Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

They mostly communicated by text or other remote means and thus fell in love. 

But he sent her LOTS of "texes" all day every day.  (Except for the five days when he told her - in advance - she couldn't contact him.  I'm wondering if he was on vacation with the girlfriend, or was it five days in jail for not paying child support.)

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

But he sent her LOTS of "texes" all day every day.  (Except for the five days when he told her - in advance - she couldn't contact him.  I'm wondering if he was on vacation with the girlfriend, or was it five days in jail for not paying child support.)

I didn't get that far, but I'm banking on jail time. Normally I don't mind a good freak show as long as there is no disgusting violence or child abuse involved, but these two were so uniformly repugnant and unlikeable in their own little ways and the story so nausea-inducing I just couldn't hang in there.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was wondering exactly when this great love she had for him bloomed. Was it over coffee at Starbuck's? 

Starbucks?  These litigants are definitely a HoneyDew Donut’s kind of patrons.  Where coupons for free muffins float around Boston like a Super Bowl parade and the coffee is served out of a big ol’ thermos with a deluxe pump.  Dunkin if it’s a special occasion but never, never Starbucks.  Unless the tax check just cleared or someone else is treatin’.

Quote

As one wise JJ litigant announced, "You can't buy love. You can onny rent it."

And beer.  You only rent beer.  Excuse me now while I go get a tissue to dab my eyes.  

Edited February 24, 2021 by PsychoKlown

[edie3]

I am new to this show., so  not sure if this was a repeat.  I watched one where a woman was suing a guy who sold her a Malti-poo on Craigslist, that was sick. She said the dog threw up as soon as they got in the car. Anyway, did anyone else notice the dog she was holding in court was sometimes a white dog, and then it was a black dog?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, edie3 said:

I am new to this show., so  not sure if this was a repeat.  I watched one where a woman was suing a guy who sold her a Malti-poo on Craigslist, that was sick. She said the dog threw up as soon as they got in the car. Anyway, did anyone else notice the dog she was holding in court was sometimes a white dog, and then it was a black dog?

Edie3 I watched the episode but only half-heartedly.  I did notice she had a black furry thing (with a bit of white) on her left shoulder but I mostly listened to the case.

That was some small dog.  That’s for sure.

[badhaggis]

9 hours ago, edie3 said:

I am new to this show., so  not sure if this was a repeat.  I watched one where a woman was suing a guy who sold her a Malti-poo on Craigslist, that was sick. She said the dog threw up as soon as they got in the car. Anyway, did anyone else notice the dog she was holding in court was sometimes a white dog, and then it was a black dog?

Yes! It was a white dog for the case a black dog for the verdict and back to the white one for the hallterview. Really odd.

[Zahdii]

I didn't notice the dog switching colors, but I was looking away a lot of the time.

In the next episode, it was a repeat of a guy suing a woman for defamation because she didn't let him put up a booth at her event.  I'm not sure of just what event she was holding, because I wasn't paying close attention at first.  I think it was one of those things where someone rents some property and lets other people set up booths to sell items or advertise their services.

Anyway, I think she first let him come and then his behavior got weird.  He was upsetting other venders, they complained, she herself said she felt unsafe around him and she told him to stay away.

He was very upset about that, and started harrassing her and her husband.  Her husband eventually committed suicide, but I don't think that she said he was the cause of it, but his behavior was not helping before or after the suicide.

This guy lives with his wealthy parents, which explains his large and expensively furnished bedroom, so his claim that he was so much better than they were when he was only 25 was rediculous.  When people online asked her what happened, she told them he was banned for his behavior, but didn't get into specifics.

The judges threw out his case and pointed out that he was the one causing all the problems.  They pointed out that his issue seemed to be that he couldn't accept rejection, and should look into that.  I wish I'd taken down the names of the plaintiff and defendant so I could look them up now.

[Carolina Girl]

Has anyone noticed that Hot Bench is getting some pretty good cases these days?  Wonder if Judge Judy is sending all the really good ones over there from her production company since this is her last year.  Because they've had some really good new cases this week.  

[AngelaHunter]

I just watched Ms. Michens suing her former friend, Ms Azikiwi, for the 350$ she loaned her. Plaintiff worked with def at the deli counter at Krogers, so she's not rich, but when her good friend Ms.Azikiwi whined to her she was going to be evicted, she loaned D the money. Turns out Ms. Azikiwi - who lost her job and was on the verge of being evicted - used the money for her daughter's prom and can't possibly pay it back. Tough luck for P. JDiM admires D's necklace and new hairdo (which is what I call the "Fancy Chicken Do") and wonders why, if she can afford jewelry, nice clothes and elaborate hairdos, she can't pay back even a single penny to the person who helped her in her time of need? Ms. Azikiwi seems to find something amusing in this nasty tale. P told her to "pay me back when you can". JDiM elicits the information that D is indeed working again so can pay what she owes.

