Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
SilverStormm

Hot Bench

Recommended Posts

These judges are going to have to go back through the Judge Judy training- Judges DiMaggio and Bakkman actually encouraged the plaintiff to drink the water! Granted "Mr Antics" was overly talkative and unbelievable, but the water is to be used as a test to keep the litigants on edge, certainly not to quench thirst or calm them down.

 

And that first case with the two grumpy, old men aiming insults and cars at each other- the defendant kept denying things that were on the tape. He was too much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The Grumpy Old Men case was amusing.  One thing that  I heard on the tape that the judges seemed to miss was the older guy saying "Get back in your car".  JJ would have skewered him for not moving along and calling the police.

Share this post


Link to post

The Grumpy Old Men case was amusing.  One thing that  I heard on the tape that the judges seemed to miss was the older guy saying "Get back in your car".  JJ would have skewered him for not moving along and calling the police.

The only thing I remember from that case is that Judge DiMango doesn't know what xenophobe means.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Identity Theft Caper.  I just can't get past the Plaintiff with her makeup that seems to be applied to accentuate all the WRONG STUFF.  She and her witness were also wearing painted-on clothes.  Yeesh!  Also, their parting remark?  "Don't trust nobody".  Did you see their Xeroxed Fake ID's?  Jeez Louise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

What the hell?? "Why would you buy such an expensive mixer?"  Are you FREAKING kidding?  What business is it of theirs how much someone paid for an item?  I saw a mixer in an ad yesterday for $600.  A Kitchenaid is expensive! What kind of car do YOU drive, judge?  A Lexus?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I know I said I would stop watching cause it doesn't interest me and there's no point to 3 judges. Maybe it's the episodes I'm catching but does Judge Bakman ask a lot of questions cause it seems it's just Judge Acker & DiMango that ask a majority of the questions while he just sits there for most of the time and maybe get 1-3 questions in. Might as well let Acker and DiMango be the judges and cut Bakman.

 

I remember one that was building up to a deliberation where Bakman asked Acker if she was done and she said, "I'll tell you when I'm done," in the previews of coming up but when they deliberated and he asked her that they didn't show Acker saying it. Also when they're in deliberation and they say they're ready to vote on the ruling and walk off, where are they doing this voting? Are they voting by the door before coming back to the courtroom?

 

I also feel that when it comes to the ruling that only one judge should come out and give the ruling, cause it just looks silly for all three of them to come out where only one judge speaks and then they all head back to the deliberation room or wherever they go. The ruling is over in like 3 minutes.

Edited by ShadowSixx

Share this post


Link to post

Did y'all get a load of Katherine Stewart today - she was suing her son's father for rent, etc  Katherine was a trip - she was probably a hot minx back in the 60-70's but she refuses to let it go.  She had a great body as evidenced by the photos she provided to the court... lots of belly shirts to show her abs; the inappropriate implants are another matter.  

 

But now she's a 60ish piece of leather with waist length hair that fits into the category "delusional cougar".   Her frozen mouth and babyish voice - just icing on the cake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Did y'all get a load of Katherine Stewart today - she was suing her son's father for rent, etc  Katherine was a trip - she was probably a hot minx back in the 60-70's but she refuses to let it go.  She had a great body as evidenced by the photos she provided to the court... lots of belly shirts to show her abs; the inappropriate implants are another matter.  

 

But now she's a 60ish piece of leather with waist length hair that fits into the category "delusional cougar".   Her frozen mouth and babyish voice - just icing on the cake.

 

And the drama queen faces!  Today's cases were pretty much ALL nutballs.

Share this post


Link to post

I loved that Katherine looked like she was going out for an evening of drinking and dancing.  But did she and the defendant call each other up and co-ordinate their outfits before they came?

 

Candida is crazy.

Share this post


Link to post

Super slimy Bernard Baron thought he was so smart.

He thought that this reasonably attractive younger woman had the hots for him so he grabbed her and kissed her on the job.
Equally slimy he then insults her by saying here is a woman 11 years in an entry level job - what is she mentally deficient?

Top 4 reasons he is mentally deficient himself:
4. He works the same type of job
3. He does not know what the word NO means
2. He thinks women want him  even though he is a repulsive creep
And the number one reason he is mentally deficient himself...

