story" - namely those texts from P........ bet the reason the judge at the restraining order hearing granted a 3 year order had more to do with defendants' courtroom antics than the video or texts 

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Still think the jerkweek husband should have gotten the heave-ho, however; maybe they were worried that his stomping out of the courtroom would set off the seismic sensors at UC Berkeley.

Super-morbidly obese Jabba was beyond disgusting and his wife was revolting. Those two really think hair extensions are going to make a big difference in their lives? I don't know what he was laughing about. He'll be dead in a few years. I did like JDiM's "Shut up" but he really needed to be told to waddle out. Kind of had to admire his plucky, confident air, though. I was so hoping the judges wouldn't ask if they had kids because I didn't want to think about such a tragedy.

"She has a big head." Nice try, but no cigar. Plaintiff was a bit of scam artist.

[TresGatos]

On 11/27/2019 at 5:38 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Good lord. I'm wondering why he was with def, since she's way too old for his tastes.

He was hoping to breed his next victim?

[Carolina Girl]

I may be alone in this, but I thought the plaintiff in the Missing Nacho case was a complete asshole.   

One thing that was not brought up but I found interesting is that the plaintiff somehow believed that the defendant owed her a duty to "warn" about the dogs.  No, she doesn't.  She didn't invite you over to her house.  In fact, here's my question.  Your child's friend's parents were in the driveway and told you the kid was over at the defendant's house.  Why didn't THEY tell you that she had dogs and it might not be a good idea to have 9-year-old kid take the dog over there?

And I loved how the plaintiff kept calling the dog a "pit bull" when it clearly was not, hoping to prejudice the judges.  And then claiming the chihuahua was a HUGE dog.  

And I DO believe the defendant that the little dog came into her house, and I think that kid lied through her fucking teeth about it.  

[DoctorK]

6 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

I loved how the plaintiff kept calling the dog a "pit bull" when it clearly was not, hoping to prejudice the judges.

That really grated on my nerves, and I am surprised and disappointed that not one of the judges corrected her.

[Carolina Girl]

33 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

That really grated on my nerves, and I am surprised and disappointed that not one of the judges corrected her.

Even AFTER the defendant corrected her twice and the judges referred to the dog as a "Cur"(?). the dipshit kept calling it a pit bull.  She wasn't fooling anyone.  And I notice  DiMango didn't believe that kid either about the dog coming into the house.  

Corriero seemed hell bent on attacking the defendant for some reason.  "You knew your dog was protective!!"  Hey asshat - the dog was in her home.  She wasn't expecting anyone and if she'd known a 9-year-old was going to show up with a small dog, chances are she would have made sure the dog was secured.   Oh, and apparently she made the mistake of cooking in the kitchen instead of not being right there to warn the kid about her dogs.

Corriero is a clown.  I'm sorry about what happened to the dog, but I was glad to see that the judges at least didn't award the plaintiff anything.  If there was any negligence in this action, it was on her.  

[Florinaldo]

In today's case of the deadbeat tenant who was spared one eviction only to continue not paying the rent, Corriero once gain showed that his legal brains are made of Jell-O.

And not the kind that has even set yet.

I cannot fathom how he could credit the defendant's testimony (and that of her equally artificially blonde mother), but not that of the plaintiffs.

[Carolina Girl]

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

In today's case of the deadbeat tenant who was spared one eviction only to continue not paying the rent, Corriero once gain showed that his legal brains are made of Jell-O.

And not the kind that has even set yet.

I cannot fathom how he could credit the defendant's testimony (and that of her equally artificially blonde mother), but not that of the plaintiffs.

I’m just grateful that he isn’t on a REAL bench alone  anymore!

[DoctorK]

19 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I cannot fathom how he could credit the defendant's testimony (and that of her equally artificially blonde mother), but not that of the plaintiffs.

Even worse, as the other judges pointed out to him, two separate housing court verdicts confirmed the landlord's number.  Corriero has no respect for the law, he just uses his feelz to make decisions, I wonder if a bunch of dangerous criminals went free into the streets because of his mush headed decisions.