P admits she was going to go to D's house and "bust out" all her windows, which is a reasonable way for some of settling a debt, but then she turned her life around and decided that violent vandalism might not be the best way of handling this. I guess she had an epiphany? Pay back the money, you deadbeat hustler.

On 2/26/2021 at 10:24 AM, Zahdii said:

 I wish I'd taken down the names of the plaintiff and defendant so I could look them up now.

P was "Bryce Bohnert" who was very weird and seemed to have way too much time on his hands. However, I hope D wasn't trying to blame her husband's suicide on this annoying, silly twerp who looks like a 25-year-old who somehow has not reached puberty. There's a lot of Twitter nonsense and whatever online. He posts stuff like this:

Quote

To roll a blunt or not to, to get mcdonalds or not.... Life is just so troubling sometimes.

Quote

 

bryce.bohnert

So thankful for cannabis and the cannabis industry!

 

Yeah, I bet.

 

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

silly twerp who looks like a 25-year-old who somehow has not reached puberty.

Well said, I had the same impression. Seems like a lot of people I run across are operating at prepubescent levels of maturity.

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Seems like a lot of people I run across are operating at prepubescent levels of maturity.

This is true, and it only took them a couple of generations to devolve to where so many grown men and women act like juveniles.

[Florinaldo]

I am afraid judges DiMango and Acker have drunk the Corriero Kool-Aid. How else to explain that in today's quinceñero case they awarded the family 5 000 $? Mostly in "pain and suffering"!

I was totally unmoved by their sob stories. They do not have a video of the event; too bad, but it is not the great human tragedy they portrayed it to be.

I think they would have been entitled to the value of the missing video (as estimated by the judges if it is not listed separately on their service agreement), but not to be reimbursed for the photographs portion of the contract. Especially since everyone agreed the pictures were beautiful.

The only consolation is that the defendant at least does not have to shell out the money himself. Which also means he does not have to go through the trouble of going after the missing videographer.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Florinaldo

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I am afraid judges DiMango and Acker have drunk the Corriero Kool-Aid. How else to explain that in today's quinceñero case they awarded the family 5 000 $? Mostly in "pain and suffering"!

I was totally unmoved by their sob stories. They do not have a video of the event; too bad, but it is not the great human tragedy they portrayed it to be.

I could not agree more Florinaldo.  

I understand the celebration of milestones.  As I said, on my 16th birthday milestone I got a cake from Federal Bakery (in downtown Wilmington, DE).  A few things to unwrap but other than Angela turning 16, life went on in our household.  

The expectations of these over-the-top parties, gatherings, shindigs and assorted milestones are nutzoid.  Imagine if they invested that money into a fund for education after high school.  What a nice bundle of cash.  She’s 16 for Pete’s sake.  There’s going to be many more milestones in her life.  The way they were grieving  over a simple video....you’d think Granny was hit by a sniper.  Surely others at the extravaganza took videos, couldn’t they compile them?  Oh, that’s right - they wouldn’t  get the 5k from Hot Bench would they?

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

55 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

The expectations of these over-the-top parties, gatherings, shindigs and assorted milestones are nutzoid.

Never mind the incredible milestone, hotel, limo parties with 1K dresses for 16 year-olds - they're doing it for 4-year-olds who must have a replica of a Barnum and Bailey circus for their parties, even if Mom can't pay the rent.

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

they awarded the family 5 000 $? Mostly in "pain and suffering"!

Every time I see someone requesting large sums for the pain and suffering they endured because their old beater conked out, some deadbeat didn't pay them back the 200$ they borrowed, or a contract is not fulfilled 100%, I'm kind of envious. If these are such traumatic events for them they must have lived charmed lives until then. I wish I had lived in such a bubble that the lack of a videographer at my daughter's massive, Royal Wedding, Cinderella-esque 16th birthday party could devastate me.

Pain and suffering:

Quote

The settlement a person receives for their pain and suffering depends on many factors. This includes the severity of the injury, type of medical treatment received, the length of recovery time, and potential long term consequences of the personal injuries. In addition to physical pain, claimants can also cite emotional and psychological trauma in their pain and suffering claims. For example, a visible scar on the face can lead to painful feelings of constant embarrassment and insecurity.

Well, I guess that includes loss of a video at a kid's birthday party.

[TVMovieBuff]

Endless repetition of all the pain and disappointment and how meaningful the party is. There were nice pictures, but no video? What is this, "pics or it didn't happen"? 

Pain & suffering isn't for this kind of thing. Courts usually only give it for physical injury, ,or cases of egregious mental suffering. Not for a video of a party. 

