Hot Bench - General Discussion

[ElleMo]

3 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

 Oh, lest I forget - defendant says that he didn't call police immediately after the "carjacking" because his wallet was still in the car and the plaintiff is a known gang member who will no doubt retaliate.  When asked, Plaintiff says he's never seen the defendant before in his life.  

Isn't that the way of gangs now?  Instead of a beat down, they take people to court on national TV.  I hope the defendant's friends all watched this and will be mocking him for years to come.

 

3 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

They seem to be getting some seriously interesting cases lately - way beyond the rent fights and you owe me for a cell phone.  

I agree.  Right now I am enjoy this much more than the other court shows that I have seen.  I also like hearing the disagreements among the three of them.  Sometimes it is clear they are disagreeing just for some drama but other times it is interesting. 

[Eliza422]

This show had really come into its own. It has had some very interesting cases (like the car case).

[Carolina Girl]

9 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Isn't that the way of gangs now?  Instead of a beat down, they take people to court on national TV.  I hope the defendant's friends all watched this and will be mocking him for years to come.

 

I agree.  Right now I am enjoy this much more than the other court shows that I have seen.  I also like hearing the disagreements among the three of them.  Sometimes it is clear they are disagreeing just for some drama but other times it is interesting. 

I totally agree.  I find myself fast-forwarding through cases on Judge Judy and People's Court (if not deleting the episode altogether) but usually watch Hot Bench straight through.   

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Wow this one just begs to be commented on. According to the intro, plaintiff is in court looking for 5k because her '97 Toyota was stolen from her friend of 20 years, the defendant, while he tried to get the POS running. He replaces her 19yo junker, but the replacement doesn't meet her high standards, so she's suing for the car ($1500) the insurance and registration on the stolen car ($706) missed work ($1000) and, let's not forget, $1794 in pain and suffering. What a friend!?! I can only hope she's actually suing to get on tv, I'd hate to think she actually believes she has a case. According to Sonja and her KBB, the replacement car was worth $1900, 1k more than the stolen car ($900). Not so fast, defendant admits he paid over a thousand less than KBB, and if plaintiff is telling the truth the seats aren't even bolted in, and the thing is not working. Once plaintiff realizes there's no way the judge's are going to award her 5k she makes an impassioned plea that all she really wants is for her long time friend to give he a safe functional vehicle. Easy case to decide he owes her for losing her car, but the argument in chambers is whether or not plaintiff was made whole when defendant gave her the replacement. I say no, irregardless if the replacement is worth more or even working, defendant still has title, so he owns the replacement which plaintiff has but doesn't want. In a split decision, he gets back the replacement, but has to pay the plaintiff the $875 KBB says the missing car is worth.

SECOND CASE: Gandalf the Gray is suing because defendant up and stole his boat, which just happened to have quit running and had been beached for either several days or months. Defendant says he thought it had been abandoned, and as soon as he learned it belonged to the defendant he gave it back. Ah, but plaintiff claims all the valuable crap has been stolen out of the boat, so defendant needs to fork over money. Ah, but defendant runs into credibility problems as he's questioned, with DiMango telling him his understanding of the rules for salvaging boats is wrong, and Bakman just doesn't believe he waited 90 days before towing away the boat. Ah, but Gandalf really can't prove defendant took anything off the boat. Even according to his version, the boat sat for three days and any passerby could have taken his stuff. Ah, Gandalf, dude Bakman caught you piling on crap to raise the claim. Couple hundred dollars worth on police report the day it went missing turned into big bucks for the lawsuit. Ah well, case dismissed.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Ah, but defendant runs into credibility problems as he's questioned

Actually, he got busted pretty hard, admitting that he lied about when he saw the boat and when he tried to claim it.  Plaintiff was unreasonable but the defendant was lucky he didn't get charged with grand theft, in spite of the fact that he looked like Tom Cruise.

