The People's Court - General Discussion

[Zahdii]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, I'm not a doctor, but is it possible to have no clue that you have MS until after having a third child?

Having MS and having children are not mutually exclusive.  It's not an inherited disease, so a person can't anticipate that they might develop it and make their plans accordingly.  It's also not a reason to not have children if you want them.  Obviously, if you already know you have MS, you should educate yourself about the disease and talk to your doctors and other MS patients so you can have the best outcome in regards to raising your child or children.

MS can present itself at any time.  The onset of symptoms can be subtle and come and go, making diagnosis more difficult. 

I know a few people with MS, and their stories are all different.  A woman I know finally realized she had been having symptoms in high school, but didn't understand what was happening until she was diagnosed in her 20's.  She has two kids, both adults now.  They've both completed college and one is married with children and the other is just starting on their career path.  I remember seeing her when she was being interveiwed live on a local TV show while she was pregnant with her second child and the interviewer asked her outright why she was having a baby when she was in a wheelchair.  She was so stunned that she couldn't reply, but her doctor jumped in and told that ass off right then and there.

The average age of diagnosis is 34, plenty of time to have a few kids before you realize that you're sharing your life with a disease that may or may not put you in a wheelchair, bedridden, or living in a nursing home at an early age.  That is the worst case scenario.  Or you might have only a few mild episodes over time that don't affect your life very much.  That is the best case scenario.  Most often, you will probably have episodes over time: your ability to walk easily decreases and then gets better; you find yourself tiring easily, but then getting better in a few weeks; your vision gets fuzzy, and then improves.  Lots of weird things will come and go, slowly getting worse over time, but not affecting your life span.  It's not easy, but it's not a reason to pull a shroud over yourself and give up on living your life.

Having MS doesn't make a person a saint, nor does it make a person the spawn of the devil.  It's a lifelong condition that doesn't have a defined timeline on how it affects people.  It's incredibly stressful.  The core of a person's personality surfaces.  A naturally pragmatic person will react differently than a more excitable person.  Some will 'fight' the disease, some will succumb to it, and others will ignore it as much as possible.  Some will gather people around for support and others will want to go it alone.  And yes, a person who is always looking for a way to get something from any situation will react differently from a person who only wants help when it's needed.

[califred]

That pool lady was a piece of work.  I can't believe Judge didn't get on her for shouting out.

[DoctorK]

Quote

I know how much harder it would be, you insufferable ass. That's why I don't have kids.

I think I want this on my gravestone.

[ElleMo]

Quote

 Also if she has MS, she is probably on Medicaid and disability. 

 

12 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Not necessarily.  I've worked with nurses who have MS.  It all depends on at what point they're at in the pattern of remissions and exacerbations.  

 

I know two people who have MS.  One is a college professor, the other works part-time. It depends on the severity of the illness and in some cases probably depends on how much you want to work.

But as for the plaintiff, she's a litigant on People's Court.  Of course she is on disability!

[Hockeymom]

I hate that I'm going to sound so judgmental, but...

I felt bad for the MS girl when she started to cry in the hallway with Doug.  I could see she was just so frustrated. But this mess was her own fault. I wish she could see that. Life is so much easier once you realize it really is all up to you. You get to choose everything. It is so empowering! You may not be happy with where you are, but you put yourself there. That can be a tough pill to swallow in this culture of entitlement.

If money is tight, be careful about purchasing a car. Have it checked, and do what you need to do. Is there no one in her corner offering guidance?

And the kids - people always feel they are owed special consideration when they make self limiting choices. It's hard enough being a good parent. I imagine it's even harder with a progressive illness. Why hobble yourself with children and responsibility when you have no support system? And if you choose to anyway, don't make it my problem when you need help. I heard no mention of a father or fathers. Of course accidents happen. But three?  I'm not saying to never have kids. I'm just saying that you get to choose when, where, and with whom.

Before we sold our business, it used to drive me insane when employees asked to leave early for kid related issues. They would look at me in amazement when I said that their leaving early would be a problem. Didn't I realize that they had kids?! The word "Bitch" may have been bandied about.

