Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Carolina Girl]

On 4/10/2021 at 10:46 AM, AngelaHunter said:

I would hire him!

So would I.  In a heartbeat.  And I have real trouble believing this quiet, unassuming man "came crashing into" the harpy's house demanding payment.  

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/12/2021 at 2:50 PM, PsychoKlown said:

The other case with the Plaintiffs wanting their money back on a dud car (sold “as is) because they were not in the right frame of mind is interesting in that Judge Mike really went off the rails.

I just watched part of this and had to take a break. I'm so confused: Since when does anyone have to take a plane to go buy a 16-year-old vehicle? Was there something so outstanding about this car? Don't they have old beater cars where she lives? She would have taken her daddy with her on the plane had she known def was at a dealer but wouldn't need the car checked out if buying from some private party? She was so distraught over the suicide that she, not in her right mind, gets online to look for an old car and then hops a plane to fetch this one-in-a-million hoopty she just had to have? I dunno, but if my son-in-law just shot himself I doubt I'd be focusing on factory rims. Her neck parts were getting so red while she tearfully testified I thought the skin might start peeling off. I don't understand any of her actions. JDiM points out that the contract says "As is" in every way imaginable but she thinks that should be waived in her case and that the dealer should have asked her state of mind before selling her the car?

Maybe it all becomes clear as the case goes on and I'm missing something pertinent, but I'm not sure if I can take any more even though I want to see Papa oozing sympathy for this tearful hoopty aficiondo.

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe it all becomes clear as the case goes on and I'm missing something pertinent, but I'm not sure if I can take any more even though I want to see Papa oozing sympathy for this tearful hoopty aficiondo.

What got my jaw to drop when Papa Mike insisted that the REAL intent of the law was fairness.

So how would it be fair TO THE DEFENDANT if a written contract that says "AS IS" in large letters means nothing and that the person who signed the contract can just get her money back as if the contract didn't exist?

Papa's definition of "fairness" apparently is applied only to females.  He's an embarrassment.

[Carolina Girl]

6 hours ago, AZChristian said:

What got my jaw to drop when Papa Mike insisted that the REAL intent of the law was fairness.

In contract law, Papa Mike, which is what the hell this is, the real intent of the law is to follow the Uniform Commercial Code.  

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, AZChristian said:

So how would it be fair TO THE DEFENDANT if a written contract that says "AS IS" in large letters means nothing and that the person who signed the contract can just get her money back as if the contract didn't exist?

If you cry and your neck gets red enough, the contract you signed can be voided?

I watched the rest and it just kept getting worse.

I find it hard to believe none of the judges heard P's witness, whoever this person was, say she was talking to def for WEEKS. Shhh... the story is supposed to be that she heard about the suicide, hung up the phone, hysterically searched for a 15-year-old car with factory rims, found this one and ran out directly to the airport in a fugue state? The used car dealer should be a therapist as well, and ascertain that this great big middle-aged woman who says she knows so much about cars actually knew what she was doing. Gee, when I go to buy a car the dealers don't seem to give a shit about my mental state. Oh, well. Maybe I'll cry next time.

BUT the judges discussing it?

7 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Papa's definition of "fairness" apparently is applied only to females.  He's an embarrassment.

I think JA may have actually sighed and rolled her eyes when Papa argued for the poor, little, innocent lady, saying that even though the def offered to pay 1800$ towards fixing the AS IS heap (when he was obliged to pay not one penny) Def actually expected her to take the CAR BACK TO HIM to get free stuff done!! How dare he? Papa seemed to find something outrageous about that. OH, god forbid.

JA was mentally gritting her teeth as she asked him if he thinks that not only should Def pay to fix the car for the poor, deceived little lady, but he should get on a plane and go to her place to get it? WTF? It's Papa Mike's final "Jump the Shark" moment. JDiM seemed to be inclined to give her 1K, but it didn't take much for JA to persuade her against giving her anything, which was the right decision.

Should there be a new law that "As is" applies only to people who have taken a competency test before purchase? If you're a female of any age and have a hard luck story with tears, it should not apply? In Papa's world that's how it would work it seems. 

[Guest]

Another day...another hooptie case.  This one, though was a bit different because of the language interpreter.  

I don’t know.  I’m getting bored with people buying a car for two grand then expecting a deluxe model right off the showroom floor.  Two grand is nothing to sneeze at but do these litigants have any idea what a new car costs?  How about one that is not new but runs nicely?  You’re still talking at least ten grand.

If I saved six thousand dollars, rather than spend a good chunk of it on a hooptie sans air conditioning - I’d take a bus or Uber, save a bit more and buy one of those pre-owned cars with low mileage and a really good engine.  And if I couldn’t find one, I’d still save my money until I did.