[SRTouch]

Ah, one of the better rerun  episodes!

FIRST CASE: mid 30s plaintiff suing her mid 20s aspiring minister bf over loans and car damage. Not much to say about the case, except this dude is a lousy liar. (Oh, and he brought his Mom to watch him lie.) The part to watch is the hallterview, where our future minister tells us, It's not really a lie unless you get caught. Huh, and this guy wants to be a spiritual counselor?

SECOND CASE: is a beaut. Plaintiff is a teenager who set up a website offering mowing services. As the judge's say, this is what we'd like all kids to be. He has a couple hitches in his business plan, though. As I understood his testimony, a customer gives him the address, he looks it up in the Internet and gives an estimate. As someone who did landscaping, I can tell you that idea could get him in trouble. You could have identical sized lots next door to each other, and one could end up taking twice as long. One could have a standard rectangular lawn, while the other could have all kinds of irregular shaped obstacles (flowerbeds, fish pond, trees, what have you) and end up taking twice as long to mow. Kid's biggest problem is he needs to learn to "get it in writting." Give a written estimate and have the customer sign the estimate. If the job changes, like with this customer, write out a new estimate and get it signed before doing the work. In this case the kid happened to run into a customer who tried to stiff the kid. I imagine defendant was surprised when he got sued, as a lot of kids would have just given up on ever getting paid. Ah, this defendant had a ridiculous story, which he might have gotten away with had the kid not come prepared. Claimed he paid for the only mowing he agreed to by leaving the cash under the doormat, but then told the kid not to come back. Kid said he never got that  money, and came to court with message from defendant, written a couple weeks after he claims he fired the kid, asking when he'd be back to mow again. Kid ended up mowing several times without getting paid... another lesson, get paid upon completion on first time mowing. Judges not happy with defendant's obvious lies in court and just about double what the kid asked for. The defendant couldn't care less, since the money isn't coming from his pocket, and he just ignores the judge's scorn.

[Zahdii]

Crud, I think I missed a good one!  I turned the channel just in time to hear a plaintiff berated by the judges for being a 'digital thug', dismiss her case, tell the defendant that he should turn to the police to get plaintiff prosecuted for her thuggary, and then award the defendant $5000 in his countersuit!  Whatever she did, the plaintiff apparently didn't learn her lesson, as she claimed in the halterview that she hadn't intended to hurt anyone and she felt like an 'A' student being paired with a 'D' student.  ???

[DoctorK]

Zahdi that was a good one. Basically the plaintiff took over the defendant's company web site, email accounts and apparently bank accounts, changed passwords to keep him out, and rerouted his web site address to cheaters.com. She claimed that he owed her money. This is the only time I remember any of the court shows accepting a claim of "signed under duress" without physical threats because of the way she was trying to extort money from him by essentially kidnapping his company identity.

[Carolina Girl]

13 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Zahdi that was a good one. Basically the plaintiff took over the defendant's company web site, email accounts and apparently bank accounts, changed passwords to keep him out, and rerouted his web site address to cheaters.com. She claimed that he owed her money. This is the only time I remember any of the court shows accepting a claim of "signed under duress" without physical threats because of the way she was trying to extort money from him by essentially kidnapping his company identity.

That plaintiff was indeed a cyber thug.  And yes, the defendant should bring a tape of the case to the local district attorney.  I have a feeling this isn't the first time this bitch has done this - she was very quick to avail herself of illegal remedies to get her way.  In a way, it's a shame the defendant didn't file his OWN suit in the superior court to recover his $15,000 plus whatever punitives a jury would give him.  

I have never seen the judges focus so laser-like on a litigant.  They seemed to just turn to the defendant for clarification on dates.   That "I didn't mean to hurt anyone" is so much BS - what of her actions did she think was NOT going to cause harm?