1. He has spray on hair. He bought that infomercial stuff at 3 in the morning and sprayed a black circular slick where his hair used to be and doesn't realize the glare off of the paint is ridiculous. 

 

I wonder if everyone got sexual sensitivity training when he was in the service or he was the only person commanded to be in the class.  Too bad he missed the point of the lessons.

Share this post


Link to post

And in the exploding air bag case...

 

Now Judge Acker says she has previously represented car manufacturers and she knows, she knows that if something is defective in a car the company recalls the cars because they don't want lawsuits.

No Tanya they don't -if the recall is more expensive than just awarding millions of dollars for death claims - they opt for just paying out the claims. 

In a recent Fifth Estate exposee it turns out as in the case of a small ignition piece in (maybe the Cobalt?) the dollar amount that puts it over into the 'not worth a recall'  territory is about 2 bucks.

Edited by Oinky Boinky

Share this post


Link to post

In the Idaho reunion rental case (I've used VRBO before, btw, to good effect), I think the defendant wanted to play the sweet-doddering-senior-citizen card, but his smirking through the whole case kinda negated that.  What a douche.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I did find myself wanting to slap the smirk off of his face.

 

I was also annoyed by the daycare case.  No one saw anything, except when they did see something they waited 48 hours to address it.  Loved the mother complaining that no one was calling her when stuff happened, even though she had signed a form saying she didn't want to be contacted.  The final straw was the daycare provider claiming in the hallterview that she was always noticing injuries on the little girl, right after one of the judges pointed out to her that she's a mandated reporter of suspected abuse.  They were both shady.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

"Single Mom vs. Handyman!; High Stakes Hair Restoration"

 

A woman claims her handyman was acting wrong around her kids, while he says she just wants to receive his services free of charge.:
     Loved Judge Acker telling that woman off.  Thought that Judge Bakman was being an ass when he didn't want to give the handyman any money because there was no meeting of the minds on the contract.  Of course there wasn't a meeting of the minds.  At some point the defendant decided that she didn't want to pay for the work the plaintiff had done for her, so without saying anything she changed the contract.  I'm glad that Judges Acker and DiMango voted to pay the handyman.

 

A woman says her cousin refuses to pay her back for over $6,000 in hair treatments, but he says it was a gift:
     So the plaintiff wasn't working, yet she still took out a loan for her cousin's hair treatment.  The defendant admits that he was working, and paying her back (for a gift?), but eventually decided that he didn't need to finish paying the debt off.  Did anyone else want to slap the smug grin off his face?  And all this is because he asked the woman's mother a question about the plaintiff that the plaintiff thought was none of his business.  I don't know what all went on, but the plaintiff looked so beaten down and upset, while her slimy cousin just grinned all the way through.  Glad she at least got her money.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

"Gossip Traded for Cash! Taunting an Ex-Lover"

 

A woman wants repayment on a $1,000 loan she gave to a man to spy on her ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend, but he claims she just gave him the money.
     I think the plaintiff had a thing, or thought she was going to have a thing with the defendant.  I think defendant was a user who got away with screwing her over.  It's a shame the man's wife stood there all proud, convinced that she someone won some sort of prize in him.  Wait until he's done with her and he screws her over in turn.

 

A woman sues her ex for borrowing her car and returning it with damages.
     The plaintiff is better off without him, no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post

Ugh, those Texas A&M boys were not nearly as cute as they thought they were.  And whatever happened to being a member of ROTC while attending A&M?  Don't they teach discipline?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I felt they were too easy on the Texas A&M boys (did you catch their coordinated arm movement after walking into the courtroom?).  There was a little too much "that's just what college boys do" for my taste, and not enough "you all are assholes."  I think they needed the fear of a Judge Judy in them to really prevent them from continuing to be the kind of entitled douchebags they are.  The way it went, I'd imagine they'll screen this at their next party after their parents pay off the judgment.

 

Overall I'm liking the show more.  Still think Judge Bakman should go.  I like that he sometimes questions defenses that consist entirely of "he was creepy," but he seems bored and is to me a little disrespectful to the other two.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Favourite exchange so far:

 

Two very gay hairdressers.

 

Judge Larry is quizzing and yelling at the bigger, handsomer, less flamboyant man:

 

'DID YOU PUNCH HIM?'