I don’t know if this falls under the category of impulse buying, uniformed consumer, idiot or all of the above but it seems no one wants a savings account (let me clarify this....no one wants a savings account where they’d have to sacrifice, if sickly Auntie has a savings account, hell, let’s all get in on that!!).  Fewer problems for these litigants but if they had fewer problems, they’d have less drama.  

When I got my first job out of college I squirreled away $10 every paycheck.  When I got a raise, I’d squirrel away a little more.  That went in my savings account and I have been doing that with every job I’ve had ever since I was a young pup.  I have a little nest egg but not because I fleeced my Auntie out of her cancer medication money but because I saved it.  And I’m doggone proud of it too.

I need to write a book.  The problem is the people that should read it....are broke and wouldn’t spring for a copy.

[DoctorK]

3 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

the people that should read it....are broke and wouldn’t spring for a copy.

Nope, they will shoplift it. Not that they will learn anything from it.

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

If I saved six thousand dollars, rather than spend a good chunk of it on a hooptie sans air conditioning - I’d take a bus or Uber, save a bit more and buy one of those pre-owned cars with low mileage and a really good engine.  And if I couldn’t find one, I’d still save my money until I did.

😆You'd save your money until...haha! You'd probably open a bank account too and get receipts 'n shit like that! Reliable little car with low mileage? You'll never get a show-off Lexus or a BMW that way! Oh, stop. You're killing me!😂

Personally, I'd rather buy a 21-year-old, 700$ Bonneville with 189,000 miles from some other shady character, pay 100$ down from the stash in my sock drawer and get rent-to-own rims (which will preclude me from paying for insurance). When the thing breaks down the next day, I'll refuse to pay the balance and invoke the Lemon Law while I squirt tears to Judge Corriero. THAT is how you buy a car in CourtLand.

[Carolina Girl]

14 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Another day...another hooptie case.  This one, though was a bit different because of the language interpreter.  

I don’t know.  I’m getting bored with people buying a car for two grand then expecting a deluxe model right off the showroom floor.  Two grand is nothing to sneeze at but do these litigants have any idea what a new car costs?  How about one that is not new but runs nicely?  You’re still talking at least ten grand.

If I saved six thousand dollars, rather than spend a good chunk of it on a hooptie sans air conditioning - I’d take a bus or Uber, save a bit more and buy one of those pre-owned cars with low mileage and a really good engine.  And if I couldn’t find one, I’d still save my money until I did.

I don’t know if this falls under the category of impulse buying, uniformed consumer, idiot or all of the above but it seems no one wants a savings account (let me clarify this....no one wants a savings account where they’d have to sacrifice, if sickly Auntie has a savings account, hell, let’s all get in on that!!).  Fewer problems for these litigants but if they had fewer problems, they’d have less drama.  

When I got my first job out of college I squirreled away $10 every paycheck.  When I got a raise, I’d squirrel away a little more.  That went in my savings account and I have been doing that with every job I’ve had ever since I was a young pup.  I have a little nest egg but not because I fleeced my Auntie out of her cancer medication money but because I saved it.  And I’m doggone proud of it too.

I need to write a book.  The problem is the people that should read it....are broke and wouldn’t spring for a copy.

If you are spending less than $3000 for a used car, and you are not bringing someone with working knowledge of auto mechanics with you to inspect the engine, check the dash electronics and above all, be an active participant in the test drive, you are a fool.  They will know what to look for, know what to listen for, and most of all have a better handle on how the car behaves when running.  They will also check the fluids. Heck, in the long run, It's worth throwing a mechanic at your local garage $50 to come with you for an hour to take a look a it.  

My friend bought her car from Carmax and dropped by the collision center down the street and asked one of the mechanics on the premises if they'd come with her after he got off work and he was happy to pocket the $50 to check out the car she wanted.  Carmax (at least the one in my town) will HOLD the car for you once you've selected it and let you bring a mechanic by to give it the once over and test drive.  Mechanic said it was the easiest $50 he ever made, the car was in great shape and everyone left happy.

[AngelaHunter]

26 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

It's worth throwing a mechanic at your local garage $50 to come with you for an hour to take a look a it.  

I doubt you'd get a mechanic to accompany you to the parking lot of Walmart at midnight, where some prefer to conduct veehickle transactions.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

😆You'd save your money until...haha! You'd probably open a bank account too and get receipts 'n shit like that! Reliable little car with low mileage? You'll never get a show-off Lexus or a BMW that way! Oh, stop. You're killing me!😂

 

You all are on a roll today.  Nope.  No BMW or Lexus.  Although I know in terms of status among the litigation crowd I’d be an outcast.  I drive a pre-owned jeep from a dealer we’ve known since moving to Boston.  We’ve never had an issue they (or a warranty) wouldn’t fix and if the issue didn’t fall into those categories my husband and I pay for it.   We’re stupid like that.  

For today’s cases in the first half hour I’ve got nothing.  Except Judge Acker was rocking some bright, shiny blue eye shadow.  No joke - when I got a gander of her eye makeup I was immediately propelled back to jr. high and the notion that baby blue eye shadow on dark chocolate brown eyes was a major “fashion statement”.    