[AngelaHunter]

Agree with what everyone says about Corriero.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Corriero has no respect for the law, he just uses his feelz to make decisions, I wonder if a bunch of dangerous criminals went free into the streets because of his mush headed decisions.

I shudder to think. The other two just seem to tolerate him, barely paying attention to anything he says. They give him the courtesy of listening to him when they go to chambers, but his out-there nonsense never sways them.

Today I just watched part of a case. It was filled with intrigue, a violent assault - plaintiff has a video showing him lying on the street bleeding -  robbery and police impersonators. All this was created over eight pairs of priceless sneakers. The plaintiff is a grown man with a baby momma and kids, lives in a room in the def's place where a bunch of people come and go.  He makes his living trading in - SNEAKERS, believe it or not. He never locked his door and kept a bunch of cash in one the sneakers, it seems. He's accusing the def of stealing his money. She visited him in the hospital after he was mugged for sneakers. "I'm a very caring person," she says. Her caring didn't extend to letting plaintiff back in his room after he got out of the hospital because was scared after the police impersonators and the baby momma's threats or some shit. Plaintiff had def's driver's license in his wallet. Why? Well, he found it in his room after he moved in, so of course he put it in his wallet. Who wouldn't? I gave up there. The stupidity of all these bottom feeders was too much to take.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Corriero has no respect for the law, he just uses his feelz to make decisions,

He gives the impression of seeing himself as the defender of the downtrodden, especially in the case of female litigants. He would probably like to be in a position to sweep in like a masked judicial vigilante and put things right for those he considers to be disenfranchised. And damn the law.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

He gives the impression of seeing himself as the defender of the downtrodden, especially in the case of female litigants.

Yes, he does, but not always. He does the same for many young males. No matter what heinous things they've done, he's almost always in the "You didn't really mean that, did you, young man?" mind set with his kindly uncle smile. Apparently he had a difficult youth and tends to want to give certain litigants the benefit of the doubt even if they're unrepentant petty criminals/scammers/hustlers who show no remorse. He errs on the side of sympathy:

Quote

There was one kid I had to give close to the max. He really needed mental health services. He went to live in the projects with an elderly person he ended up hacking to death and hiding the body and living in that person’s apartment. He never had a place of his own, and now he killed to get it.

He really thought this character hacked this elderly person to death and hid the body to "get a place of his own"? I remember really wanting a place of my own, but hacking up my mother to get it didn't really enter my mind.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/nyregion/15experience.html

Edited December 11, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[Carolina Girl]

At least in yesterday's case of the jerkoff who stuck his girlfriend with the obligation for his bail money, even Corriero couldn't find anything redeeming about that walking turd.  I liked that DiMango advised her that she should walk into the bail office, advise them that she had reason to believe that defendant might not make his court appearances and revoke his bail.

I guess what the piece of shit didn't realize that if YOU aren't the one posting your bail, the assignee is permitted to withdraw at any time.  And since she would be on the hook for his TOTAL bail (I'm assuming that $5K was 10%), she's within her rights to say "I have concerns."

Oh, and if scumbag believed he was going to be released on his own recognizance and didn't need bail, why'd he call her to arrange it in the first place.

"You guys are making me look like a bad guy."  Not really asshat.  We figured that one out just from the litigant introductions at the beginning of the case.

[SRTouch]

HB had Santa on today for their Christmas Day case (rerun). Seems Santa was on suing sis for incidents arriving from time they both lived in mommy's house - typical family feud with protective orders, false police statements, accusations of forgery and insurance fraud. I finished lunch and went to clean up before decision was announced, but from what I heard there were lots of accusations from both sides with no proof.

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

lots of accusations from both sides with no proof.

Well it was a rerun so I wasn't watching closely but didn't the bank investigate the alleged bogus checks and determine that the sister had forged them? 

[SRTouch]

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Well it was a rerun so I wasn't watching closely but didn't the bank investigate the alleged bogus checks and determine that the sister had forged them? 

