Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
SilverStormm

Hot Bench

Recommended Posts

Ok, episode is described in guide as ESL litigant speaks perfect English - now that might be case worth watching..... nah, actually case is about a failed quinceanera, which I find about as interesting as prom/wedding/hair salon cases.... didn't watch much, but did catch poor young Maria, who appears mortified that parents dragged her on national tv and Judge D makes her stand and tell us her name.... that was it, I quit watching while Judge D still summarizing case - oh, and should note that, though they had a handwritten contract, it was written in Spanish

Oh, on side note - back in dark ages of the '60s I actually learned to diagram sentences - I'm talking English language sentences - in Spanish class. I don't find it at all odd that someone who learned English as a Second Language has good grammar.

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Who watched this woman, who, in 2019 is a snake oil salesperson? Her oil is guaranteed to cure lupus, COPD, spinal problems and host of other ailments. Amazing. She also has some Epsom salts that will heal the effects of a stroke. I wish I had known about this when I had a stroke, instead of going through all that strenuous physical therapy. She got the dumb-as-a-brick defendant to invest in this nonsense, to the tune of 7,000$ and now wants out since she realized she doesn't have a green thumb when it comes to growing weed, and it seems some company plaintiff hired are scammers.  Plaintiff knows what she's talking about, with all these miracle cures. She Googled and knows all the "scientistic" facts. Judge DiMango was disappointed to learn this magic oil won't remove wrinkles.

Get your order in now!

snakeqdefault-1.jpg

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

None of those two old kooks should be in involved in any kind of commercial business since they have absolutely no head for it.

Plaintiff is perhaps the most dangerous kind of scammer, i.e. one who truly believes in the efficacy of her quack cure-all. Even worse, there are plenty of people who will gladly fall for such nonsense and repeatedly buy the stuff.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

and repeatedly buy the stuff.

The big problem with all of these miracle remedies is that people are desperate and not only buy them but stop any other coventional (and generally shown effective to at least some extent) treatment that may be helping, or at least extending life.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Plaintiff is perhaps the most dangerous kind of scammer, i.e. one who truly believes in the efficacy of her quack cure-all.

I agree she's dangerous and could no doubt talk people who are both desperate and naive into spending money on her useless concoctions. Well, "useless" if they're lucky, like this "Lipozene" pushed by hucksters on national television, but some of this crap is actually very detrimental. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

That loathsome couple today let their kids run around with BB guns shooting freely in the apartment they were renting, and their main defense was "boys will be boys" as a excuse not to pay for the damages. Even after watching many court shows, I am still dismayed by how people can behave like savages with nary a second thought about their lack of common decency.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

That loathsome couple today let their kids run around with BB guns shooting freely in the apartment they were renting, and their main defense was "boys will be boys" as a excuse not to pay for the damages.

Despicable!  There were hundreds of BB holes in the walls.  Who does that????  Defendant woman was puffing up and jerking around like SHE was the wronged party!  

The hallterview revealed their nasty character - "She defamed us!"  Yep.  Nasty landlord destroyed your stellar reputation by taking those pictures proving that your family lives like animals!   

 The kicker was him saying "She sold that house for $212k and now gets ANOTHER 5 grand!!!!  Yes, you lowlife piece of shit!  That's how it works!  You bust your ass to purchase property, you maintain it and hopefully make a profit.  But, you and Princess Puffsalot will never, ever have that experience.  Your sorry entitled ass will always be moving from rental to rental, tearing shit up,  never having two nickels to rub together.  Find a ditch and crawl in it.

Damn, that was a blood boiler!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/30/2019 at 9:16 PM, zillabreeze said:

Nasty landlord destroyed your stellar reputation by taking those pictures proving that your family lives like animals!   