Fun memories now that I’m much older.  See, tv court shows are good for something.  

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

No joke - when I got a gander of her eye makeup I was immediately propelled back to jr. high

Me too! Seriously, gobs of blue eyeshadow was stylish when I was 16 or so, and that was... umm...a few years ago. Maybe a little longer. Who the hell told her that looked good? But maybe it's part of this "retro" thing?

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Me too! Seriously, gobs of blue eyeshadow was stylish when I was 16 or so, and that was... umm...a few years ago. Maybe a little longer. Who the hell told her that looked good? But maybe it's part of this "retro" thing?

It could be but I’ll pass this time around.

When you are my age, less is more.  Waaay more.  

[Carolina Girl]

7 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I doubt you'd get a mechanic to accompany you to the parking lot of Walmart at midnight, where some prefer to conduct veehickle transactions.

Yes, I can see where that might be an impediment......

[Guest]

Today’s train wreck.

Watching the distraught Plaintiff with her two chihuahuas trying to get some cash out of the ditzy, unfocused defendant was trying.

Anyway, for those of you who sat through it, I am hoping you can clarify something the defendant said.  She clearly stated that she had to put her dog down after this encounter with the plaintiff and he died just like her father.  (???)

Then, again she states that her dog and father died the same way.  From what I gathered the dog was euthanized by animal control.  What did that have to do with her dad?

Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think so.  I was also amazed at the defendant resting her breasts on the table.  I’m surprised Judge Acker didn’t stop that immediately.

And I have a bit of knowledge about therapy dogs vs. emotional support dogs (not the same) and never have I heard of training taking place on a driveway, with a six year old without a certified trainer.  The defendant said she wasn’t certified.

I disagree.

 

 

 

[Florinaldo]

37 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Then, again she states that her dog and father died the same way.  From what I gathered the dog was euthanized by animal control.  What did that have to do with her dad?

I believe she said "the same week".

Unless it was all an act, defendant came across as a real neurotic, barely functional in normal society. Plaintiffs seemed like vindictive and hateful people. Their dog certainly was hurt but they were really pushing it; at one point JA even told them to stop trying to pile it on. I suspect they may have pressured authorities or the defendant to have the dog put down because it committed the unforgivable offense of biting their precious pooch.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I believe she said "the same week".

Unless it was all an act, defendant came across as a real neurotic, barely functional in normal society. 

Thank you.  That certainly makes sense.  It was hard to understand her through the hysterics, tears and hyperventilating.  

She needs help.  I hope she gets the proper care.  

[AngelaHunter]

I guess they're running short of cases here. I just watched another "as is" car sale where annoying girl and her daddy want all the money back for a 14-year-old car bought for girl for 3500$. She says she spent her "life savings" on it and well, yeah, student loans. She went to Def's house with Daddy and boyfriend. They looked at the car, took it for a test drive and Def told her it had a problem with the a/c and cooling system, but they liked the car and bought it.

P says she didn't drive the car because she has no license, so others drove it, including daddy and sister. Car conks out a few days later according to P and 3 weeks later according to defs. Did boyfriend go hot-rodding in it or did sister drive it like a maniac? Who knows? Of course, girl and daddy think they are entitled to all the money back. The judges want to know if they finally had it checked out and how much to fix (not sure why that's relevant on this old as-is car). Daughter says, why yes - they had some "street mechanic" look at it but of course, he doesn't give written estimates.

Defs offer to give back 500$ even though they didn't have to, but that wasn't enough for P and Daddy. They want all the money. Defs withdraw that offer after gangster-sounding P's auntie sends threatening texts to Defs, saying this matter can be settled in other ways, like outside of their house.

In the deliberations, JDiM and Papa waffle, saying maybe they can hold def to his 500$ offer or maybe 300$. JA is adamant that the P's get nothing on this as-is sale of this old car. The other two must agree finally and the plaintiffs get nothing, which is what they deserved.  They should have taken the 500$ and shut their mouths.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

The other two must agree finally and the plaintiffs get nothing, which is what they deserved.  They should have taken the 500$ and shut their mouths.

It's a phenomenon I have seen at work in grievance and mediation proceedings. People hang on to the most infinitesimal possibility that they "might get more" if a third-party arbitrator ultimately decides, instead of taking an offer that would give them at least partial compensation.

In the end they most often lose on every aspect and end up with no compensation at all,  because once you pass on a offer, it is off the table, as if it never existed.

Although in this instance, if the amount of the award kitty litigants get to share is the assumed 5 k$, plaintiffs came out ahead as a result of simply agreeing to come on the show.

Edited April 18, 2021 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

24 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Although in this instance, if the amount of the award kitty litigants get to share is the assumed 5 k$, plaintiffs came out ahead as a result of simply agreeing to come on the show.