 

No sir

 

'DID YOU TOUCH HIM?'

 

Of course (duh! is implied)

 

It was funny when it sunk in to Judge Larry that it was sexual touching.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well, here's a chance to improve it:

 

Hot bench renewed for a second season.

 

For me, it's still 3rd in my Judge watching (after JJ and TPC but before JMathis), so it's still got a chance to get eps deleted. Mainly I'm annoyed by how much filler it has, especially that musical transition between every scene. With my luck, they'll be playing those damn strings every time they switch which judge is asking questions next season.

Share this post


Link to post

Ha.  The guy with the pit bull gets thrown out of court because of his nasty behavior and Judge Backman awards $5000 against him.  He deserved it, I hated him from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe that woman has to pay half of the costs of her ex's costs after he wrecked his car 6 months after they broke up.  Seems that when they broke up and he said he didn't want to hear one thing from her ever again, yet he expected her to continue paying for his insurance.  So after he wrecks his car and finds he's uninsured, he gets two judges to make her pay for half the costs.  Unbelievable.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sad that this show doesn't seem to be doing well, because I like the three judge format.  They seem to get more involved in the cases, and there's not one person making off the cuff decisions based on whether sushi was being served for lunch or if the case was too boring to bother with.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'd have a hard time imagining her willing to share the bench like that.

 

On the other hand, she did create the show and has a hand in it, so I could see them filling a couple of eps with her for a sweeps boost or something. 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know how well it's doing, but it has been renewed.

They have relegated it to the 5 a.m. time slot where I live, so I also assumed it wasn't doing so well but am pleased to see it's renewed. I know there are a lot of court shows, but there aren't a lot I can tolerate. This is one that I actually watch.

Share this post


Link to post

Rick, I had that episode with the kittens PVR'd.

 

What happened to the kittens...

It seemed they survived. No mention of the stuck one that was footling for so many hours.

 

What happened to ALL of the kittens...

This was a senior cat where they had never spent the comparatively wee amount to have her fixed.  They either were surprisingly scrupulous about keeping mommy cat in or there were upwards of 60 kittens we don't know the fate of.

 

What happened to mommy cat...

We don't know, they didn't say, but at least we know the defendants did not wring her neck or drown her.

 

The friend who was the vet tech paid to have mommy cat taken to a vet and defendants were ordered to pay her back. Assuming the stuck kitten went to vet also but no mention of if the new kitties were.

 

I understand people not having the money to put down a cat but go to a subsidized clinic and have them fixed and go to that same clinic and spent a much smaller amount to have them put down humanely.

In Canada it is about 50 dollars as opposed to 200. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I can't get the cat labor case out of my head. It was so horrible. At one point the female defendant sounded as if she had the momma cat for some time but the judges never asked her why the cat wasn't spayed or what happened to the kittens or if they still have the cat. The one judge did point out that with having a newborn the female defendant would have known what agony the cat was suffering and in that one little moment she looked ashamed of herself. 32 hours. They could have taken her to a humane society and left her. They were such a horrible, disgusting couple. I wanted want of the judges to ask these amoral morons how they think they can take care of a baby when they can't take care of a cat. I would have sold my wedding ring to get my cat to a vet in similar circumstances except that I am a responsible pet owner and my cats are all neutered (and past girl cats spayed). Poor Paisley! They just started showing this at noon in my area so I can watch it at lunch but this case almost made me not want to watch any more.  

Edited by TresGatos
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I skipped the cat case. 

 

I now love this show, mostly for the backstage interaction between the blonde judge and the grumpy old man.  I get the feeling she doesn't like him, and she's over his tendency to interrupt or try to wrap things up when he feels done.  So I like watching her essentially ignore him during "deliberations," and then look to someone off-camera as they walk off.  It's fun, 'cause I don't like him either (which means I could be making all that up in my head).

Share this post


Link to post

Have you noticed and do you have the opinion that they ask the plaintiff and defendants to colour coordinate their outfits?

 

It was really obvious yesterday while watching repeat episodes from last week. 

 

There were the two larger women with comments of you both look very good in red. 

 

The next case same episode had plaintiff and defendant in the exact same shade of medium blue dresses.  I first thought they had on the same dress.