Believe you're right - seems Santa was in habit of signing blank checks...... his argrument, which made no sense to me, was that he left the signed/blank checks in his room when she got a protective order banning him from the joint residence. Her explanation, which made more sense, was that he gave her the blank checks to use as the informal property manager of the rental property they both maintained (property owned by mommy's trust, but Santa was in charge - so he gave the signed checks to sis in case some emergency came up while he was at North Pole). Never really stated just what the cause of kerfuffle was that resulted in restraining order. I sort of thought it was sister using the blank checks for things other than the rental property, which is why I say Santa's timeline made no sense. Anyway, sis admits she used the checks. Judges showed copy of a check, but I was in kitchen away from remote so not sure what it was made out to/for. Santa protested to bank and got money put back into his account..... judges really didn't devote much time to this matter. Really not sure why this was brought up anyway, seems Santa had already been made whole. Other part of Santa's case due to Sis damaging his car. This was where the insurance fraud charge came in - sis claims Santa waited 2 months before making an insurance claim - says the little bit of damage she caused had ballooned into lots and lots of major damage (I suspect the elves had too much eggnog and snuck out without Ruddy to guide the way) Seems there was also a house fire with questionable insurance claim for smoke damage, but I was making lunch and missed that part. Anyway, lots of unanswered questions in this case - maybe because I was in kitchen for part of it, or maybe the show runners just weren't willing to spend anymore time on dysfunctional Santa.

[SRTouch]

Couple of real losers on today's new episodes - and not just because they lost their respective cases. In first case loser #1 is suing the estate of his good buddy. Seems good buddy was a hoarder (even appeared on the tv show about hoarders). Good buddy had had three ultra light aircraft squirreled away for years and loser #1 couldn't wait to buy them - see #1 had wanted them for years & thought they were worth 6 grand apiece. Good buddy had been in accident, was in bad shape physically and financially. Good buddy let them go for 1 grand for all three so #1 thought he was getting a heck of a deal. Course good buddy assured #1 that they were complete, ready to be assembled and 2 would fly. That was good enough for #1 to start laying down the Benjamins (good buddy probably believed they were in good shape - isn't that part of the hoarder mindset). Sooooo, #1 was like a vulture, circling his good buddy and quick to take advantage. Now #1 is suing the estate because it turns out the ultralights are incomplete and what he thought was a steal turned to crap

Loser #2 was plaintiff in second case. #2 suing over parking lot smash up. Her problem is she had no insurance so shouldn't have been driving - then, nobody buys her story about how the accident happened, and finally she just can't shut up as everything she says makes her look worse - Judge Patty even does her, I'm letting her talk because she's digging herself deeper and deeper routine (even doing some shovel digging motions) - even Judge Mikey can't find anything nice to say about #2, and reminds the others to award D her countersuit for her deductible. Nothing the judges say to #2 gets through, she's convinced she can do no wrong so everything that goes wrong must be someone else's fault. Sure, she had no insurance, but only for 15 days - and right after the accident she rushed out and got insurance so she could send a proof of insurance to plaintiff that evening - yeah, she knows the new insurance wouldn't cover the accident, but hey D wanted proof of insurance so she provided it - oh and D must have been drunk or something cuz she didn't jump out of her car and wanna fight (D had a sleeping child in car), yeah, and D pretty much admitted she was at fault since she was so quick to offer up license and insurance (just like you're supposed to points out Judge Acker)..... if any litigant deserves a bop upside the head it is this woman, but as I said she believes her 💩 don't smell, so brought her daughter to court you show kid how mommy rolls

[Carolina Girl]

15 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Couple of real losers on today's new episodes - and not just because they lost their respective cases. In first case loser #1 is suing the estate of his good buddy. Seems good buddy was a hoarder (even appeared on the tv show about hoarders). Good buddy had had three ultra light aircraft squirreled away for years and loser #1 couldn't wait to buy them - see #1 had wanted them for years & thought they were worth 6 grand apiece. Good buddy had been in accident, was in bad shape physically and financially. Good buddy let them go for 1 grand for all three so #1 thought he was getting a heck of a deal. Course good buddy assured #1 that they were complete, ready to be assembled and 2 would fly. That was good enough for #1 to start laying down the Benjamins (good buddy probably believed they were in good shape - isn't that part of the hoarder mindset). Sooooo, #1 was like a vulture, circling his good buddy and quick to take advantage. Now #1 is suing the estate because it turns out the ultralights are incomplete and what he thought was a steal turned to crap