Hey now! That's not right. None of my animals have ever caused such destruction as these cretins did. I couldn't help but wonder: If they ever get a house of their own will they let "the boys" (Did they say two of them are 24...?) shoot up the house, wreck the appliances and destroy the carpet? Maybe not, but it's fine in someone else's house. Disgusting.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

None of my animals have ever caused such destruction as these cretins did

Oh my bad! Thanks for pointing that out. You're absolutely right. I've had unhousebroken, chewing, anxious puppies that couldn't hold a candle to that kind of ruination.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I just watched today's new case of two brothers arguing over their mother's term life insurance payout. Judge Di Mango defined a term life policy as you pay in regular premiums and if the covered person dies, then the beneficiary gets back the premiums that have been paid in. Isn't this completely wrong? My understanding of term life is that you sign up for a fixed pay out benefit ($500,000 for example), pay all of your premiums as required, and once you get past some initial wait period without dying, then as long as you keep paying the premiums your beneficiary gets the whole payout ($500,000 in my example). This is true even if you drop dead (from a non excluded method of passing) one day after the minimum wait time. Di Mango's definition sounded to me like a garbled description of a whole life policy. Any insurance experts out there, have I had this wrong all of my working life?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/2/2019 at 1:35 PM, DoctorK said:

I just watched today's new case of two brothers arguing over their mother's term life insurance payout. Judge Di Mango defined a term life policy as you pay in regular premiums and if the covered person dies, then the beneficiary gets back the premiums that have been paid in. Isn't this completely wrong? My understanding of term life is that you sign up for a fixed pay out benefit ($500,000 for example), pay all of your premiums as required, and once you get past some initial wait period without dying, then as long as you keep paying the premiums your beneficiary gets the whole payout ($500,000 in my example). This is true even if you drop dead (from a non excluded method of passing) one day after the minimum wait time. Di Mango's definition sounded to me like a garbled description of a whole life policy. Any insurance experts out there, have I had this wrong all of my working life?

You are correct. You do not get the premium paid in a term policy. You get the face value of a policy. It is a set amount

There are cash building policies. Term policies are not.

Hope this helps!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/4/2019 at 9:20 AM, badhaggis said:

You are correct. You do not get the premium paid in a term policy. You get the face value of a policy. It is a set amount

There are cash building policies. Term policies are not.

Hope this helps!

I'm not all that fond of Judge Corriero.  His reasoning always seems SO off in SO many cases.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

His reasoning always seems SO off in SO many cases.  

I agree. To me, he comes across as a beta male interacting with two alpha females so he tries too hard to find some point of disagreement (often stretching reason and logic) so he can act less retiring and show he is not intimidated by the other two. This doesn't make him a bad person (or judge for that matter) but it feels awkward and forced in this TV court setting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Today's defendant was typical of dog rescue fanatics who think they know better than anyone else about what's in the best interest of the animals. Most rescue people seem to suffer from a type of Sir Galahad syndrome, whereas the alleged purity of their heart and intentions justify all of their actions and the mayhem that ensues, in this case taking the dogs away from the homeless man, thus preventing him from making a little bit of money from selling the puppies, because they were then "stolen" from her garage or wherever she was keeping them. And that included his own dog (the mother) that he had had for years.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/6/2019 at 4:33 PM, Florinaldo said:

Today's defendant was typical of dog rescue fanatics who think they know better than anyone else about what's in the best interest of the animals. Most rescue people seem to suffer from a type of Sir Galahad syndrome, whereas the alleged purity of their heart and intentions justify all of their actions and the mayhem that ensues, in this case taking the dogs away from the homeless man, thus preventing him from making a little bit of money from selling the puppies, because they were then "stolen" from her garage or wherever she was keeping them. And that included his own dog (the mother) that he had had for years.

Peddling puppies for profit ie  being a backyard breeder is pretty despicable whether you are homed or homeless.  If the defendant was correct in what she said the vet told her, then she saved momma dog and puppies lives, which the plaintiff was unable to do because he couldn't pay for it.  I turned the case off, as I couldn't stand Judge DeMango's screeching.  Yes, defendant did look like she could be a self righteous pain in the ass, but there would have been 10 dead dogs if she had not stepped in.  In my state, we have a huge homeless problem, and a lot of them do the 'backyard' breeding crap and the dogs suffer greatly.  There are regular visits to homeless camps where dogs (and cats too), are taken away in horrible condition.  They are in the same poor conditions that one would find in a puppy mill situation, so I don't care that they are homeless:  abuse is abuse.  The plaintiff really did seem to genuinely care (from the little I did view) for his dog and I don't lump him in with the puppy mill pieces of crap people, and I do feel bad for him.  Not a fun case at all, which is why I turned it off!