 

The next episode it was the case of black bottoms, white shirt V black bottoms, white shirt. 

 

I wonder if this is something they only did in the early episodes because I noticed it right at the beginning but failed to comment.

Edited by Oinky Boinky

Share this post


Link to post

I hadn't noticed the matching clothes till you brought it up, but then I checked it out on today's two half hour episodes, and every one of the litigants wore black.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

SMH at today's litigant, Holly Seavey, who was being sued by her mother in law.  What hit me first is that she looked about the same age as her MIL, but she dressed like she was a fresh flower of 25.  Her cutesy little hair barrette and her too short black dress did nothing to disguise that she was well into middle age.  Just no.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, Bakman pissed me off today.  A woman was suing a man over some money she claimed she deserved.  Bakman asked her, "So, you met him online gaming?"  And when she said yes, he said, "Serves you right."  The fuck?  Are women not supposed to be gamers?

Share this post


Link to post

OK, Bakman pissed me off today.  A woman was suing a man over some money she claimed she deserved.  Bakman asked her, "So, you met him online gaming?"  And when she said yes, he said, "Serves you right."  The fuck?  Are women not supposed to be gamers?

 

I got the impression from a followup question that it was actually online *gambling*, which I can't recommend to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, Bakman pissed me off today.  A woman was suing a man over some money she claimed she deserved.  Bakman asked her, "So, you met him online gaming?"  And when she said yes, he said, "Serves you right."  The fuck?  Are women not supposed to be gamers?

That comment threw me for a loop. During the initial stages of the case, I thought they met through online gambling, which I think is a terrible idea. But then this comment was made about online gaming, and I wasn't sure what Bakman was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

On line gaming was what they said at first. 

 

I met a two year boyfriend playing cribbage online and an 8 year common law husband playing spades.  

 

No gambling involved and I tell you, if you want to know if someone is easy tempered, smart and funny - play cards with them. 

 

Online gambling I would just not trust to not be rigged and if you don't even have to haul ass out of your chair and get dressed to do it, I think it indicates the worst sort of problem - it is not even a social thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm finding it extremely annoying that Judge DiMango keeps saying incredible when she means uncredible.

Edited by DebbieW

Share this post


Link to post

I'm finding it extremely annoying that Judge DiMango keeps saying incredible when she means uncredible.

Incredible is the opposite of credible. There's nothing wrong that I can see with how DiMango uses it.

Share this post


Link to post

Super slimy Bernard Baron thought he was so smart.

He thought that this reasonably attractive younger woman had the hots for him so he grabbed her and kissed her on the job.

Equally slimy he then insults her by saying here is a woman 11 years in an entry level job - what is she mentally deficient?

Top 4 reasons he is mentally deficient himself:

4. He works the same type of job

3. He does not know what the word NO means

2. He thinks women want him  even though he is a repulsive creep

And the number one reason he is mentally deficient himself...

1. He has spray on hair. He bought that infomercial stuff at 3 in the morning and sprayed a black circular slick where his hair used to be and doesn't realize the glare off of the paint is ridiculous. 

 

I wonder if everyone got sexual sensitivity training when he was in the service or he was the only person commanded to be in the class.  Too bad he missed the point of the lessons.

Quoting my own previous post about this case. Please someone tell me they saw the creepy,slimy, guy with the sprayed on hair. The woman should have charged him with assault. 

Share this post


Link to post

Quoting my own previous post about this case. Please someone tell me they saw the creepy,slimy, guy with the sprayed on hair. The woman should have charged him with assault. 

 

I saw him.  I don't understand why he wasn't fired, or transferred.  That company she works for really dropped the ball.  Creepy guy really doesn't think he did anything wrong, and if his employers are ignoring his behavior he'll never figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to wonder if Brooke Myers, the woman who was suing her sister-in-law for wrecking her car, is transgender.

 

I'm not wondering at all -- the toss of the head was a dead giveaway.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

There was a case today of three sisters, all over 50+, suing each other for tables, tickets, cell phones.  It was a routine, boring mess.  I was curious if anyone can tell me what the son was wearing on his torso - that intrigued me more than the case.  It was a strappy brace kind of thing - I assume it had some kind of medical purpose.

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
×