Loser #2 was plaintiff in second case. #2 suing over parking lot smash up. Her problem is she had no insurance so shouldn't have been driving - then, nobody buys her story about how the accident happened, and finally she just can't shut up as everything she says makes her look worse - Judge Patty even does her, I'm letting her talk because she's digging herself deeper and deeper routine (even doing some shovel digging motions) - even Judge Mikey can't find anything nice to say about #2, and reminds the others to award D her countersuit for her deductible. Nothing the judges say to #2 gets through, she's convinced she can do no wrong so everything that goes wrong must be someone else's fault. Sure, she had no insurance, but only for 15 days - and right after the accident she rushed out and got insurance so she could send a proof of insurance to plaintiff that evening - yeah, she knows the new insurance wouldn't cover the accident, but hey D wanted proof of insurance so she provided it - oh and D must have been drunk or something cuz she didn't jump out of her car and wanna fight (D had a sleeping child in car), yeah, and D pretty much admitted she was at fault since she was so quick to offer up license and insurance (just like you're supposed to points out Judge Acker)..... if any litigant deserves a bop upside the head it is this woman, but as I said she believes her 💩 don't smell, so brought her daughter to court you show kid how mommy rolls

Plaintiff No. 2 was priceless.  "She admitted she was at fault because she gave me her information."  I don't recall them asking her, but I imagine the plaintiff told the defendant that she didn't have her insurance card with her but that she'd give it to her when she got home and found it.  Runs out and gets insurance (my guess is online because if she went to an agency, they'd go outside and look at the car).  This keeps defendant from calling the police to report the accident.  

Also, a head's up, especially for situations like this lying twit.  In an accident, if at all possible, jump out and get a photo of the cars' positions when it happens so that the point of impact is memorialized.  Get back in your car right away if you feel threatened by the other party.    

[AZChristian]

5 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

Runs out and gets insurance (my guess is online because if she went to an agency, they'd go outside and look at the car).  This keeps defendant from calling the police to report the accident.  

Another good reason to always call the police (even if they don't come, there will be a record of when the call came in):  There are people who will do what we think this plaintiff did . . . go out and get insurance right AFTER an accident.  What she may be too dumb to realize is that the insurance company records what TIME the application was received.  If the application was received AFTER the accident (thus the need for some type of time documentation), the claim will be refused, as the insurance wasn't already in effect at the time of the accident.

I used to work for an auto insurance company which specialized in high-risk customers.  This was a not-uncommon occurrence.

[Guest]

Judge Corriero really chaps my fanny.

So tired of his contrary opinions.  No matter what the other two judges decide he will disagree.

He's as useful as a bib on a hog.

Edited January 9, 2020 by PsychoKlown
Even spell check doesn't like his name.

[Florinaldo]

Corriero is particularly irritating when he falls for the frequent "I am just a weak spirited female and I felt pressured and intimidated so I had no choice but to do what I did and I should not be held liable" routine, as happened today with the truck-driving purple-haired wannabee waif (who forgot her script and regained her gumption at one point as DiMango pointed out).

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/9/2020 at 3:11 PM, PsychoKlown said:

He's as useful as a bib on a hog.

Or tits on a bull. 😄

On 1/9/2020 at 10:13 PM, Florinaldo said:

Corriero is particularly irritating when he falls for the frequent "I am just a weak spirited female and I felt pressured and intimidated so I had no choice but to do what I did and I should not be held liable" routine, as happened today with the truck-driving purple-haired wannabee waif (who forgot her script and regained her gumption at one point as DiMango pointed out).