Yes, it's annoying and even more annoying when scamming litigants get to keep all the money they wrongfully obtained or withheld, but without the awards from the show I don't think anyone would agree to appear here - well, other than those who think it might help their business, their "influencer" status or think they might get a reality show out of it.

The girl plaintiff in this case knew exactly what "as is" means and defined it accruately when JDiM asked her to, but she just didn't think it applied to her, as she and her beater are special.

[AngelaHunter]

Very tolerant landlord suing weed-smoking tenant for unpaid rent: Landlord doesn't own the house, but sublets rooms in it. Def works at a cannabis dispensary and just loves toking up, all the time. Landlord and another tenant have high-security jobs that require drug testing and don't want to reek of weed on their jobs. Def says that when she moved in, she declared to the other tenants that she smokes a lot of weed, as though her drug addiction is some kind of disability or necessity they all need to accept and be tolerant.

Def just has to smoke weed all the time. She says she didn't smoke inside the premises but out on the patio. The other tenants still squawked as they had to rush to shut their windows as her weed smoke wafted inside their rooms. She says she then started smoking her weed in her car, but of course that meant her clothes and hair "reeked" when she went into the house. It's normal! Then she stops paying rent with the COVID excuse. I guess she gets her weed free at the dispensary, because she never had to cut down on her intake. It looks like her weed "munchies" aren't doing her any favours and I'm thinking the weed dispensary better check the inventory, with her as an employee.

Mary Jane has to pay the back rent.

[AngelaHunter]

I guess I'm the only one watching this, but it was interesting yesterday when we learn that "as is" is indeed fluid and subjective to these judges.

It seems if you are a SSM (and we rarely see any other kind on these shows) who buys a 15-year-old Saturn - expecting perfect condition -  for your sainted daughter to get to college (I hope she emerges speaking better English than mom) then "as is" is not really "as is".

Saintly SM buys this old car from nerdy def, who inherited it from his daddy. Daddy had bought the car new and def says it always ran fine. The judges tear him apart, demanding evidence he'd had a inspection done (he had but not recently enough for them) and results of smog test. Def says car was registered, and it seems he couldn't have done that without having it inspected and smogged. I don't know much about that stuff but not sure why it's relevant in an "Old car - as is" case.

Car conks out without warning, as ancient cars are prone to do, and this is no BMW so SSM, who didn't bother getting the car checked out before buying it, wants back all the money she spent trying to get the thing running. The judges fawn over her and congratulate her for not trying to scam a bundle for emotional distress, pain&suffering, and all the crap. Doing what you are supposed to do is reason for congratulations? I guess so.

Anyway, they decide that this poor little SSM deserves at least 500$ back. I have no idea why but I think had P been some big guy covered with tats he may have been told "AS IS"!

[Guest]

On 4/24/2021 at 7:21 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I guess I'm the only one watching this, but it was interesting yesterday when we learn that "as is" is indeed fluid and subjective to these judges.

It seems if you are a SSM (and we rarely see any other kind on these shows) who buys a 15-year-old Saturn - expecting perfect condition -  for your sainted daughter to get to college (I hope she emerges speaking better English than mom) then "as is" is not really "as is".

Saintly SM buys this old car from nerdy def, who inherited it from his daddy. Daddy had bought the car new and def says it always ran fine. The judges tear him apart, demanding evidence he'd had a inspection done (he had but not recently enough for them) and results of smog test. Def says car was registered, and it seems he couldn't have done that without having it inspected and smogged. I don't know much about that stuff but not sure why it's relevant in an "Old car - as is" case.

Car conks out without warning, as ancient cars are prone to do, and this is no BMW so SSM, who didn't bother getting the car checked out before buying it, wants back all the money she spent trying to get the thing running. The judges fawn over her and congratulate her for not trying to scam a bundle for emotional distress, pain&suffering, and all the crap. Doing what you are supposed to do is reason for congratulations? I guess so.

Anyway, they decide that this poor little SSM deserves at least 500$ back. I have no idea why but I think had P been some big guy covered with tats he may have been told "AS IS"!

So that’s what all the hubbub was...I had it on but we had a staff meeting and there’s only so many time you can excuse yourself to hit the restroom.   The ratings for that episode was 1 (AngelaHunter) and a half (me). 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

So that’s what all the hubbub was...I had it on but we had a staff meeting and there’s only so many time you can excuse yourself to hit the restroom.   The ratings for that episode was 1 (AngelaHunter) and a half (me). 
 

 

 

Okay, I am not enjoying these new notifications. I just got a near full-screen portrait of Levin's clown face lunging at me. It made me gasp and recoil with the horror of it. There's no way to close it either, so I just had to wait until it faded away on it's own.😱

[Guest]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, I am not enjoying these new notifications. I just got a near full-screen portrait of Levin's clown face lunging at me. It made me gasp and recoil with the horror of it. There's no way to close it either, so I just had to wait until it faded away on it's own.😱

A thousand apologies.  