[SRTouch]

48 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

That plaintiff was indeed a cyber thug.  And yes, the defendant should bring a tape of the case to the local district attorney.  I have a feeling this isn't the first time this bitch has done this - she was very quick to avail herself of illegal remedies to get her way.  In a way, it's a shame the defendant didn't file his OWN suit in the superior court to recover his $15,000 plus whatever punitives a jury would give him.  

I have never seen the judges focus so laser-like on a litigant.  They seemed to just turn to the defendant for clarification on dates.   That "I didn't mean to hurt anyone" is so much BS - what of her actions did she think was NOT going to cause harm?

Yep, plaintiff was so positive she was in the right, yet the evidence she provided kept proving her wrong. Best example, her claim that despite her changing the passwords, he could have gotten the new password at any time... oh except for the fact that she, acting as the company CEO, sent an email instructing the account manager not to tell the defendant the password. In her mind, everything she did nothing wrong.

[Zahdii]

Did the plaintiff think the defendant owed her money for business or personal reasons?  I'm trying to figure out why she would send people who clicked on his website to cheaters.com. 

And yes, I agree that she might very well have done such things before.  I got my first computer in '91, got on the internet around '97, and I couldn't take over someone's website like that.  I suspect that that kind of knowledge requires experience and a total disregard of cyber manners.

Reminds me of a case I saw on another court TV show years ago where a woman didn't like the boyfriend of her best friend.  When her friend and the boyfriend got in a fight, she sent him a Happy Birthday ecard.  When the boyfriend clicked on the ecard, his computer went nuts, and a message popped up saying that he was a loser and all of his files were being erased.  The guy was a musician and kept all of his music and business stuff on the computer.  The guy disconnected his computer and took it to his computer shop to wipe the hard drive and reinstall all of his basic programs.  He lost everything, and computer crimes weren't really something that was prosecuted back then, so all he could do was take the woman to court for $5000. the maximum allowed.

The woman smirked and giggled all through the case, saying it was just a prank and if the guy had just restarted his computer he'd have found that nothing was really lost.  The woman's friend came to court and testified that the woman sent the ecard without her knowledge, and she was so upset that she made up with the guy and they were getting married, but the woman who sent the 'prank' was no longer her friend.  The computer vandal lost and the guy got the full amount allowed, $5000, but still didn't seem to think she'd done anything wrong.

[SRTouch]

Ah, the weird and crazy notions some people get when they sell a car. First, lady decides to buy a friend's car. She's smart enough to want a test drive and get it check by a mechsnic, but then her brain stops working. The car is out of gas for the test drive, so she gases it up. Mechanic says it needs motor mounts, she decides she wants the car anyway, and oh, it needs a tire since it has a donut on it for the test drive. To me, if the mechanic says it needs work and I know the tires are bad, I walk away. To this lady, and her elderly father who is along for the ride, it's an opportunity to renegotiate a lower price. So, even before the renegotiation, lady decides to buy the car, and since she's going to buy it she replaces the tire. So she takes the car, now with 4 tires, back to the seller, renegoiates price down to $1500, gives $1000 to the seller and is going to bring the other $500 back. Enough of the foolish buyer, now the story the seller tries to get us to believe. Seller tries to convince that the deal was she got to keep the nonrefundable $1000 and the car until when she eventually, in a couple months, gets a different car. Uh, no, judges make her return the money.

Second case makes even less sense. The car this time was either being sold for $1500 or $3000 (bill of sale says $1500). Plaintiff is the seller, gives defendant, the buyer, the title after receiving $900 deposit. Defendant registers the car and is driving it when it breaks down. Now the stories get a little wonky. It's at the shop broken down, but at different times it needs a head gasket, a driveshaft, or it's overheating. Buyer, who BTW is now registered owner, calls and asks for an extension on the $600 she still owes, either to fix the broken down heap or to use as part of a deal when she uses the heap as a trade in for different clunker. For some strange reason, seller decides to tow the heap back to his place, even though he no longer owns it. I suppose he could argue that he was never paid in fill, but he tries to argue it was a bad deal to trade it in and he was trying to protect the buyer from herself as she is the niece of a his roommate... Uh huh, sure, like Bakman tells him it was none of his business. He gets the $600 she agrees she owes, and he has to gives back the car he had no right to repossess.