I'm not heartless. I just expect that if you apply for a job with certain requirements, you fulfill them. If you're supposed to be in at 10, come in at 10. If you're supposed to stay until 2, don't ask to go at 12. It's not my problem that your no-good ex won't pick the kids up from school. It's yours. Take a minute, find a solution, and let me know how you make out. I'm not a bitch for running the business that pays your salary. Realizing the word does not, in fact, revolve around you, can be a revelation.

[momtoall]

17 hours ago, teebax said:

I no longer watch JJ

teebax, I've wanted to pull that trigger for some time but I'd miss the great snark from the posts on the forum. 

I know I've mentioned that one of my oldest friends has MS.  She wasn't diagnosis until her mid 40's.  At that time, she was married and had four children.  She has never received welfare or disability.  She and her husband both worked (her part time) and retired from their jobs.  Her husband husband died several years ago so now she collects his pension and social security.   I think care should be taken not to make assumptions about lifestyles because of a person's disability (that's a JJ conclusion jump).

Edited March 15, 2017 by momtoall

[meowmommy]

2 minutes ago, momtoall said:

teebax, I've wanted to pull that trigger for some time but I'd miss the great snark from the posts on the forum. 

Every time I try again to watch JJ, within about two weeks I can't stand another moment and take her out of my DVR.  She's just so damn nasty and angry all the time, and while I know the litigants can be obnoxious and awful, not all of them are.  Some of them actually deserve compassion, which MM can bring but JJ can't.

On the MS case, I wrote a 50 page case study of MS as a nursing student, but it's been over 30 years, so thank you, Zahdii, for that refresher.   I vividly remember a woman who was only in her 40s but was completely disabled to the point where she was completely wheelchair bound and a permanent resident of the nursing home where I worked.  But I've also worked with nurses in their 40s and 50s who were still doing patient care despite the disease.  MS is one of those diseases where you take one step forward but then two steps backward, over and over, and each case is unique in the timing and extent of its path.

2 hours ago, Hockeymom said:

I'm not heartless. I just expect that if you apply for a job with certain requirements, you fulfill them. If you're supposed to be in at 10, come in at 10. If you're supposed to stay until 2, don't ask to go at 12. It's not my problem that your no-good ex won't pick the kids up from school. It's yours. Take a minute, find a solution, and let me know how you make out. I'm not a bitch for running the business that pays your salary. Realizing the word does not, in fact, revolve around you, can be a revelation.

As far as the women who pull the "I'm a mommy!" card, I get pissed off.  I am a true single mother, and if you think it's hard to get child care, try finding it when your work shift is 12 hour nights, mostly weekends, and you have no family or friends to pitch in.  And I did have that one moment, many centuries ago, where child care went up against job needs and I hated my boss and I had a mini-breakdown, but you know what?  I got through it and my then-boss is still one of the dearest people in my heart.  I just want to throw something at the TV when litigants pull that shit and MM falls for it.

[Hockeymom]

4 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

As far as the women who pull the "I'm a mommy!" card, I get pissed off.  I am a true single mother, and if you think it's hard to get child care, try finding it when your work shift is 12 hour nights, mostly weekends, and you have no family or friends to pitch in.  And I did have that one moment, many centuries ago, where child care went up against job needs and I hated my boss and I had a mini-breakdown, but you know what?  I got through it and my then-boss is still one of the dearest people in my heart.  I just want to throw something at the TV when litigants pull that shit and MM falls for it.

That's exactly what I meant! You had one moment. One moment, two, even five. Having an occasional emergency is fine. It's just that when employees dump their poor planning or poor choices in my lap everyday that I get cranky.

[Jamoche]

Oh, puh-leeeze. "In 40 years of dry cleaning, sometimes there are garments that you just remember." If it's some one of a kind designer dress, maybe. But when it's the trousers from a nice but otherwise ordinary men's suit? Yeah right.