Oh, that pissed me off so much. Def is a "housewife" -  not even a stay-at-home mom since she never mentioned kids - so she's just unemployed with nothing better to do than get her hair dyed purple. But, oh, no! Def harassed and bullied her. He terrified her so much she had no choice but to drive the truck even though she didn't want to. What choice did she have, when the threatening, twerpy Ichabod ordered her to do so? She's just a helpless little housewife and was too frightened to say no, even though she's not too frightened to talk over the judges. She begged the intimidating plaintiff not to make her do it - "Oh, please, my lord and master. Do not force me to do this!" -  but he would not give in. Therefore, it's all his fault she crashed it.

Papa Mike? You seem to think we're still in the 1950s. Retirement might be the best thing at this stage.

[Carolina Girl]

Frankly, I was rather appalled by Acker's attitude toward the plaintiff in the mileage dispute case yesterday.  Defendant advertised a car on E-Bay.  Gave mileage as "34,000" but if you clicked a link to CarFax, you learned that the actual mileage was something like 86,000.  Acker snotted that the plaintiff really didn't have a case, since he did get the car below Blue Book.

What I couldn't stand was the defendant, who counterclaimed fraudulently for his fucking TRAVEL expenses (which had been paid for by the show), was smirking because Corriero and Acker seemed to think what he did was fine.

Except - looking at the ad on E-Bay, it WAS fraudulent.  He put "MILEAGE - 34,000", not "ODOMETER - 34,000".  This is a lie.  the mileage was not 34,000 and this shitbag knew it, and only DiMango called him out on it.  Neither Acker nor Corriero asked the defendant why he didn't put the true mileage on the ad itself (i.e, "mileage is 86,000 although odometer reads 34,000") instead of making the buyer take an extra step to know the truth.

It wouldn't surprise me if the asshole WAS the one who rolled it back.  He tried to get recompensed for money he didn't spend.  

[AlleC17]

5 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Frankly, I was rather appalled by Acker's attitude toward the plaintiff in the mileage dispute case yesterday.  Defendant advertised a car on E-Bay.  Gave mileage as "34,000" but if you clicked a link to CarFax, you learned that the actual mileage was something like 86,000.  Acker snotted that the plaintiff really didn't have a case, since he did get the car below Blue Book.

What I couldn't stand was the defendant, who counterclaimed fraudulently for his fucking TRAVEL expenses (which had been paid for by the show), was smirking because Corriero and Acker seemed to think what he did was fine.

Except - looking at the ad on E-Bay, it WAS fraudulent.  He put "MILEAGE - 34,000", not "ODOMETER - 34,000".  This is a lie.  the mileage was not 34,000 and this shitbag knew it, and only DiMango called him out on it.  Neither Acker nor Corriero asked the defendant why he didn't put the true mileage on the ad itself (i.e, "mileage is 86,000 although odometer reads 34,000") instead of making the buyer take an extra step to know the truth.

It wouldn't surprise me if the asshole WAS the one who rolled it back.  He tried to get recompensed for money he didn't spend.  

Totally agree!  The ad should have mentioned the discrepancy so anyone reading would not have to 'push the button' to get the CarFax.  If you KNOW its 86,000, don't say its 34,000 in you damn ad. 

[Carolina Girl]

16 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

Totally agree!  The ad should have mentioned the discrepancy so anyone reading would not have to 'push the button' to get the CarFax.  If you KNOW its 86,000, don't say its 34,000 in you damn ad. 

Exactly,  The MILEAGE wasn't 34,000.  That was the odometer reading.  

Another pair of scumbags who don't want to pay back their loans in the cases yesterday,  The second one made no sense.  "There was rotting food on the shelves."  She'd been in the house 24 hours.  Even I've left food on the counter and it didn't ROT in that amount of time.  These two scammers were just looking for an extra payday.  I think the plaintiff was very lucky to be free of Clod Mommy and her perjuring spawn.

As for the lowlife who borrowed the mortgage money and then claimed a loan and then needed to walk away from the cashier when it came time to pay for the two TV's, I'd have paid for mine and left his there to be paid for when he returned from his apparent "checking on something" emergency.  