[phoenix780]

Judge Judy is coming to Hot Bench and I can't wait. There's literally nowhere else I can safely share that. 

[AZChristian]

Just heard today that Bakman is leaving the show to return to his "busy law practice."  Google search shows that he might need to get as much money as he can to catch up on back child support and LOTS of back taxes.

[Taeolas]

Hmm that would explain why he was the one swapped out in the Musical Chairs eps they're doing this week. 

 

I wonder who his permanent replacement will be? As I said when the show first came out, I'd love them to have a roster of say 5 judges that they randomize each ep basically. 

[SRTouch]

6 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

Hmm that would explain why he was the one swapped out in the Musical Chairs eps they're doing this week. 

 

I wonder who his permanent replacement will be? As I said when the show first came out, I'd love them to have a roster of say 5 judges that they randomize each ep basically. 

Ah, Bakman was may least favorite. According to what I just read, new guy is long time NY Judge Michael Carrier   

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/distribution/judge-michael-corriero-joins-hot-bench/160634 Supposedly officially joining the others 1 nov. Looks like he has a lot of Juvenile Justice and family court background.

[ChiefWiggum9-1-2]

The new male judge has such a raspy voice that I can't listen to him. He's ruined the show for me. 

[ElleMo]

18 hours ago, ChiefWiggum9-1-2 said:

The new male judge has such a raspy voice that I can't listen to him. He's ruined the show for me. 

I have no opinion either way.  he didn't make much of an impression.  Wonder why Bakman left.

Edited November 2, 2016 by ElleMo

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, ElleMo said:

I have no opinion either way.  he didn't make much of an impression.  Wonder why Bakman left.

Scuttlebutt on the web is that he returned to his "busy law practice."  Other rumors include he owes a lot of people a lot of money (including his ex-wife for child support); maybe Judge Judy fired him.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, ElleMo said:

I have no opinion either way.  he didn't make much of an impression.  Wonder why Bakman left.

Judging by what I get from google, like AZCHRISTIAN saidefendant it appears to come down to money and wanting to go back to private practice... Guess everyone doesn't get Judge Judy sized paychecks. Here's my earlier post about the new guy.

reposted from earlier post in the Judge Bakman topic:

Ah, Bakman was may least favorite. According to what I just read, new guy is long time NY Judge Michael Carrier   http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/distribution/judge-michael-corriero-joins-hot-bench/160634

Supposedly officially joining the others 1 nov. Looks like he has a lot of Juvenile Justice and family court background.

[DoctorK]

The new guy seems very bland to me. I often disliked Bakman but at least he was not bland.

Edited November 3, 2016 by DoctorK

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

The new guy seems very bland to me. I often disliked Bakman but at least he was not bland.

Yeah, in the beginning I didn't much care for either Acker or Bakman. Acker grew on me, but Bakman... not so much. I'm still feeling out this new guy. One thing right off the bat, I can see his style working in an actual courtroom. You can tell he comes in having already read the filing papers and statements. I think he comes into the courtroom already having a firm idea of the case, and uses the testimony to confirm rather than elicit evidence. In other words, instead of letting litigants ramble on with their carefully rehearsed story, he asks "Is this or that true?" Sort of throws the litigants off their game and sidesteps a lot of the bull pucky. I think it's a style he shares with Jerry Sheindlin, and to a lesser extent JJ herself. The problem with this style on TV is that a lot of us watch for that rehearsed story and bull pucky for the entertainment value. JJ gets around that by being a grumpy old Jewish grandma who isn't adverse to telling litigants how things should be in "Her America" with her many little Judyisms. I think, from the little time he's been on, he seems to be a good judge. Question is, is he going to be a good TV judge. It's to early to tell if he'll loosen up enough to become entertaining or just be, as DoctorK says, "bland."