It wasn't that long ago that they didn't always have videographers at parties, weddings. People can rely on their own brains to retain memories of an event. The memory is inside you, it is not in a DVD of the event. 

The judges really licked the wiggy on this one. The dress was too much, too.

[AngelaHunter]

37 minutes ago, TVMovieBuff said:

It wasn't that long ago that they didn't always have videographers at parties, weddings.

No videographer at any party or wedding I've attended, and certainly not at mine. Really, who - other than the parents bursting with pride that their daughter turned 16 - is ever going to watch those videos anyway? I started to watch this, but after reading the comments here I decided to skip it.

I just watched the case of Daniel "Mr. Potato Head/May I clarify?/Look at Exhibit A/C/F" Thompson suing Mr. Romano and his boy for all kinds of old junk they bartered and traded, including a 1994 motorcycle, a Corvette nearly as old and an AK-47, for some repairs to some old truck of Daniel's. What exactly does a private citizen do with AK-47? Isn't that for shooting as many people as possible as quickly as possible? Doesn't one need a license for this and if so, can you just give it to someone else who may not have a license to own an assault weapon used only to kill people? I don't understand. This whole story was so convoluted I quickly lost track of what was owed to whom. All I know is that Mr Potato Head ended up owing D 1900$ for some stuff he didn't do to fix the ancient Corvette, or maybe it was the ancient motorcycle, which Daniel admits he drove home after the repairs, but claims it was wrecked.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

No videographer at any party or wedding I've attended, and certainly not at mine. Really, who - other than the parents bursting with pride that their daughter turned 16 - is ever going to watch those videos anyway? I started to watch this, but after reading the comments here I decided to skip it.

I will pose that the proud parents would not be the only ones watching that video.   I write from experience.  We have no children but some friends of ours have a daughter and when we visited them they pulled out a video of this child in a grade school talent show.  We had to sit through her break dancing/jazz dancing/tap dancing to Michael Jackson’s Billie Jean.  I will be kind and say the child lacked any sort of talent whatsoever.  At the time she was 7, had an abundance of baby fat and her mother dressed her in a sparking, sequined purple band majorette outfit that unfortunately was the star of the show.

I could not take my eyes off of the screen.  Not because she was such a talent but because if I looked at my husband I would have lost it.  

So, I vote that the distress from the family is partially because no video but predominately because they won’t be able to relive the highlight of their lives when their 16 year old daughter, dressed in a wedding gown was the belle of the ball (for five hours) all the while knowing that they’re also missing out on all the compliments as to what good parents they are.  

 

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

 We have no children but some friends of ours have a daughter and when we visited them they pulled out a video of this child in a grade school talent show.  We had to sit through her break dancing/jazz dancing/tap dancing to Michael Jackson’s Billie Jean.

OH, god. This is the kind of torture that would get anyone to confess to anything. I know the feeling of dread and horror when someone pulls out a huge stack of pictures of some event I did not attend or a vacation, filled with people I don't know and I feel obligated to shuffle through all 215 pics and comment on them.

The last time my handyman came over he did something like that - he whipped out his iPad and showed me what seemed like thousands of shots and videos of his new girlfriend and her dogs at various dog shows all over the North American continent. Since he's the best handyman ever, I had to look at them all so as not to offend. I wanted to die. I love dogs, but this was truly the stuff of nightmares. 😱

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

What exactly does a private citizen do with AK-47? Isn't that for shooting as many people as possible as quickly as possible?

The AK-47 involved is no different than most civilian rifles, it is not a machine gun, just fires once each time the trigger is pulled, just like almost all pistols and many if not most rifles. The military AK-47 is a full auto firearm keeps firing g as long as hold the trigger, and is highly regulated, much more expensive, and requires BATFE paperwork and a background check comparable to my security clearances. Do that wrong and it is a heavy federal felony.

[AngelaHunter]

29 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

BATFE paperwork and a background check comparable to my security clearances. Do that wrong and it is a heavy federal felony.

Thanks! I don't really understand all that, but I was wondering if some dingbat could just trade such a weapon to some person he barely knows in barter for partial payment for a motorcycle.  It seems rather irresponsible, not to mention illegal. 

[AZChristian]

Thanks for all the comments on today's episode.  You have saved me from wasting 30 minutes of my life.

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Thanks for all the comments on today's episode.  You have saved me from wasting 30 minutes of my life.

I'll save you some more time.

Mr. Chee and his goony woman are suing their former landlords - mother and daughter - who have known him for 40 or so years. Ps moved into some sort of apartment behind D's house. Ds then allowed the two granddaughters to move into the same dwelling beneath Ps, where they proceeded to blast music, have wild, loud parties, etc. I'm sure this is true.