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

Peddling puppies for profit ie  being a backyard breeder is pretty despicable whether you are homed or homeless.

Even established "respectable" breeders look for profit; that is what they are in business for. So "puppies for profit" is standard in the industry, as in any industry as a matter of fact, from the low-end breeders to the more respectable ones. I don't begrudge the homeless guy for trying to make some money from the puppies because, as you say yourself, he was far from being a puppy-mill type of person. The defendant was typical of the self-righteous people who make up such a good chunk of the animal rescue movement, as she knew better than anyone else and decided she had the power to intervene with no regard for other points of view or interests than her own.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Even established "respectable" breeders look for profit; that is what they are in business for. So "puppies for profit" is standard in the industry, as in any industry as a matter of fact, from the low-end breeders to the more respectable ones. I don't begrudge the homeless guy for trying to make some money from the puppies because, as you say yourself, he was far from being a puppy-mill type of person. The defendant was typical of the self-righteous people who make up such a good chunk of the animal rescue movement, as she knew better than anyone else and decided she had the power to intervene with no regard for other points of view or interests than her own.

I don't know that he wasn't a puppy mill type either.  Breeding dogs just because you can without consideration for their well being is despicable.  Again, I do not know that that is the case here, but my knee jerk reaction was to delete the episode.  I work with cat rescue, not as much as others, and what I see and hear daily turns my stomach.  The dog had 9 puppies that needed to be bottle fed while momma recovered from her surgery.  I hope they all went to good homes, but who knows.  It made me sad, more for the dogs than the people though.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Bad wig, no teefs, screeching in public...  that whole family will benefit when that Old Bitch Memaw craps the bed.

She "tried" to be a little contrite in the hallterview, but I didn't buy it for a second.   Next perceived disrespect and OBM will be spewing vile again.

Edited by zillabreeze
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I could not understand the plaintiff's emotional dependency on that abusive pile of crap and vile humanity the grandma was. It appears that being "disrepectful", an offense for which there is a very low threshold indeed these days, is equivalent to a crime against humanity in that old crow's eyes. She seems to be very skillfull at manipulating her family into such subservience.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I just watched the episode where the plaintiffs sold a non-AKC registered Chihuahua with multiple genetic anomalies to the defendant for $3600. The defendant was okay with most of the genetic problems and paying that much for a bad quality dog. 

The plaintiff’s claim to fame was that she has the “world’s smallest dog.” Despite this actually physical problem and the fact the dog’s tongue doesn’t fit in its mouth, the dog has been cloned 49+ times. The owner also breeds other dogs. I assume overbreeding in reality. 

I’m sure some people will think my criticism is out of line, but I know too many quality dog breeders to not be irritated by this. 

To people wanting to get a dog, research health. Find a quality breeder. Or go to a shelter.

I was too irritated to focus on the verdict. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, 4Sibes Redux said:

To people wanting to get a dog, research health. Find a quality breeder. Or go to a shelter.

Right here in your Amen Corner!  

What irks me is the need to have a purebred status dog.  Well, rescue groups have every possible breed for $200-300 adoption fees.  It appears that the morons spending thousands are the ones that can least afford it.  And that's way before the expenses of heartworm meds, vet visits and quality food.

My two healthy dogs set me back about $150/mo.  Before cushy beds, pretty collars and fun toys.

But, sigh, just like all the court show litigants...dogs , kids,  what the hell.

Edited by zillabreeze
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/13/2019 at 4:15 PM, 4Sibes Redux said:

I just watched the episode where the plaintiffs sold a non-AKC registered Chihuahua with multiple genetic anomalies to the defendant for $3600.

Just for the record: AKC registration means nothing more than that both parent dogs were of the same breed and purebred. It has nothing to do with health or genetic problems that occur when dogs are bred to each other with no regard for anything but money.

Rescues are loaded with purebred dogs whose only sin was being bought by clueless morons who watch, e.g. "Snowdogs" and think, "Wouldn't a husky be cool?", buy from some BYB and then dump the dog when it doesn't behave like the well-trained, working dogs in a movie. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Rescues are loaded with purebred dogs whose only sin was being bought by clueless morons who watch, e.g. "Snowdogs" and think, "Wouldn't a husky be cool?", buy from some BYB and then dump the dog when it doesn't behave like the well-trained, working dogs in a movie. 