Edited November 3, 2016 by SRTouch
Removed a "to"

[ElleMo]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

The new guy (Carrier) seems very bland to me. I often disliked Bakman but at least he was not bland.

Yes, I watched again yesterday and I completely agree.  Maybe as he gets more comfortable, he will show some personality.

[SRTouch]

Another thing about Bakman, I never got the feeling the other two knew him before the show or even particularly liked him. New judge is a product of the NY judicial system, and if what I read is correct long time friend of JJ. I noticed DiMango called him "Mike" yesterday, so I got the impression they're long time friends as well.

It may just be me, but I like the "judges" on the TV to actually be judges, or at least acknowledge that they were not sitting judges before TV. One of the things I disliked about Bakman was he sometimes portrayed himself in ways that never matched his bio. He talks about bring a prosecutor, no mention of that in his bio. Talks about sitting on the bench, but he was never a sitting judge - he acted as Judge Pro Tem, but never a sitting judge. Bakman was a successful defense attorney who handled some high profile cases, so I always questioned his casual mention a being a DA or judge... the rumors that floated around since the beginning of the show that he had debt problems and owed big on back child support certainly didn't help him in my eyes - but I don't know if the rumors were true. Contrast that with Acker, who when asked by an interviewer if she should be addressed as "Your Honor" she was quick to point out she was never a judge, though she also acted as a Judge Pro Pem. When asked, she says she applied for and acted for a Judge Pro Tem on the advise of JJ in preparation of being on the show, which made me wonder if that was why Bakman had the same job.

Oops, I don't actually read up this stuff and remember it. The stuff about Acker is from anumber article I found this morning  http://www.hngn.com/articles/180486/20160218/hot-bench-tanya-acker-talks-popular-courtroom-show-associatons-bill.htm

Edited November 3, 2016 by SRTouch
Link added

[SRTouch]

Any other regular People's Court viewers watch today's Hot Bench episode? Is the Indian salon owner is the same salon owner who was sued on TPC three weeks ago for removing a mole off a customer's lip when "threading" off a lady's mustache.

Anyway, when DiMango mentioned that the FDA doesn't approve any eyebrow tinting it sort of caught my attention. My understanding has been that cosmetics were ignored by the FDA, but her statement was enough for me to go to google. Turns out that hair dyes, whether for eye brows, lashes or your head, ARE supposed to regulated by the FDA, but the rules are not enforced. Even stranger, even though eyelash/brow tinting is illegal in many jurisdictions, it's taught in cosmetology schools in the hopes it will become legal.  http://www.today.com/style/eyebrow-eyelash-tinting-brilliant-beauty-service-or-health-risk-t101416

[AZChristian]

13 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Any other regular People's Court viewers watch today's Hot Bench episode? Is the Indian salon owner is the same salon owner who was sued on TPC three weeks ago for removing a mole off a customer's lip when "threading" off a lady's mustache.

 

I wondered the same thing!!!!

[Eliza422]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Any other regular People's Court viewers watch today's Hot Bench episode? Is the Indian salon owner is the same salon owner who was sued on TPC three weeks ago for removing a mole off a customer's lip when "threading" off a lady's mustache.

Anyway, when DiMango mentioned that the FDA doesn't approve any eyebrow tinting it sort of caught my attention. My understanding has been that cosmetics were ignored by the FDA, but her statement was enough for me to go to google. Turns out that hair dyes, whether for eye brows, lashes or your head, ARE supposed to regulated by the FDA, but the rules are not enforced. Even stranger, even though eyelash/brow tinting is illegal in many jurisdictions, it's taught in cosmetology schools in the hopes it will become legal.  http://www.today.com/style/eyebrow-eyelash-tinting-brilliant-beauty-service-or-health-risk-t101416

I thought she looked familiar!!!