P's were month-to-month tenants but instead of moving they sent letters, bitched and complained to D and her elderly mother. There is video of the confrontations that took place in the common area of the stairwell, and all that nonsense. Finally the defs offer plaintiffs 7,000$ to move out on the condition there will be no more harrassment or fighting. Ps accept that, but continue the harrassment, which according to the Defs, voids the contract. They paid Ps only 1500$ and now they are suing for the balance of the 7K.

We get video of all of them mouthing off in the stairwell, with P's lovely lady saying he should rip the camera defs installed off the wall and crap like that. I think Mr. Chee felt like a macho god among all these women. He declares about the cameras, etc., "It's the constant antagonization that creates us to be mad."

On the moving day, Mr. Chee, a man old enough to have gray hair, gets on FB and whines to his little friends how awful and cruel it is that they have to move on a day when the temp is 105 and that he wants payback "Karma" on the defs. He - this middleaged man -  then invites anyone reading his bitch-whine to avenge this injustice by egging his landlady's house, and gives the address. One of his moronic friends pipes up with "I'm in! I need to get rid of some anger!" I don't know if the egging took place (isn't that something young teens would do?) but the judges decide that Ps broke the agreement with this by inciting people to vandalize defs property, so award the defs 1500$. The Eggman is not pleased.

[AZChristian]

Too late. That's 30 minutes I'll never get back. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Mr. Chee and his goony woman are suing their former landlords

On the moving day, Mr. Chee, a man old enough to have gray hair, gets on FB and whines to his little friends how awful and cruel it is that they have to move on a day when the temp is 105 and that he wants payback "Karma" on the defs. He - this middleaged man -  then invites anyone reading his bitch-whine to avenge this injustice by egging his landlady's house, and gives the address. One of his moronic friends pipes up with "I'm in! I need to get rid of some anger!" I don't know if the egging took place (isn't that something young teens would do?) but the judges decide that Ps broke the agreement with this by inciting people to vandalize defs property, so award the defs 1500$. The Eggman is not pleased.

You covered it well.   Two observations:  

1. The Eggman is a novice.  If he were really the Eggman he would have requested that his immature knuckle headed friends bring along rotten eggs.  Rotten eggs separate (get it) the average knuckle heads from the super knuckleheads because they (the rotten eggs) leave a stain which makes it much more difficult to clean as opposed to fresh eggs decorating the abode.  And in the spirit of full disclosure this is information I did not possess in my youth.  I learned this nugget of life from a 14 year old who drew tattoos on his arms with a permanent sharpie.  

2.  And goony woman teased us all in the hallway with her proclamation that the older defendant wasn’t as sweet as she appeared and could tell us stories about her.  Now that’s the kind of stuff I want to hear.  Remember the evil defendant on Hot Bench who shouted out in the hallway that the (female) Plaintiff divorced her first husband to marry his brother?  They cut her off quickly.

That’s what I want...angry litigants blowing their stack because they lost.  

[TVMovieBuff]

On 3/1/2021 at 6:20 PM, AngelaHunter said:

OH, god. This is the kind of torture that would get anyone to confess to anything. I know the feeling of dread and horror when someone pulls out a huge stack of pictures of some event I did not attend or a vacation, filled with people I don't know and I feel obligated to shuffle through all 215 pics and comment on them.

The last time my handyman came over he did something like that - he whipped out his iPad and showed me what seemed like thousands of shots and videos of his new girlfriend and her dogs at various dog shows all over the North American continent. Since he's the best handyman ever, I had to look at them all so as not to offend. I wanted to die. I love dogs, but this was truly the stuff of nightmares. 😱

With my coworkers, it was me being shown countless pictures of kids softball, soccer, hockey, basketball. 

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

And goony woman teased us all in the hallway with her proclamation that the older defendant wasn’t as sweet as she appeared and could tell us stories about her.  Now that’s the kind of stuff I want to hear.

Maybe she wasn't. We know that very often the litigants we see here - sweet, soft-spoken, demure - are revealed as a screeching, obscene and/or drunken, violent creatures in videos. I'm sure the granddaughters were hellspawn causing chaos in Grandma's house. But the plaintiffs were mature people who were offered 7,000$ to move out if they could behave. I would have jumped at that and been quiet as a churchmouse until I left. Not plaintiffs. They (he, mostly) couldn't control themselves even long enough to get the money and had to continue the high-school level of nuisance behavior until the end.  If my husband admitted on national tv that he rallied his FB mob to throw eggs at someone's house I would die of shame.

[Carolina Girl]

 

On 3/1/2021 at 7:04 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Thanks! I don't really understand all that, but I was wondering if some dingbat could just trade such a weapon to some person he barely knows in barter for partial payment for a motorcycle.  It seems rather irresponsible, not to mention illegal. 