It’s frightening in its postage stamp size, I shudder to think the impact of his droopy mug on a large basis.

I need to change it.  It served its purpose for a good laugh but now with this site acting strangely I am fearful of the damage it could do.  Lawsuits and all that.  I do have insurance but not sure I have the Harvey Levin scared-me-to-death clause.  If there was one, I’m sure it would be a fortune.

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I need to change it.

I'm so torn about this. On one hand I was so flattered when you chose my Levin portrait as your avatar and in that capacity it's merely goofy and amusing. On the other hand, an 8 x10"glossy appearing  on my screen (which is 23")unexpectedly and with a near-audible "boingggg" is the stuff of horror movie jump-scares. 

26 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

  I do have insurance but not sure I have the Harvey Levin scared-me-to-death clause.

I think you need to "work on that" and start "building up to it". If you're not sure how to do that just ask a litigant.

OR you can do nothing and one of us can sue you on TPC. I wonder what idiotic title Levin would conjure up for that. Maybe he can just alter one he used the other day to something like, "It's the case of Ugh! Ugh! Ugh! She's scared of my mug!"

[DoctorK]

Oh my goodness, I usually wait until the show is over before posting, but the defendant in the first case is so baked that he literally cannot put together a complete coherent sentence, just random strings of "like", "you know", "um", etc. This guy tries to argue that he is fine and perfectly OK, and falls flat on his face (figuratively, but he was literally nodding out during the case). Someone needs to use this guy in an anti-drug PSA. Corriero hasn't chimed in yet so we will see if he finds some flimsy basis to sympathize with the defendant. I don't think I have ever seen a litigant on any of the court shows as messed up as this jerk.

Edited May 3, 2021 by DoctorK
spelling

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

t the defendant in the first case is so baked that he literally cannot put together a complete coherent sentence, just random strings of "like", "you know", "um", etc.

Yikes. I'll catch that tonight. I just watched the big, beastly def who exited a parking lot and slammed into P who was driving on the street and had the right of way. But D was on an errand of mercy, getting medicine for her brother! She never lies! JDiM informed her that whenever anyone says that, she automatically assumes they are liars. The brute insists that P hit HER. Sure. Anyway, wouldn't you know it? D's insurance expired that very day. We've never heard that before. P says after the accident the D was being so aggressive she became fearful and got back into her car. I would have been afraid too. She wants the damage paid for and she gets it - over 3K.

Then we get def. 'George', who proclaims that L.A. did one heck of a job producing someone as awesome as he. He smart-mouths all of the judges, even referring to Papa Mike as "My man on the side here..." Even Papa gets a little steamed over that, informing this asshole who stiffed a friend and slithered out on the sly of the apartment they shared, "I'm NOT 'your man on the side'"!" Nothing any of the judges said could shame or chastise this egotistical little jerk, who says he was psychologically damaged by P. 5K for the plaintiff.  In the deliberations, the other two feel sorry for Papa being so disrespected by such a little nothing and tell him he's their "main man"!😄 Papa beams.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

On 4/27/2021 at 6:58 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, I am not enjoying these new notifications. I just got a near full-screen portrait of Levin's clown face lunging at me. It made me gasp and recoil with the horror of it. There's no way to close it either, so I just had to wait until it faded away on it's own.😱

Uh oh, now I'm concerned you're going to sue the site for emotional distress based in seeing a large Levin. 😬

[AngelaHunter]

Finally got to watch the "so, like..." case. I guess his parents must be taking care of him because he has no desire to get a job and support himself. The best exchange of the case was between him and JA when she asked him to present his defense.

JA: "Now is your time."

Def: "Yeaaah...so....basically I mean, like...ahh...so, like..."

JA: "All right. Thank you."

😄

Honourable mention to JDiM after yet another of his "Yeah...yeah...yeah..." replies:
"You sound like the Beatles!"

4 minutes ago, PrincessPurrsALot said:

Uh oh, now I'm concerned you're going to sue the site for emotional distress based in seeing a large Levin. 😬

I should. Coming eye-to-eye with ol' Droopy Dawg has left me traumatized and emotionally distressed.

[Carolina Girl]

On 5/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, AngelaHunter said:

D's insurance expired that very day.

First thing one of the judge's should have asked her for is proof that she had insurance prior to that day.  Should have been able to produce an insurance card or a policy statemen.  If I'm going to court and argue that flimsy defense, I'd better be ready to back it up  I'm willing to bet she didn't have insurance.  Considering the way she drives and her moronic insistence that she was in the right, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say she's been in multiple accidents and either has had her license yanked or her monthly insurance bill looks like a mortgage payment

 

On 5/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, AngelaHunter said:

apa gets a little steamed over that, informing this asshole who stiffed a friend and slithered out on the sly of the apartment they shared, "I'm NOT 'your man on the side'"!"