 

Obama's press conference broke in so I only saw the intro for this episode,p.

[AZChristian]

She looks - and sounds - a lot like the lady judge on Chopped, too.  But I think she was the same person on both the court shows.

[ElleMo]

7 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I wondered the same thing!!!!

Me too!   I didn't think to look at her name.

Edited November 15, 2016 by ElleMo

[Katt]

Her name is Seifa "Pretty" Jain. Yeah, same chick as TPC. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Katt

[SRTouch]

With friends like this dude who needs enemies. I talking here of the "family friend" air conditioner dude who takes the plaintiffs' 1000 bucks during a heat wave and never bothers to do anything to fix their broken unit or return the money. To make matters worse, plaintiffs say their child has medical problems and really NEEDS a controlled environment. Of course they get their money back today, but in the process he comes up with some real whoppers as his defense. A couple things stood out for me. At the beginning of the case hubby plaintiff is standing at the lectern alone. Judge Corriero calls up the wife, who is actually a co-plaintiff, and she ends up doing all the talking - don't think hubby opened his mouth until the hallterview. Second thing that popped out, DiMango pointing out defendant's hands. I learned about swollen hands being an indicator of I've drug users watching court TV, and it really fits this defendant - even though she didn't say why he was asking about his hands... this guy had some puffy hands - no knuckles. Final thing, not just about this case but something I've noticed since the new guy started. I often watch Court TV with the captioning on, and I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure that when Bakman was there it was "Judge Acker" "Judge DiMango" and "Judge Bakman". Now everybody uses their first name... don't know if that's a personal choice or the folks running the show. I'm going to have to check if I'm right when reruns come around.

[ElleMo]

Today's episode features a PR person suing the organizer of a fashion show. My first impression before the details were even discussed, was that she was much too inexperienced. When asked how long she had been in public relations she said 2012 with her own company. And when asked if she worked for another company before that she simply said yes. Most people would say I have been in PR for X number of years and had my own company since 2012. ( and this all happened in 2014) I bet she worked for 6 months somewhere else and then started this company.

Both of them had no idea what was going on, but the fact that the partner was not available AND the partner was the one who discussed everything with the client really sent it home for me that it was the plaintiff was the one who was not following through on the contract.

In the halterview she explained that he was trying to take advantage of her because she was young. No, she was inexperienced, big difference

Another example of stupid business owners going on TV. I would never hire this woman now because she came off as such an idiot

Edited November 18, 2016 by ElleMo

[Ketzel]

I'm really disappointed in new judge. He seems like a very likeable, intelligent and experienced judge, but he doesn't show signs of becoming a TV Personality. The questioning has become very unbalanced, with Acker and DiMango doing most of the talking, with Acker especially getting more involved than she was when Bakman shared the bench. On several occasions when I've caught the show recently, new judge simply waived his right to ask the parties anything because the other two had gotten all the information he thought necessary to decide. I didn't find Bakman likeable, but he was certainly entertaining, and in this venue, that's more important to me!

[Silver Raven]

Oh, jeez, DiMango, "Live long and prosper" is from Star Trek, not Star Wars!  You just embarrassed yourself.

[phoenix780]

I'm glad Bakman is gone, I always felt he was slightly biased. Did he ever deliver a verdict? 

I'm happy for new guy to be background, essentially. The other two are entertaining enough for me, and they still get a variety of cases which is nice. 

[JenMcSnark]

I like the new guy and feel like he lends a certain credibility and seriousness to the show.  I liked Bakman okay, but I agree with @phoenix780 that he seemed to be a bit biased and also make up his mind too quickly before hearing all the testimony.  

Corrierra (sp?) seems to mostly be interested in the case and the truth, not in just being on tv, and I'm okay with that.  I get most of my entertainment from Judge Dimango.  