If they lived in California, where we have universal background checks, I believe even if you are simply transferring ownership of a weapon privately, you still need to report the transfer to the California Dept. of Justice and have a background check run.  And the transfer must be handled through a broker holding a federal firearms license to facilitate such transfers.  

[Carolina Girl]

18 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

You covered it well.   Two observations:  

1. The Eggman is a novice.  If he were really the Eggman he would have requested that his immature knuckle headed friends bring along rotten eggs.  Rotten eggs separate (get it) the average knuckle heads from the super knuckleheads because they (the rotten eggs) leave a stain which makes it much more difficult to clean as opposed to fresh eggs decorating the abode.  And in the spirit of full disclosure this is information I did not possess in my youth.  I learned this nugget of life from a 14 year old who drew tattoos on his arms with a permanent sharpie.  

2.  And goony woman teased us all in the hallway with her proclamation that the older defendant wasn’t as sweet as she appeared and could tell us stories about her.  Now that’s the kind of stuff I want to hear.  Remember the evil defendant on Hot Bench who shouted out in the hallway that the (female) Plaintiff divorced her first husband to marry his brother?  They cut her off quickly.

That’s what I want...angry litigants blowing their stack because they lost.  

 

Why oh WHY do I get the feeling that this is some sort of modus operandi on the part of these plaintiffs?  So where are the recordings of all the blasting music and parties they had to endure.  They lived there what - a year? - and suddenly believe they deserve $7000 to be gotten rid of?  Yeah, these clowns have played this game before.  Move in, bitch and moan about every little thing, become a pain in the ass to the landlord and then refuse to leave unless a nice chunk of change comes their way.

Judge diMango was right - if it was so bad WHY didn't you move.  I also notice they bitched about the cameras yet they put up some of their own.  Did they have permission?  And considering how petty they were re asking their "friends" to commit vandalism, I have NO DOUBT they put holes in the walls on their way out.  I'm rather pissed that the judges sort of blew off that part of the counterclaim.  

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

If they lived in California, where we have universal background checks,

True, but very few states have this. We could argue all day about whether this is a good idea, but it would accomplish nothing.

[patty1h]

Body Piercing and Tattoo Parlor Fail -- during the whole case, the plaintiffs were clutching this little black dog and I kept waiting for his presence to be explained.   Did he bite someone at the parlor or was he supposed to be sold to the defendant?   The dog was never mentioned and I am confused why he was allowed to be in the courtroom.   My best guess is going by the plaintiff's cradling the animal and her stressed and kinda fragile demeanor is that he is some kind of support animal.  I hope the little guy can handle all that stress.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, patty1h said:

 My best guess is going by the plaintiff's cradling the animal and her stressed and kinda fragile demeanor is that he is some kind of support animal. 

I felt sorry for the little dog. I didn't watch all this episode since I couldn't deal with the ligitants but couldn't help wondering why what plaintiffs felt they really needed were tats. What they need could fill a book.

[Carolina Girl]

On 3/10/2021 at 9:06 AM, patty1h said:

My best guess is going by the plaintiff's cradling the animal and her stressed and kinda fragile demeanor is that he is some kind of support animal.

That would be my guess.

[AngelaHunter]

Sorry to dredge up last year's case, but the Mean Old Man who ran over the woman's foot in his motorized wheelchair actually pissed me off more this time. Why? The laughter of the audience and the indulgence by the judges was infuriating.

This woman was injured and had a broken toe. I know how painful that is, and there's nothing to be done for it. I broke a toe as well (through my own clumsiness) and I'm not carrying nearly as much weight as the plaintiff, but that thing had to hurt like hell when she had to walk on it. He denies it all, which is to be expected but what really pissed me off was Judge Acker telling him he's "a priceless gem"!!?? Okay, so a nasty, rude, vile old man who doesn't give a shit that he hurt someone and who blatantly lied to the judges -at least three times - is somehow a gem? WTF, JA? I thought lying to a judge, even a TV judge,  would get you at minimum a scolding but oh, he was just so cute.  For me, his statement that she "parked her butt" on the bench, which is made for people to SIT ON, would have been enough. OH, she was on her phone? How dare she look at her phone while sitting on a bench? She should be in a state of constant vigilence, ready at second's notice to leap out of the way of some crotchety old codger who thinks he owns the place or has special privileges.

JA said that before his refusal to even apologize as he continued to lie - "I never ran over her foot" - but it probably didn't change her opinion that he was somehow precious.

[Carolina Girl]

36 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Sorry to dredge up last year's case, but the Mean Old Man who ran over the woman's foot in his motorized wheelchair actually pissed me off more this time. Why? The laughter of the audience and the indulgence by the judges was infuriating.