My guess is that pathetic little putz thought it was his big TV moment.  What can you do?  Attention whores gonna attention whore.

I loved how he said he's a "Wall Street Investor" (and who apparently moonlights as some sort of music shop/studio manager).  I seriously doubt he could find Wall Street with a map with green arrows painted on the sidewalk.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

I loved how he said he's a "Wall Street Investor"

Yeah. I bet he buys a few shares of junky stocks using the "RobinHood" app after getting his financial advice from Reddit. 😄 I guess you could call yourself a "Wall Street Investor".

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

My guess is that pathetic little putz thought it was his big TV moment.  What can you do?  Attention whores gonna attention whore.

I loved how he said he's a "Wall Street Investor" (and who apparently moonlights as some sort of music shop/studio manager).  I seriously doubt he could find Wall Street with a map with green arrows painted on the sidewalk.

“Wall Street Investor”.  Yeah, right.  Want to bet he invests his savings all the while sitting in his nana’s basement, in front of the computer monitor sans a pair of pants.

Quick side note...the Carolina Girl’s comment that he’s a pathetic little putz brought something to mind.  This weekend we took a quick ride out to Lake Placid, NY.  We’ve never been and my husband had a quick meeting in the area Monday morning so we stayed over Saturday and Sunday night.

Anyway, we went to a barbecue restaurant on the Main Street Sunday night, fairly quiet but as we sat there I looked around and mentioned to my husband that it was nice to be in a restaurant without people clamoring to be noticed with loud, obnoxious or even crude language.  People dressed for a Sunday night (no visible chest tats, women wore bras, jewelry was tasteful, etc., etc.)  It was almost a throwback to the 60’s when people dressed for dinner especially in a restaurant.  

It’s crazy how behavior that once was deemed unacceptable is the norm.  I would never make a comment to a sitting judge (tv or no) that would presume familiarity.  And it’s also strange how normal, civilized behavior is now almost “show stopping” in its rarity.

Such a startling experience I am still talking about it.

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by PsychoKlown

[Carolina Girl]

15 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

 It was almost a throwback to the 60’s when people dressed for dinner especially in a restaurant.  

One of the reasons I love "Mrs. Maisel" is the wonderful way people dressed during the period (although one of us could match Midge's standards).  Even when I was in high school, 1971, you would still dress nicely to fly on a plane, go shopping (even the grocery store).  One of my friends, upon seeing an extremely overweight woman wearing a spaghetti strap tank and a sporting a 5-inch muffin top, rolled her eyes and said.  "Welcome to the slob-ification of America."

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/5/2021 at 10:46 AM, Carolina Girl said:

One of my friends, upon seeing an extremely overweight woman wearing a spaghetti strap tank and a sporting a 5-inch muffin top

I think I saw her on one of these court shows, maybe JJ. Just look at the way some litigants come dressed to court. Even though it's not a real court, T-shirts that say "Beer is Fun", plunging necklines revealing unfettered droopers, ripped-up jeans, flip flops, skirts so short that large butt cheeks are all but bared, and shorts are not appropriate.

I guess they really don't know any better.

[Florinaldo]

The plaintiff who dated an employee was quite the arrogant bastard.

He said he went on the workplace harassment training that is mandatory in their place of work. If he did, he did not pay much attention because his words and actions contradicted everything that is taught in such workshops. Strating with "never establish an intimate relationship with someone you are supervising", a basic principle.

Or perhaps he followed exactly what was said during that course, in which case the company should immediately fire the incompetent provider. Unless the company shares the sentiments he expressed.

HR procedures seem rather lax in that business. He should never have been allowed to oversee an investigation, carried out by his assistant, on actions targeting him and involving someone he used to date. The decision to fire her should not have been his. He was described as an "operations associate", which does not tell us much as to his exact position (and power) in the company.

He tried to look cute and demure by replying "a gentleman never discusses his age", but I think that was mostly to avoid exposing the fact he was nearly twice her age.

His statement "I don't fire people, they fire themselves" sounds like one of those empty and useless bromides too many professional motivators deliver during training sessions for managers.

I credit the judges with resisting the very natural urge to slap the irritating permanent smile off his face.

[AngelaHunter]

JA today was so rightfully outraged, so incensed at the behavior and attitude of the two low-life, knuckle-dragging POS defs in the car accident case I thought she was going to stroke out. She was loaded for bear before the case even started.

Def was driving to work. If you're driving to work, it's okay if you have no license and no insurance, right? Anyway, this a single-lane residential street and the P was going to make a left turn at the corner in his rental car. Def, who is going about 60mph in a 35mph zone (according to plaintiff) can't possibly stop when P does so decides to veer around him on his left and smashes P's car to bits.

Def informs the judges that it's P's fault because you're supposed to put your turn signal on 100 yards from your turn. This, from a grown man who can't have or keep a license.