[SRTouch]

1. BAD breakup: extra bad breakup - not only are these two going after each other for thousands, cops got involved, and jail time after a knife cames into play in a previous domestic violence incident. Plaintiff looks like fairly attractive young black woman, soft spoken... just too bad her first sentence is all about how she renewed her acquaintance with the defendant after spending get 8 months in jail for stabbing a previous bf. Once again a litigant tries to dodge around a previous conviction instead of just coming out and saying why they spent time in the hoosegow. Plaintiff is trying her best to spin her conviction into self defense against abusive ex. Just looks bad when the judge has to drag out the story of the conviction, and the fact that she was in jail for 8 months for stabbing the ex. Doesn't mean she can't be right in this case, but instead of a couple sentences just stating she had been in a previous violent relationship and been convicted of assault, it takes WAY longer when the judge has to drag the story from you and you continually try to claim you were an innocent in the whole debacle. Actually took 5 minutes of questioning to find out a jury found her guilty and the ex spend a night in the hospital, and she is still arguing her self defence. Like I said, doesn't automatically make her wrong in this case, but does leave us with the impression that she's one of those people who can do no wrong, at least in her mind. She doesn't even have to be lying because she feels justified whatever she does, so it's hard to credit her testimony. Ok, enough ranting about her past and why everything she says is suspect in my mind. When she gets out of jail she reconnects with defendant. She's known him and dated off and on for three years, and they end up moving in together. Lease is in his name, but she says utilities in her name, and she claims the furniture, kitchen appliances, and pretty much everything else. Life is not happy, one argument after another, with him ending up kicking her out after 3 months without giving her a chance to get her stuff. She comes back with a uhaul, and breaks in - well, according to her, her key worked even though he had a locksmith come change the locks... yep, this girl shows all the signs I've been trained by court TV to use to spot someone making up a story - the shifty eyes, looking down or closing her eyes, long hesitations and the "wellllll..." before answering, and of course the ever popular just changing the subject and not answering a direct question. Put all that together with taking 5 minutes for MM to drag the story of her prior history and her case is going nowhere. Ah, but I have to remind myself defendant could be just as bad, and just hasn't had a chance to prove it, yet. His little smirk when she says he was in bed with another woman the next day sure makes him look like a dirt bag... but hey, they were probably just conversating. Yep, once he starts talking he seems a match for plaintiff. Anyway, big kerfuffle, she wants her stuff, he says it's his stuff, cops are called, yada yada. Course, cops can't do anything even if it IS her stuff since she's not on the lease and it's a civil matter. Course nobody has receipts - well, not entirely true. She hands Douglas a bunch of receipts for misc crap which prove nothing and MM asks if she just copied receipts from the bottom of her purse. No evidence of anything, and to tell the truth I'm getting bored with these two expecting a judgement with no evidence. Heck, they don't even agree about who called the cops, and nobody has a police report - though she did bring a useless "incident report", which essentially says they responded, but no statement of what they found when they got there. These two may have cleaned up for court, but haven't figured out how to speak intelligently, and apparently their texts are something else - the texts really interest MM but she says she can't read them aloud. Perfect time to break out the "courts don't get involved in almost marrieds disputes." I see nothing to place a value on, and both sides are willing to say pretty much anything, so I say nobody gets anything. MM does some rough justice and give plaintiff a couple thousand - actually, she picks the amount that of the countersuit. Couple sad things about the case - college student who can't talk or write - GEEZ, is English 101 no longer a requirement - and both these litigants have offspring they're training to be just like them.
2. Missing parts for a kit car: plaintiff says he paid defendant for the parts to make a kit car, but when he received the car it was incomplete and he wants 4 grand for the parts he'll need to finish building the car. This is one of those things I just never understood - screw a bunch of sheet metal onto a cheap car and make it look like a $300,000 exotic or classic. Course, this kit is all new, no cheapo car underneath. I guess kit cars have different levels, just like restoration goes from frame off all original to bond of and a paint job. But, hey, guess it's different strokes for different folks type thing. This is even worse than a typical used car deal. At least with a used car you can argue someone bought it was to get a usable driver. With a classic, or in this case a kit car, some folks buy it as a static, never to be driven, display, while others want to drive it and pretend they have a real Coby Mustang. So, plaintiff is going to need something spelling out what he expected, then will have to show defendant failed to deliver what he promised. Of course, he doesn't have anything like that - and once he starts talking he decides to add missing paperwork to missing parts to his complaint. Actually, plaintiff has a better case than I first thought. Defendant sold the partially assembled car for over 17 grand, but admits he told the plaintiff there were additional parts in a storage unit. Well... defendant is going through a messy divorce, and wifey has either thrown out the missing parts or is hiding them somewhere. But, dude, that isn't plaintiff's worry. He bought the thing and you didn't deliver what you promised. Big problem is the plaintiff went ahead and completed the kit with replacement parts, so MM can't just undo the deal. That also brings the missing paperwork into play. The car is now complete, but can't be registered or driven without the missing paperwork. If I understand the case, plaintiff wants 4 grand for the extra time and work caused by the missing hardware, but even if that is paid, he still faces more headaches before he can do anything with the car. (Plaintiff builds and sells kit cars as a business, while defendant had the thing for 10 years and only did minimal work on it.) Plaintiff wins, but isn't exactly happy. He gets paid the estimated value of the missing parts, but nothing for time and effort wasted fabricating replacements. As far as the paperwork... that isn't settled today because it wasn't in the filings.
3. ah well, wrote a lot on first two cases, so all I'll say about #3 is "dog attack"