This woman was injured and had a broken toe. I know how painful that is, and there's nothing to be done for it. I broke a toe as well (through my own clumsiness) and I'm not carrying nearly as much weight as the plaintiff, but that thing had to hurt like hell when she had to walk on it. He denies it all, which is to be expected but what really pissed me off was Judge Acker telling him he's "a priceless gem"!!?? Okay, so a nasty, rude, vile old man who doesn't give a shit that he hurt someone and who blatantly lied to the judges -at least three times - is somehow a gem? WTF, JA? I thought lying to a judge, even a TV judge,  would get you at minimum a scolding but oh, he was just so cute.  For me, his statement that she "parked her butt" on the bench, which is made for people to SIT ON, would have been enough. OH, she was on her phone? How dare she look at her phone while sitting on a bench? She should be in a state of constant vigilence, ready at second's notice to leap out of the way of some crotchety old codger who thinks he owns the place or has special privileges.

JA said that before his refusal to even apologize as he continued to lie - "I never ran over her foot" - but it probably didn't change her opinion that he was somehow precious.

I was pissed as hell with the audience and judge's reactions as well.  I hope everyone who thought he was some sort of harmless little curmudgeon gets a bowling ball dropped on their foot.  He was an obnoxious entitled piece of shit who flat out lied about the whole thing and I'm pretty damned sure he's a friggin' holy terror with that scooter of his.  

 

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

I was pissed as hell with the audience and judge's reactions as well.  I hope everyone who thought he was some sort of harmless little curmudgeon gets a bowling ball dropped on their foot.  He was an obnoxious entitled piece of shit who flat out lied about the whole thing and I'm pretty damned sure he's a friggin' holy terror with that scooter of his.  

 

I will never understand why, as in this case and often on TPC, old people are handled with kid gloves, even when they obviously are not suffering from dementia or anything else other than a nasty, mean disposition. People do not fundamentally change their characters and he was probably just as hateful at 50 as he was here, although had he been 50 he would have been reamed out. With all the giggling from the bench, and the compliment from JA, the P was made to look like a fool and nothing short of a scammer which I found outrageous. The only good part is that the old bastard got no money for his appearance here. He's the type to go out and throw stuff at kids playing in the street.

This is one case I would have preferred to see on JJ, where he would have gotten the whuppin' he deserved and not been benevolently smiled upon for his pricelessness.

[Guest]

On 3/12/2021 at 6:38 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I will never understand why, as in this case and often on TPC, old people are handled with kid gloves, even when they obviously are not suffering from dementia or anything else other than a nasty, mean disposition. 

This is one case I would have preferred to see on JJ, where he would have gotten the whuppin' he deserved and not been benevolently smiled upon for his pricelessness.

They do it because they can.  It’s as simple as that.  Take it from me, my mother-in-law would veil her insults and got away with it because she though she was “cute”.  I never challenged her because I would not want to upset my husband but she was downright nasty to a lot of people.  They do it because they can.

I was also surprised again, at the reactions of the judges.  Totally out of character for Judge Acker to exhibit such fawning.  Usually she is the one to give a good tongue lashing to litigants far less offensive than this crabby, old curmudgeon.  

Anyway, today’s episode was a dandy.  I sort of half watched but the two litigants were both annoying and obnoxious.  Essentially, we have a neighborhood busy-body who likes to pit other neighbors on the cul-de-sac against the SSM who likes karaoke and had a “lively, high-spirited” dog.

After listening to those two you couldn’t give me a house on that street.   Even though the defendant moved, I wouldn’t want to be around the Drama Queen plaintiff and her foul mouthed husband.  

People sure like to stick their nose in other peoples’ business, don’t they?

 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

 Totally out of character for Judge Acker to exhibit such fawning.

Her handling of the def. today renewed my faith in her when she gave her a spanking. Plaintiff is suing def for running a red light and  T-boning his car in an intersection. Turns out the def, a SSM, readily admits that why, no  - she has no license and no insurance, yet drives around with a 2-year old in her car. She thinks that's no big deal and she's (all together now) "working on" going to court and getting back her license which was revoked/suspended or whatever, if she ever did have one. The police on the scene didn't even give her a ticket(??) Maybe that SSM status gave her special privileges as a reward for making really bad decisions.

Even Papa Mike could find no charity in his heart and was unable to get on his white horse to defend her actions. She got "distracted" driving. *shrug*. No big deal, right? JA wants to know what she does for a living? Def doesn't work and refused to pay one cent to P because he didn't want to go to some shady alley mechanic she knows who said he could fix the smashed-up P's car for 800$, sight unseen. 