Def expects kudos because he informs JA that "I finna wasn't goin' to stop", but he did because he's just a Good Samaritan and was terribly worried that maybe P had a baby in the car. His slack-jawed g/f actually owned the car and because the insurance company screwed up big time, they gave her a 14,000$ credit to go buy a new car at Kia(!!) She has no license either. She doesn't drive (I'm not surprised as she seemed to have trouble keeping her eyes open here) but only lets her dumbass unlicensed b/f drive.

P is on the hook for 9K in damages to the rental car, plus some medical bills (well, chiropractor bills, but whatever)but def's insurance company gave him nothing, due to the expired insurance and unlicensed driving, for which the same company rewarded those two cretins.

The judges finish their questioning but JA has a few more things to say to the creep Defs. Smart-mouthed, stupid asshole starts sassing her and blabbering dumb gibberish over her so she throws him out, with extreme prejudice and much gavel-banging. 😄 Stupid g/f,  wearing some sort of stocking on her head declares, "I'm staying." Oh, no you're not, JA informs her before tossing her useless ass out as well.

The judges are disgusted that P, who follows the law and did everything right gets shafted this way, while Defs get enriched. Too bad they could only give him 5K.

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

He tried to look cute and demure by replying "a gentleman never discusses his age", but I think that was mostly to avoid exposing the fact he was nearly twice her age.

Just saw this. Yes, he was some primo catch. A 46-year-old man who needs a 26-year-old waitress to put her name to a lease for him, because he is unable to do so himself and then tells the def "Everyone is laughing at you for being fired. LOL!" An impressive specimen of manhood, to be sure. As JDiM said, "Pathetic!"

8 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I credit the judges with resisting the very natural urge to slap the irritating permanent smile off his face.

It was difficult to tell which one hated him the most.

[Florinaldo]

In the car accident case, I was impressed by how the plaintiff has kept a pleasant and sunny attitude, even after having to deal with such lying scum as the two defendants. No trace of the hostility or bitterness we often see in these cases, where the relationship has deteriorated over the previous months or weeks. The furthest he went was saying "you see what I have been dealing with!" when they trhew the two lowlives out, but still smiling and being cheerful.

[DoctorK]

Today’s Mercedes lug nut case was a complete mess. None of the judges seem to have ever changed a tire, knew nothing about torque, think that a manual torque wrench is an exotic magical piece of equipment.

Starting with the defendant’s side, my experience has been that even when I specify the torque for my lug nuts ( 75 foot-pounds) they usually over-tighten them, mostly because the “techs” use an air wrench which actually has a torque setting but they never use it, just leave it set to the maximum torque. After I get home I always loosen all of the lug nuts and re-torque them with a simple torque wrench. The defendant made a good point (that worked against him in my opinion) that over-torquing the lug nuts (or lug bolts depending on the car) does damage the threads and can cause the bolts or studs to eventually shear off. If you hear the metal squawk when you loosen the nuts, they were over torqued. I think it is most likely that the defendant’s guy in the shop did over tighten them and this is especially bad if they use an impact wrench to tighten them. You may want an impact to loosen over tightened nuts, but it usually just takes a two or three foot breaker bar which every shop has.

The plaintiff also was shaky on a lot of items also. I don’t believe that the shop on the trip that said they couldn’t free up the nuts (see above about a breaker bar). She was overly dramatic (hallterview: we were stuck in a place in the mountains where people get murdered), and also looking to double dip for expenses that she had already been reimbursed for.

Finally, Corriero remains a complete idiot. After the defendant clearly explained how over tightening the lug nuts/bolts damages the threaded parts of the wheel mounting (which worked against his case in my mind), Corriero blathered about being able to see the thread damage (which is completely out of sight) by looking at the tire. I miss Backman (spelling?); he at least had some real world knowledge.

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

In the car accident case, I was impressed by how the plaintiff has kept a pleasant and sunny attitude, even after having to deal with such lying scum as the two defendants. No trace of the hostility or bitterness we often see in these cases,

I admit I would be bitter and hostile if I were left in such debt because of these brain-dead wastes of oxygen who have never had to pay one dime for the damage they did and instead got a new car out of it. It's enough to make one's head explode at the injustice.

[patty1h]

I actually had a little interest in today's case "Hair Weaving Rivals". due to the racy promo I'd seen the day before. The plaintiff explained that he was braiding a guys hair and he took his shirt off and **"I let him do what he had to do", then the braidee's girlfriend came into the room.  Scandalous, right! This statement made it sound like something X-rated went on, and I was stoked to hear the sordid details.

The editing gremlins got me again.  Imagine the letdown when during the actual episode, this statement was completely innocent - a shirt was taken off during a braiding session and no one did anything sexual at all.  When will I ever learn?