[ElleMo]

16 hours ago, phoenix780 said:

I'm glad Bakman is gone, I always felt he was slightly biased. Did he ever deliver a verdict? 

I'm happy for new guy to be background, essentially. The other two are entertaining enough for me, and they still get a variety of cases which is nice. 

 

I think he may have delivered one or two verdicts in season 1, but none in season 2.  I think that is because the first judge to speak is the one who gives the verdict, and his position was like batting cleanup, by asking the harshest questions of the defendants.  I was on the fence about him until he implied that a grieving father was trying to cheat his son out of money. blech.

[DoctorK]

Bakman scored a few points with me in a case involving a gunsmith working on a NFA firearm. He was the only one who understood all of the Federal paperwork involved, and the often slow response of BATFE bureaucracy in authorizing this type of work. Other than that, he annoyed me but was not boring.

[Carolina Girl]

I'm a little late in commenting on this but did anyone catch the Bully and her equally obnoxious granddaughter on (I think) Wednesday (Season 3, Episode 88 if you have a way to get the episodes).  What a lying piece of work.  Asked by Judge Acker at the outset what the plaintiff's dog did to her, Bully essentially says it didn't do anything - but she's afraid of dogs and it was near her mailbox.  Then come to find out she's reported the dog over 20 times to animal control, alleging that it "attacked" her, and forcing the plaintiff to appear at hearing after hearing.  Then Bully applies for a restraining order, which forces plaintiff into court again, and the order was refused by the court.  But the real topper was when she claims she heard the plaintiff "sighing" in her apartment (how'd you hear it, bitch?  Have your damn EAR pressed up to her door?) and called 9-1-1 to report a possible suicide.  She was taken away and placed under four days' observation.

I cannot think what Bully's motivation must have been other than she is a complete sociopath.  It would not surprise me to find out that each of the times the dog supposedly "attacked" her at her mailbox, she called the dog over.  She appeared to be trying to get the poor plaintiff's dog taken away and euthanized through dozens of calls to animal control, and getting her to crack.  

The Bench awarded the plaintiff $5,000.  In her Halterview, the Bully, who behaved obnoxiously in court, said "I just don't understand.  I thought were were becoming friends."  

I find it interesting that apparently there are two other units in the building occupied by the plaintiff and the defendant.  I am very curious to see what Bully's relationship is with those tenants.  It would not surprise me to learn that she tried to bully them and was in essence told she'd get her ass kicked if she tried.  The poor plaintiff was a mouse and seemed very beat down by this jerk.  But she found her voice, and you go girl.  

[ElleMo]

Today's episode had two computer illiterate plaintiffs. Yeah, defendant should have wiped the drive.  Defendant was a dummy but I think plaintiff was worse. Business people really should educate themselves about computers. You don't put any info -- especially  business info -- on a computer unless it has been completely wiped. And I do not think he should be compensated because he was stupid enough to have only one copy of photographs.  Don't delete the camera's SD card until you have two backups. Dumbass.  

[Silver Raven]

Come on, Show, if you're going to do reruns, do you really have to show us reruns with Bakman on them?

[TresGatos]

The plaintiff on today's repeat was named Queen Bobo. I personally think that's an awesome name but I wonder if she was teased as a kid about it. There have been a few women named Queen that have shown up on Say Yes to the Dress so maybe it's not as uncommon a name as I would suppose but couple it with Bobo and it becomes even more distinctive. She ended up being awarded $1,600 because her ex - boyfriend "stole" her car and she couldn't come up with the $200.00 to get it out of impound after the police recovered it. Judge Backman didn't want to give her anything because she bought the 1999 Explorer with student loan money. Judge Backman said it would be unjust enrichment because taxpayers will be on the hook for the student loans which may be the case even though student loans will follow you to the grave.  