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/16/2020 at 11:54 AM, Carolina Girl said:

Frankly, I was rather appalled by Acker's attitude toward the plaintiff in the mileage dispute case yesterday. 

Me too. Maybe plaintiff was careless or naive, but def. was downright shady and dishonest and knew it, judging by his irritating smirking. That's worse than being dumb.

 

On 1/17/2020 at 10:38 AM, Carolina Girl said:

As for the lowlife who borrowed the mortgage money and then claimed a loan and then needed to walk away from the cashier when it came time to pay for the two TV's, I'd have paid for mine and left his there to be paid for when he returned from his apparent "checking on something" emergency.

When any man, no matter how slimy and repulsive, can use dating sites to find some woman desperate enough to start paying his bills after a very short time, something is very wrong. It's hardly a unique situation. We hear this time and again. I'd rather lose the money than have anyone know I was just this pathetically hard up for a warm body.

Edited January 18, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[AlleC17]

I really hate dog (or any animal) cases.  Yesterday's had a pit bull attack a chihuahua after the pit's owner let her 6 year old hold the leash while she (the mom) 'trained' it.  Or something.  She had all sort of fake crying histrionics, and stated the dog was euthanized the same week her father passed away.  Maybe I am really cold, but I think her dad and her dog were probably at home watching TV or something.  When the plaintiff said that in the hallterview, I started laughing.  Control your dog, and if s/he geets out of your control, take some damn responsibility!  Geez.

[Carolina Girl]

15 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

I really hate dog (or any animal) cases.  Yesterday's had a pit bull attack a chihuahua after the pit's owner let her 6 year old hold the leash while she (the mom) 'trained' it.  Or something.  She had all sort of fake crying histrionics, and stated the dog was euthanized the same week her father passed away.  Maybe I am really cold, but I think her dad and her dog were probably at home watching TV or something.  When the plaintiff said that in the hallterview, I started laughing.  Control your dog, and if s/he geets out of your control, take some damn responsibility!  Geez.

Acker snotted at the plaintiffs that they didn't control THEIR dogs as well.  Except if I understand the plaintiffs correctly, they were attempting to control them but one of the small dogs was so terrified it pulled free of its collar and ran behind its owner.  That's really not the same as giving control of a pit bull to a 6-year-old. 

In the case yesterday, with the grifting rental couple, are they saying that their babysitter lives next door to the plaintiff and that they used HER address to keep their kids in the school?  Can I just call baloney on that one?  Because plaintiff specifically said that the reason her NEW tenants had difficulty getting their kids enrolled in the school was due to the fact that the address was already being used for other children.  I don't believe those jerks EVER notified the school of a change of address.  

When registering kids for school in my community, especially if there are more desirable schools (like being brand new or such), you must bring a copy of a utility bill issued in your name and address for the current month to verify address at the time of enrollment.

 

[AlleC17]

8 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Acker snotted at the plaintiffs that they didn't control THEIR dogs as well.  Except if I understand the plaintiffs correctly, they were attempting to control them but one of the small dogs was so terrified it pulled free of its collar and ran behind its owner.  That's really not the same as giving control of a pit bull to a 6-year-old. 

In the case yesterday, with the grifting rental couple, are they saying that their babysitter lives next door to the plaintiff and that they used HER address to keep their kids in the school?  Can I just call baloney on that one?  Because plaintiff specifically said that the reason her NEW tenants had difficulty getting their kids enrolled in the school was due to the fact that the address was already being used for other children.  I don't believe those jerks EVER notified the school of a change of address.  

When registering kids for school in my community, especially if there are more desirable schools (like being brand new or such), you must bring a copy of a utility bill issued in your name and address for the current month to verify address at the time of enrollment.

 

Yes, she did, and that annoyed me too, but at least she backed off.  Even Papa Mike had nothing to say on behalf of the defendant and her fake tears.  lol

That couple was so entitled, and they learned nothing if you listened to their hallterview.  You know if you actually paid your rent, you could have really used that address for your kids school forms because you wouldn't have been evicted!  Gah!