**I'm going off memory of the exact words of the plaintiff, but that's the gist of the statement

Edited May 14, 2021 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/3/2021 at 10:09 PM, PrincessPurrsALot said:

Uh oh, now I'm concerned you're going to sue the site for emotional distress based in seeing a large Levin. 😬

Kept meaning to mention this, but thank you for changing the notifications back! I don't know know how many more near-life sized Levin Jack in the boxes I could have borne.

[patty1h]

May sweeps brings in more sordid, crazy cases today.   The first one involved a plaintiff who was so drunk that she fell down stairs at a party, per her ex-friend, the defendant.   The plaintiff seemed a little drunk or buzzed to me while pleading her case -- she was blinking a lot and slurring.   Her case involved forwarding money out of her Venmo account to the defendant while in a drunk blackout, as she was nervous that phone scammers could steal it electronically.  She rambles on and then we learn of her getting into a fight at a house party after being invited to join a threesome.  Okay. 

The defendant is a flake who decided that since the plaintiff didn't ask for the money back within a reasonable timeframe and, then made her angry, she gets to keep it.  I agreed with JDiM - they both seemed off and I wanted to smack some sense into them.

Second case was two loonies too - roommates who couldn't get along due to different religious and cleanliness beliefs.  I just shook my head as these grown women talked about whether witchcraft and black magic was being used to hide remotes and mess up Powerpoint documents.  Yeesh.

Edited May 17, 2021 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/17/2021 at 3:12 PM, patty1h said:

I just shook my head as these grown women talked about whether witchcraft and black magic was being used to hide remotes and mess up Powerpoint documents.  Yeesh.

Def works in special education. She has zero self-control and had to be warned by DiM and even Papa and finally severely admonished by JA to stop interrupting and states in the hall, as though it's a perfectly normal thing to think, that maybe P was into witchcraft for all she knew. One never knows! She's really given access to these students to influence young minds? She also drove a previous roommate out with her craziness and obsessions. I wouldn't want to live with someone who puts a baseball bat in readiness for my mother's visit. Well, I guess P's mom could be a witch, too.

P is an adult student and professional who says "Had came" and "had ate." Sigh...

Edited May 18, 2021 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

My my, the plaintiff today Destiny Quarles (appropriately named) was some piece of work.  

Custom prom gowns, and visions.  Honest to Pete, I thought for one second that a lavender tressed member of royalty graced the courtroom.

This is where I’m supposed to interject that my prom gown was an old bridesmaid gown I had for my sister’s wedding.  “Getting use out of it” and all that.  And if I recall correctly the gown cost around $79.  

One other thing... Miss Quarles seems to have put her visions of fashion on a shelf while posting pictures on her facebook page.  All I see are ripped jeans and poses exposing her butt cheeks.

Miss Quarles really should have worn the dress the designer made for her.  It was beautiful.  

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

My my, the plaintiff today Destiny Quarles (appropriately named) was some piece of work.  

Have we yet reached the pinnacle of high school madness, where we have "Designer to the Celebs" making dresses for girls who managed the noteworthy and incredible feat (at age 18) of getting out high school? I wonder if this girl put as much effort into her school work as she does into her massive false eyelashes, makeup, and over-the-top lavender wig? It appears that Mom has molded her in her own image. I completely believe the def. that these two harpies were screeching and creating such a scene that security had to usher them out. The gown was gorgeous, for Oscar night. I know designer gowns, limos and red carpets are now common practice for high school kids whose moms - never any dads -  try to outdo each other, but I just can't used to it. A curmudgeon I remain.

7 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

This is where I’m supposed to interject that my prom gown was an old bridesmaid gown I had for my sister’s wedding.  “Getting use out of it” and all that.  And if I recall correctly the gown cost around $79.  

79$? Pretty damned fancy. I won't say what I wore to my high school grad dance.

[DoctorK]

7 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Miss Quarles really should have worn the dress the designer made for her.  It was beautiful.  

I agree, it looked very nice and well done to me. However, I believe that camo goes with everything so maybe my taste is subject to question.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

79$? Pretty damned fancy. I won't say what I wore to my high school grad dance.

LOL!!!!

To be fair, the $79 price tag included a parasol, wide brimmed hat and crinoline. 

And please let it be noted that I did not sashay into the prom with said parasol, wide brimmed hat or the crinoline but I did wear a mean wrist corsage.

Can you imagine fashionista Destiny wearing an old bridesmaid dress to the prom?  

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

To be fair, the $79 price tag included a parasol, wide brimmed hat and crinoline. 

Did you go as Scarlett O'Hara? 😆

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

And please let it be noted that I did not sashay into the prom with said parasol, wide brimmed hat or the crinoline but I did wear a mean wrist corsage.

Without pics to the contrary, I will assume you did so.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Can you imagine fashionista Destiny wearing an old bridesmaid dress to the prom?  

Second-hand dress? Even new and off the rack - no matter  how expensive - isn't good enough for Ms. Destiny. Oh, the horror!