I ended up with more that one cast off Sibes due to movie portrayals. Shelters and rescues are great ways to get purebred dogs. 

I know, of course, about the limitations of the AKC  But from my perspective, if you’re going to throw thousands of $s at a dog, you should have some proof of its history and lineage  

The plaintiff was willing to take the dog back, but I think based on her overbreeding and a few other factors, she met my definition of running a puppy mill  I think the judges’ were blinded by her niceness. But even nice people run puppy mills  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Who is putting us on here? We have Ms. Kidd, who is disabled due to her PTSD and agoraphobia, which luckily didn't stop her from flying to wherever this show is filmed and appearing on national TV as a litigant. That's some different kind of agoraphobia, I guess. She gets taxpayer money to screw the disgusting, fugly little def, who claims he was her "aide" and who also sucks up money at the public trough. Yes, the working public pays for her to move the little shit in her place and bang him. Neither of them ever thinks about birth control and wouldn't you know it? Ms.Kidd gets knocked up because she's in such a great position to have and raise a child. But oh, no! Fugly, parasitic, wormy little def claims the baby might be the fruit of the loins of his witness, Jabba the Hut (also disabled) who Ms. Kidd admits she screwed. Good lord. I'm so glad I worked all my life so I can help contribute to the well-being of characters like these. I can't help thinking that someone who can do what Ms. Kidd and Mr. Names have done can get jobs so they won't have time to get up to all this stupidity, for which the public has to pay. I"ve had enough TeeVee for one day. 

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Ms.Kidd gets knocked up because she's in such a great position to have and raise a child. But oh, no! Fugly, parasitic, wormy little def claims the baby might be the fruit of the loins of his witness, Jabba the Hut (also disabled)

Dudes were beyond unfortunate. But, wait!  There's more!  Silly bitch couldn't sow that nasty seed fast enough! AND BRAG about it on TeeVee!  

K. So you can't get your lazy ass out of the house, Agoraphobia/PTSD my foot.  You found The Bryd, AH, Zilla Fountain of Wealth, so here we are.  Yet another, mouth breathing weirdo on the way!  Oh joy!  I should Google the litigants, so I can give a proper baby shower!

The Hot Bench crew didn't rip up their "sources of income" as required!  I thought JJ is a "producer" on this show?

So f-ing much gubmint sucking, double dipping going on!  But boo damn hoo, little Miss Agoraphobia got the kid gloves!  Drop her ass in the Sandbox with soldiers cradling their buddies after a run in with a landmine, then we'll talk PTSD.

I've had it with PTSD..."NO!" assholes, a car accident, shitty parents, fell down the stairs, witnessed a crime, is not PTSD.  It's what we call "life" and life sometimes sucks.  Shit happens and does not give you a free pass to sit on your ass while AH, Byrd and Zilla drag theyselves to jobs they ""don't enjoy" so you can spread with the dregs of the earth and be all comfy.

Yup AH, I toasted you with my early Friday beer.. which I DID NOT pay for by playing convienence store games with my "food stamp" card.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oops my bad, Doctor K is also prob also spilling "go to fucking work" blood into  The Fountain of Wealth!   

I also wear a hard hat.  It's hot, it's cold, gotta build shit, so these shit people can lay up paying diddle while whining about not having the latest greatest phone...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

But boo damn hoo, little Miss Agoraphobia got the kid gloves! 

I guess the best we can hope for is that the Blessed Event is the progeny of the mutant Jabba. Good luck getting child support from that, Ms. (Not-too-disabled-to-travel-the-country-and bump-uglies-with-any-revolting-freakazoid-who-happens-along) Kidd.

47 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

I should Google the litigants, so I can give a proper baby shower!

I'm sure they're already registered at the "GoGimme" site.

47 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

I'm glad I stopped watching this disgusting manure pile when I did.

47 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

I toasted you with my early Friday beer.. which I DID NOT pay for by playing convienence store games with my "food stamp" card.