P is a little ridiculous in that he paid 7K to fix his 2009 Corolla, which is worth about 6K, but it's his money to throw away. He gets the max of 5k and the judges regret they can't give him punitive damages for the actions of the sullen heffalump D. In the hall, def has zero remorse and says "I'm sorry,(not sorry) BUT he was trying to gouge me." when she should be thankful her illegal actions didn't have much worse consequences, like if she had hit a pedestrian and killed or crippled someone for life. Oh, well.

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

 They do it because they can.

And it seems to work, at least on court shows. Not cute, at all.

[AngelaHunter]

Today we got Ms. Sassenberg, jumpy, incoherent, frog-faced plaintiff suing her mother's landlord for a whole bunch of valuable possessions left in the apartment when P moved her mother out. Seems the landlord stole this stuff. She is sure to tell us that this crummy apartment is like a family heirloom where not only Mom, but Grandma lived for eons.

The judges try and extract from Ms. Sassenberg exactly what possessions worth 1500$ were stolen? Salt and pepper shakers, a 30-year-old watch which P "always wanted", and... "stuff". Well, that's all they got from her. The Def landlord, Mr.Yip, said he had to enter the place due to a foul odour emanating from the dwelling. Seems the mom has  had dementia and was living alone in squalor with no help at all until she broke a hip and had to be removed by P. A poor cat was subjected to this place and did all its business under a bed, which P said she would "rake out" sometimes. But there was no smell! She also bitched that Mr. Yip had put fans in two windows and ripped up the urine-soaked carpet. Why does she think he had to do that? He requested P to come for a walk-through but she never showed up. She also stopped paying rent from August until November. Mr. Yip is so sympathetic and kind he left all the junk in the place since he felt he had no right to throw it out.

In a very satisfying verdict, Ms. Sassenberg gets nothing and the def. is awarded 5K for unpaid rent and the horrible condition of the place. Papa Mike was not happy since he agreed only to the 4100$ in unpaid rent and thought Def deserved nothing for the filth and stuff left behind.

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Papa Mike was not happy since he agreed only to the 4100$ in unpaid rent and thought Def deserved nothing for the filth and stuff left behind.

Corriero is a complete illogical emotion driven piece of crap as a judge. Mostly he just ignores the law and logic in order to show that he is not dominated by the two other alpha judges while he is not even a beta personality. He needs to go. I know that will not happen, he acts as a foil for the other judges which makes for better television.

[AngelaHunter]

37 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Corriero is a complete illogical emotion driven piece of crap as a judge. Mostly he just ignores the law and logic in order to show that he is not dominated by the two other alpha judges while he is not even a beta personality. He needs to go.

He gets really sour and sulky when it's impossible for him to find in favour of a woman, even one as distasteful as the rough, hopped-up bullfrog today. He went along partially for the judgment in favour of the landlord today only because the other two steamrolled him again.

I shudder to think how many criminals were turned loose when he was a real judge.

 

[AZChristian]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

He gets really sour and sulky when it's impossible for him to find in favour of a woman, even one as distasteful as the rough, hopped-up bullfrog today. He went along partially for the judgment in favour of the landlord today only because the other two steamrolled him again.

I shudder to think how many criminals female con artists were turned loose when he was a real judge.

FIFY.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, AZChristian said:

FIFY.

I don't know. He's a Sir Galahad who melts at any female tears, but he was always a big youth advocate it seems. I read how it "haunts" him that he had no choice but to give the maximum sentence to one young guy who hacked up the elderly person he was living with and hid the body.  Papa Mike's conclusion:

Quote

"He never had a place of his own, and now he killed to get it."

Right. Chopping someone up and stashing the parts is an odd way of getting a place of one's own. I'm sure that was the motive.

Edited March 23, 2021 by AngelaHunter

[AZChristian]

41 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't know. He's a Sir Galahad who melts at any female tears, but he was always a big youth advocate it seems. I read how it "haunts" him that he had no choice but to give the maximum sentence to one young guy who hacked up the elderly person he was living with and hid the body.  Papa Mike's conclusion:

Right. Chopping someone up and stashing the parts is an odd way of getting a place of one's own. I'm sure that was the motive.

So this guy really thought that earning a cell for the next 20 years to life qualified as "getting a place of his own"?????  And the idea of a psychopath being kept locked up "haunts" Judge Mike.

SMH.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

So this guy really thought that earning a cell for the next 20 years to life qualified as "getting a place of his own"?????  And the idea of a psychopath being kept locked up "haunts" Judge Mike.

SMH.

If only it weren't for those dang-blasted, inconvenient laws against violently murdering the person who took you in and dismembering them, Papa might have set this person (JC calls him a "kid" who needed mental health services) up in a charming little place all his own. Only suckers like us should have to earn and pay for a place of our own. Papa says no words of sympathy for this elderly person who met such an unimaginably horrific end.