[AlleC17]

On 1/6/2017 at 8:45 AM, TresGatos said:

The plaintiff on today's repeat was named Queen Bobo. I personally think that's an awesome name but I wonder if she was teased as a kid about it. There have been a few women named Queen that have shown up on Say Yes to the Dress so maybe it's not as uncommon a name as I would suppose but couple it with Bobo and it becomes even more distinctive. She ended up being awarded $1,600 because her ex - boyfriend "stole" her car and she couldn't come up with the $200.00 to get it out of impound after the police recovered it. Judge Backman didn't want to give her anything because she bought the 1999 Explorer with student loan money. Judge Backman said it would be unjust enrichment because taxpayers will be on the hook for the student loans which may be the case even though student loans will follow you to the grave.  

I am new to HB, so was not sure if this was a repeat or new, but while I agreed she shouldn't have used student loan money to buy the car, he shouldn't be able to get away with taking it either.  I don't know:  I was going back and forth.

The cases on this show so far are a little more interesting then what has been appearing on JJ and PC lately. 

[Silver Raven]

I'll be glad when we no longer have to watch Backman in reruns.

[AlleC17]

13 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

I'll be glad when we no longer have to watch Backman in reruns.

lol  I haven't watched it enough for him to have really bothered me.  And right after I posted about more interesting cases, I came home and watched...a loan to an ex BF case, and a dog fight case.  *sigh*

[JenMcSnark]

On 1/16/2017 at 3:58 PM, AlleC17 said:

I am new to HB, so was not sure if this was a repeat or new, but while I agreed she shouldn't have used student loan money to buy the car, he shouldn't be able to get away with taking it either.  I don't know:  I was going back and forth.

The cases on this show so far are a little more interesting then what has been appearing on JJ and PC lately. 

I actually thought Bakman was wrong on this.  My daughter recently graduated from USC and has various loans of a couple of types.  A couple of the loans stated that they could be used for any expense associated with having to go to university - including food, housing, transportation, etc.  My daughter is an extremely honest person and I had to convince her it was okay to use her student loan money to cover her car payment here and there.    So I think you could reasonably buy a vehicle for transportation for school.  It doesn't sound like she went out and got an expensive car so I'm cool with it.  As long as she pays the loans back.  

Edited January 18, 2017 by JenMcSnark
Spelling is important. Holy shit...I can't spell today.

[AlleC17]

I think he took his stance because he asked about the specific type of student loan and once she confirmed the type (which I don't remember, good thing I am no longer a student) he was more hard line about it.  however, if she was paying back the student loan, it shouldn't really matter and the scumbag should not have taken it and be allowed to get away with it imo. 

Yesterdays cases were back to being fairly interesting again, with  an academy for college prep courses after HS that never bothered taking attendance of apparently students or teachers.  I really wanted to know more about that school.  lol 

[JenMcSnark]

You could be right.  I know there was one that was to be used only for tuition, so that one we just told them to pay it straight to the school.   Better not to be tempted!

Yeah, that college prep school was a joke!  A lot of the oversight on schools is very lax it seems like.  She has a pretty good racket going on.  Get $5k from whoever that was (NBA?) and then tuition from the student.  All to come and play basketball at her school which she then sells tickets for, etc.  Nice moneymaker. 

[AlleC17]

Yesterdays episode with the cousins/sisters/whoevers fighting:  I like how the judges reamed them on their behavior.  And noticed the tears that were magically not wet. 

[SRTouch]

29 minutes ago, AlleC17 said:

Yesterdays episode with the cousins/sisters/whoevers fighting:  I like how the judges reamed them on their behavior.  And noticed the tears that were magically not wet. 

One of the best silly countersuits of all time. She's suing Cuz because cuz has been bad mouthing her for not paying for the broken tooth... oh and she had to quit her job and needs counseling because cuz made her oh so sad waaaaa (maybe if she had pressed the tissue a little harder into her eye she could have worked up some tears). Cuz has been saying she's bad, and she's really not waaaa