[SanLynn]

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:37 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Car Rental Fiasco: Def is a hustler and a liar and a thief and an amoral scumbag POS and even the second viewing doesn't lessen the disgust. Sure, I'd be standing there, casually admitting that my name is blacklisted with every car rental agency around and that I met the plaintiff at the bailbonds place. Sounds reasonable. JM tried to instill some shame into her, but what a waste that was. She was revolting. Doug (I love you!) in the hall: "Are you as stupid as I think you are?" Her reply, "Are YOU as stupid as I think you are?" and "I know you are, but what am I?" How intelligent and articulate she is, with that witty repartee. Doug directs her fat ass in the right direction - out the door. Yeah, she is that stupid, since when she commited some sort of bank embezzlement/fraud she got caught, because most criminals are not overly bright. I don't think she could tell the truth if her life depended on it

I'm late to the party on this one but the best part of that was JM wanting a booking photo so she could make sure it's part of the casefile. I love JM, but especially when she gets her righteous disgust on.

Edited March 15, 2017 by SanLynn

[teebax]

3 hours ago, Hockeymom said:

That's exactly what I meant! You had one moment. One moment, two, even five. Having an occasional emergency is fine. It's just that when employees dump their poor planning or poor choices in my lap everyday that I get cranky.

My sister manages a Walmart.  She and hubby have six kids. I don't begrudge them having so many because they work and support them. She has employees who pull the mommy card. Then she points out she has six kids and never leaves early or arrives late. First they're surprised someone who's a size 4 and looks 30 has six kids. Then they shut the f up and get back to work. Her male manager colleagues fall for that shit. She does not.

I was reading a column about how people who are childfree get imposed upon at work as if we have no lives. That's not my personal experience,  as I've worked with lots of parents over the years who are excellent coworkers. But the mom in this case totally seems like the type. I don't know if she works or not, but if she does I guarantee you she has a million excuses to leave early and arrive late.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

BAD breakup: extra bad breakup

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Demure and soft-spoken plaintiff admits - with a big, sweet smile - that she stabbed her last beau and went to prison for eight months for that. Well, she hardly stabbed him. It was just a little cut, but someone made a big deal out of it and the thing is now in NY, a person who defends him/herself from attack is put in jail. Okay then. She's a college student and as usual, has horrifically, eardrum-puncturing bad grammar. I guess she's going to be a "home health aide." Def was dressed his best and seemed totally sympathetic, well, until we learned that he "put his hands on her" over some FB stupidity. I would have found this a lot more amusing were it not for the fact that both of them have kids. Of course they do, because no one on this show can ever bump uglies without producing progeny, no matter how unfit they are as parents because babies have zero rights to have reasonable parents.  So these kids get moved around all the time and witness nasty violence between their parent and their parents' latest bed partner. Ugly and nasty - all of it.

ETA: I just have to say how much I enjoyed JM trying to read their illiterate, "Yo.. Imma" profanity laced "texes." I always love when she does that.

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Missing parts for a kit car:

I never saw two middleaged people so frickin' clueless. Nitwit plaintiff hands over 17K without getting what he paid for, because well - he was already there and had a truck and trailer so of course he gave in. (If I were paying that amount of money for anything I"d make damned sure I'm getting everything I paid for, U-Haul or not). Def is another Duh! lulu who sells something and promises to include the necessary parts, but he can't do that because his ex-wife has hidden them from him. Def was worse, actually, because he says he told plaintiff that all the parts were... somewhere or other,  and he had no idea where. I don't think even this plaintiff would have forked over all that money on that basis. OTOH, maybe he would. People have a way of rationalizing even their most ridiculous actions when they see something they want. At least no one hauled out the "I'm a Christian/nice guy/Good Samaritan" nonsense.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

so all I'll say about #3 is "dog attack"

As soon as I heard "bailing my uncle out of jail" and "dog attack" I clicked off. I'm pretty sure all the parties were yet more lamebrains who shouldn't be allowed to own a hamster.