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

[AngelaHunter]

Today gave another example of the Sir Lancelot mentality of our Papa. It was a rerun, although I remembered it only vaguely.

Soft-spoken, poor little widow lady is suing her handyman for not doing everything on the contract. Poor little her - she needs someone with her to support her because she can't keep things straight in her poor little Southern Belle head.

Turns out she's kind of a snake, trying to rip the def - who seemed very upfront and honest and did a lot of work - off. It's as JDiM said in chambers, this woman was the type to say to def, in her mild little voice, "Oh, would you mind also doing this, and that, and this too?" as she stands there looking frail and thinking she could get free work because, well - poor, helpless little widow lady, right?

Papa Bleeding Heart wanted to award little lady 1500$ from the evil, unchivalrous, meany Def, but the other two wasted no time setting him straight on that. Nothing for the Southern Belle, who depends on the kindness of strangers.

 

[Carolina Girl]

On 3/22/2021 at 2:46 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Papa Mike was not happy since he agreed only to the 4100$ in unpaid rent and thought Def deserved nothing for the filth and stuff left behind.

What a freakin' idiot Corriero is.  Dude, he had to completely replace carpet and probably flooring.  

As for the plaintiff, what the hell was she ON?  She babbled and babbled, made no sense.  Oh, I SO wanted that watch.  So why the hell didn't you grab and box up all the valuables from the apartment when you brought Mom home, especially since it would soon be evident that no one was living there on a regular basis.  I cannot for the life of me figure what her angle was.  She says she was going to have an estate sale but then COVID hit.  So what?  Take photographs, tag the items and sell them on any one of a dozen online market places, which is where people have been going during lockdown.   Sale of what?  According to Mr. Yip, her stuff is still there.  

I'm wondering if plaintiff already took the good stuff and pawned it herself.  Maybe Mom started asking about certain items and Plaintiff had to manufacture an explanation for missing stuff.  There was something completely OFF about this idiot.  She claims that neighbors NEVER complained.  Okay, so why didn't she bring one of them to testify that Mr. Yip was lying.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

As for the plaintiff, what the hell was she ON?  She babbled and babbled, made no sense.  Oh, I SO wanted that watch.  So why the hell didn't you grab and box up all the valuables from the apartment when you brought Mom home, especially since it would soon be evident that no one was living there on a regular basis.

She was on something, or maybe freaking for another dose of whatever it was. Yeah, she could have taken the watch, and even those special salt and pepper shakers too. Toiletries! She wanted payment for those too. It seems lots of people who have rented some place for an eternity feel the landlord owes them something - in this case free storage for as long the plaintiff wanted. As if this landlord, who seems to be even more of a soft touch than Papa Mike would have stolen the junk left in that squalid nest. No rent was paid and he should have notified this witch to come get the crap, and if not,  put everything in there out by the curb after 30 days.

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

No rent was paid and he should have notified this witch to come get the crap, and if not,  put everything in there out by the curb after 30 days.

His kindness toward her property was amazing.  "They're her things!  We will leave them for her!"  

I especially like that he blew her excuse for not paying rent (changed the locks) out of the water.  He had the lock changed to fit the existing key and even left her a notice advising her of same.  This is what tells me she wasn't in communication with him, because she would have KNOWN the situation with the locks had she bothered to do so.  She sat back, withheld rent and then waited for an eviction, at which time she thought she'd get a payday for the suddenly missing items.

[AngelaHunter]

Papa strikes again, in the defense of a damsel in distress. Plaintiffs, who look very down on their luck, run a daycare in their home. Def, a SSM who never pays for daycare for her baby since the government (taxpayers) foot the bill for her, just left their daycare without giving a 2-week notice, which she agreed to do in the written contract, so they want her to pay 370$ for those two weeks.

P admits her two dogs got out from their gated area and were running free with the kids. The judges think that since the dogs aren't very big there was no danger. Actually more kids are bitten, usually in the face, by small dogs than by big ones. P wife says she's pregnant so had to go to the bathroom and left hubby in charge. D says he was looking at his phone and not watching the kids. I can't remember if they were licensed or not. Anyway, D uses that and the fact that her baby was crying as an excuse not to pay, when it turns out she was getting another free ride elsewhere so didn't bother giving notice.

Papa Mike thinks the contract was mean and cruel to poor SSM and D shouldn't have to abide by what she signed since he says the Ps were not financially harmed by her actions and cruddy excuses. The other two seem exasperated with him, and agree the D has to pay what she owes. Papa sulks.

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Papa sulks.

Finally something he is good at.