I'm thinking of saying that I like to drink too much, which makes me an alcoholic which would entitle me to disability payments, I believe. If I overeat or over drink, it's not my fault, right? I have PTSD after I tripped on a pothole, went sprawling on the street and hurt my elbow.  I'm sure Byrd will be understanding about the little extra coming out of his pay. What's one more dependent, after all?

Edited by AngelaHunter · Reason: Annoyance and wine!
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, enjoying adult beverages is a "disability".  I know the Budweiser people drag me kicking and screaming down to the sto'.  Where I stand in line behind the folks paying $5 for gas and picking out $30 worth of scratch offs.  I'm doing it all wrong...

And I've said it thousand times... why does your broke ass need a $1000 phone???  Are you running Excel spreadsheets, Power Point over there at your JOB???

Edited by zillabreeze
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

It's the case of "My Heart Belongs to Daddy"(and his truck belongs to me) in another Norman Rockwell family portrait.  The plaintiff, a seemingly middle-aged woman, is here suing her Momma for a 21-year old truck left by her "daddy" after he passed. Even though the will states all his property, including automobiles, goes to his widow, the plaintiff states that Daddy said "hundreds" of times that no one drives that truck but daughter-dearest and she  has some creepy witness to testify to that, so that means it's hers. Momma says she'd rather donate it to charity than give it to daughter.

Plaintiff (I may be dead wrong, but she appears to be no stranger to alcohol. She just has that look) breaks into Momma's house, steals the keys to the old heap and takes the car, but Momma refuses to sign the truck over to her. Judge Acker was way too nice to daughter, giving her a pass for her horrible behavior because she's "mourning". Oh, please. When my father died, I certainly never sued my mother for anything he left behind, even though I was grieving.

Daughter gets nothing and is ordered to return the truck within 10 days. In the hall, Momma reiterates that daughter will NEVER get that truck. Daughter opines that this decision "will be detrimental to my happiness. " I guess she'll just have to learn to live with it.

Share this post


Link to post

I could not stand the mother in the truck case. The sighs, the fake sniffles, the rolling her eyes to heaven as if calling to her dead husband, the outraged attitude as her saintly status as a mother was being assaulted; she seemed as if she was acting in a third-rate ersatz Tennesse Williams family drama. And the judges fell for it.

She certainly was legally in the right according to the evidence and the daughter was overreaching; or she simply misunderstood the wishes of her father, but the will was very clear-cut and if the father wanted things to turn out another way, he should have made his wishes clear in the will. I would not be surprised to learn that the mother is encouraging the family's dysfunction and is craftily manipulating one daughter against the other (perhaps alternating between the two as to which one she favours).

In the fraud case, the judges really went to town on the scamming plaintiff; even mild-mannered Corriero raised the possibility of calling the police on her and having her arrested on the spot, which would have been quite a show. She was such a brazen fraudster, who (typically) still played the victim in the hallterview.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Florinaldo said:
8 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

even mild-mannered Corriero raised the possibility of calling the police on her and having her arrested on the spot,

Hee hee ! That was funny.  His wife must've said "no means no" the night before.   I swear Corriero would of found the "good" in Jeffrey Dahmer.

I still miss Eyebrows Judge.  The women judges have now found their "role" and are playing to the camera.  It's a good gig, so no shade there.  Cases are better than JJ, but I can call the verdict before the first commercial.

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/28/2019 at 4:05 AM, zillabreeze said:

 I swear Corriero would of found the "good" in Jeffrey Dahmer.

Honestly, he would. "Now, young man - you didn't really mean to torture, murder and eat those people, did you? You made a mistake." 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

What a horrible family fighting over a headstone removal on todays's show, None of them were less than despicable, but I could not help wonder about the absent mother. Could she be stirring the pot between the siblings? From the testimony, she might very well have been encouraging both sides to come up with a headstone, only to sit back and enjoy the resulting kerfuffle.

On 5/28/2019 at 4:05 AM, zillabreeze said:

I swear Corriero would of found the "good" in Jeffrey Dahmer.

He would probably give him points for using the correct seasoning and not overcooking.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

What a horrible family fighting over a headstone removal on todays's show, None of them were less than despicable, but I could not help wonder about the absent mother. Could she be stirring the pot between the siblings? From the testimony, she might very well have been encouraging both sides to come up with a headstone, only to sit back and enjoy the resulting kerfuffle.

That was bizarre.  Something was off with the plaintiff and I couldn't pinpoint it.  He seemed like he wasn't really firing on all cylinders.   Defendants didn't fool me for a second...garden variety assholes.   I also wondered about the missing mother,  you're probably right about being a shit-stirrer.  There was a passing reference to mother having to be moved around facilities due to violent episodes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

That was bizarre.  Something was off with the plaintiff and I couldn't pinpoint it.  He seemed like he wasn't really firing on all cylinders.   Defendants didn't fool me for a second...garden variety assholes.   I also wondered about the missing mother,  you're probably right about being a shit-stirrer.  There was a passing reference to mother having to be moved around facilities due to violent episodes.

That family was such a mess that I was tempted to do some searches on ancestry.com to see if we might be related.  I thought ours was the most messed-up family in the world, but this bunch runs a close second!

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

He would probably give him points for using the correct seasoning and not overcooking.

Well, that would win over Gordon Ramsey.

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ugh, the little snake who crashed into the plaintiff's motorcycle because she was "distracted" - I guess by texting or changing her status on FB? She didn't' know there was a flashing red light! It really annoyed me how Uncle Mike and even Judge Acker seemed to find something endearing about her, when she lied on her statement and said plaintiff was paid for his damages by her insurance. Oh, well. She didn't really say that. Someone just wrote that down for no reason. She drives around uninsured and with no license because she's already had it suspended at the age of 20(!!) She also carries around her sister's license ("I just happened to have it") to deceive the police. Her big tiger-momma, Nova, is ready to fight tooth and nail for her sweet baby girl to avoid any responsibility and tries to make the plaintiff the bad guy here. Momma explains they have a bunch of cars they can't afford to insure, so it's not her fault it lapsed, is it? Luckily, JDiM was the voice of reason and not impressed with little girl's cute smile and big eyes, informing her of the legal consequences of driving with no insurance and no license and using fake ID.  Momma and baby girl still didn't get it. Plaintiff gets every penny to fix his bike, and he's just lucky he wasn't really injured because - oops, no insurance!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2019 at 8:07 PM, zillabreeze said:

That was bizarre.  Something was off with the plaintiff and I couldn't pinpoint it.  He seemed like he wasn't really firing on all cylinders. 

I just watched this. Omg. Results of inbreeding, or...? Yes, definitely something wrong with the brother, but when we hear how his mother is a lunatic who caused mayhem at some rehab center and assaulted the personnel, it's not surprising. She's responsible for headstones for her husband anyway. Why did I get an image of Mammy Yokum? Sonny's grammar was hurting my one functioning ear so badly I had to quit this before the end. "I dint do nuthin'." 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

With her air of perpetual bewilderment, the defendant in today's loan case looked like the unholy offspring of Buckwheat and Alfalfa. Unless she was faking the dumbness, in which case she might deserve an Emmy nomination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand J.Correiro. I'm sure he's a very sweet person and his kids and grandkids adore him, but he seems more and more "out there." Today we had a plaintiff who was clearly scammed by the defendant who sold her a "Graceland" cabin that she didn't even own. It seems the movers who came to transport the cabin to the plaintiff's property decided the cabin had never been paid for and took it back with them, leaving the plaintiff with nothing. 

Plaintiff called the police and has the report, but they couldn't do anything. Def says the cabin is owned by her brother who is a jailbird and he gave her permission to sell it. But no, she has no proof of a single thing she says and thinks the plaintiffs should be suing the movers. JC seems to agree and even though the def clearly lied about calling the Graceland authorities he treats the plaintiff as though she did something nefarious, giving her hell about the actions of these movers. Other than physically attacking the movers or pulling a gun on them, I don't know what else the plaintiff could have done about this large structure on a truck bed.  Luckily, the other two judges see this scam for what it is and not only award the plaintiff the 3800$ she paid but a 800$ in punitive damages. JC dissents.  Def cries and blubbers in the hall. I don't know why, since she got to keep the 3800$. Is it possible she's embarrassed at being shown up for the scammer she is?

JC did get irate at a toothless, ill-tempered hillbilly who ripped off the young plaintiff on a car deal. Plaintiff gets his money back, but ol' toothless can't shut up during the judgment and won't stop backtalking JC, who declares that if he says another word he's going to give the plaintiff an extra 1K. "My other brother, Daryl" finally shuts his piehole.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

ol' toothless can't shut up during the judgment and won't stop backtalking JC, who declares that if he says another word he's going to give the plaintiff an extra 1K.

The highlight moment of this show in recent memory. Too bad the defendant did shut up because I would have liked to see if JC had the backbone and consistency to act upon his threat.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think he may have acted on the threat. The only times he ever really gets his dander up is when a litigant is insolent or insulting to him personally. He's willing to give a pass or forgive just about anything else short of 1st-degree murder.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

forgive just about anything else short of 1st-degree murder.

I suspect that he could find a reason to rule in favor of a defendant even in first degree murder, especially if the other two judges went the other way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Luckily, the other two judges see this scam for what it is and not only award the plaintiff the 3800$ she paid but a 800$ in punitive damages. JC dissents.

I've gotten used to his bleeding heart, but this was a stretch even for him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Today, with Dobby's evil twin the CL contractor, was quite a show. Def was a nasty, vile, creepy little critter and I really thought the judges were going to have to ask Sonja to gag him and not just tell him to shut up, which she did. Good thing I didn't drink every time he said "75%" or I'd be under the sofa. He has a wife. This woman wanted to marry him and procreate with him. She looked rather haggard, but she wanted him.

Plaintiff was doing so well until he admitted that he doesn't follow laws if he feels they're stupid. so didn't bother getting a necessary permit for the driveway. He gets back half of what he was suing for. 

When I had remodeling done in my kitchen and bath, someone I know later said (and I hate this), "Oh, you got robbed! I know someone who could have done it for half that price!" Yes, we see endlessly the results of hiring some anonymous clown on CL on the cheap, who like this one actually says in his ad how much he needs the money. Dobby's wife was pregnant! He spent the plaintiff's money on his wife's pregnancy or miscarriage - hard to say which. Lucky woman, to have snagged this prize. 

For some silly reason, I preferred to hire licensed contractors who are insured.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

For some silly reason, I preferred to hire licensed contractors who are insured.

Don't forget to get the necessary permits (or have the contractor do it, if allowed), even when you consider the relevant municipal by-laws to be silly, as the plaintiff did,. What a tool he was. I wonder if he might have gotten less had the defendant not been so unpleasantly argumentative. However, the three judges took pains to make it clear his attitude did not influence their deliberations and decision, which might have led them to downplay the "unclean hands" factor on the side of the plaintiff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Don't forget to get the necessary permits

I went to get a permit to put up a fence. It turned out I didn't need one, but better safe than sorry. After all, if you end up getting fined or going to court you're going to sound just as dumb as this plaintiff when you stand there and your defense is, "That's a stupid law, so I chose to ignore it." 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

By ignoring by-laws, you also expose yourself to complaints against you, for example by a neighbour you have an argument with, a zealous concerned citizen who knows the law, or... a contractor with whom you have a legal dispute. You may be liable to fines and to the expense of removing or modifying the unauthorized work.

Unless of course their city puts into its by-laws a provision under which the rules can be ignored at will by idiots who find them silly.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I went to get a permit to put up a fence. It turned out I didn't need one, but better safe than sorry. After all, if you end up getting fined or going to court you're going to sound just as dumb as this plaintiff when you stand there and your defense is, "That's a stupid law, so I chose to ignore it." 

Few years ago I had a friend who ran afoul of her HOA when she had a wooden privacy fence installed. Seems it was 12" too tall. HOA said tear it down. Her hubby's solution: snap a chalk line at maximum height - put new upper stringer - take circular saw - cut off top of the fence.... problem solved

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Her hubby's solution: snap some chalk line at maximum height - put new upper stringer - take circular saw - cut off top of the fence.... problem solved

The hubby may have applied the lessons of the the classic Getting to Yes book on negotiations. He satisfied both the interests of his wife for a privacy fence and those of the HOA who probably had a very good reason to have that rule in place and enforcing it.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×