Edited March 15, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

I was reading a column about how people who are childfree get imposed upon at work as if we have no lives.

This might be better in Small Talk, but anyway: Not just childfree, but when I was single and renting (for some bizarre reason I didn't think it was a good idea to have a litter of kids when I was on my own) I remember being told by people (read: "men") at work that I must have a lot of money, since I was single and childfree. This enraged me and I replied that I had to pay and do every single thing - utilities, rent, food, car ins./maintenance, etc - that married people have to pay and do but I had to do all of that alone. Yes, if you're single, everything is free, the garbage takes itself out and groceries magically appear in your cupboards.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

This might be better in Small Talk, but anyway: Not just childfree, but when I was single and renting (for some bizarre reason I didn't think it was a good idea to have a litter of kids when I was on my own) I remember being told by people (read: "men") at work that I must have a lot of money, since I was single and childfree. This enraged me and I replied that I had to pay and do every single thing - utilities, rent, food, car ins./maintenance, etc - that married people have to pay and do but I had to do all of that alone. Yes, if you're single, everything is free, the garbage takes itself out and groceries magically appear in your cupboards.

You're right that this getting far afield, but I also think that MM being a parent often colors how she rules on cases.  And look how often she gets emotional about problems within families and how she thinks swimming in the same gene pool somehow creates this miraculous tie and is horrified to find that it, well, doesn't.

Anyway, my bitch is about a so-called long time friend, childfree, who a few months ago posted on FB about all the breaks I got for being a single parent of a disabled child.  I sorta went ballistic.  Other than filing as head of household instead of single, I got zero breaks, and even head of household has a higher marginal tax rate than married filing jointly.  It was really special when I was very, very sick with preeclampsia and the doctor ordered me to go on bedrest.  The magical elves brought me my food, cleaned my house, did my laundry, etc.  Or perhaps not.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

As soon as I heard "bailing my uncle out of jail" and "dog attack" I clicked off. I'm pretty sure all the parties were yet more lamebrains who shouldn't be allowed to own a hamster.

I am so grateful for posts from people like you and SRTouch so I don't waste 20 minutes of my life on something that will only upset me more.

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, meowmommy said:

You're right that this getting far afield, but I also think that MM being a parent often colors how she rules on cases.  And look how often she gets emotional about problems within families and how she thinks swimming in the same gene pool somehow creates this miraculous tie and is horrified to find that it, well, doesn't.

Right. She does let it colour her opinions, although maybe not the way she rules. I (and we all, I think) have noted that before. Example: that bunch of girls who trashed the rental house and JM seemed to think there was something cute about it. The homeowners who, unlike these spoiled babies, actually worked to earn the money to buy that house found it not funny or precious at all.

I love JM, but I really do not want to hear any more lectures from about how related litigants - who usually hate each and have fought like wild animals - deep down must love each other and get along. No, they won't. You'd think after all her years in the justice system, she'd have noted how often murders, rapes and other acts of violence are committed within families and stop acting shocked and disappointed over this.

[SRTouch]

1. vacation club blowup: I was putting the makings of a green chili in the crockpot when this case started, looked up and thought Valerie Bertinelli! - nope, just some girl with an old style wig. Had to stop and think about the big hair of the 80's. Anyway, group of 4 friends start up a vacation club. One girl handles the money since she has the best credit - and immediately I'm thinking about a couple old sayings: 1)never mix money and friendship, and 2) power corrupts. Anyway, plaintiff put some money in the pot, and got her feelings hurt when she found out defendant is the only one on the account. She wants the money back. Problem is, the way these things work is you pay a large lump sum upfront, then get discounts when you take your vacation - sort of a time share deal. The 4 friends put their money in upfront, and the only way she can get a refund is for the others to buy her out - oh, and there's a countersuit because she never finished paying her upfront money. Defendant claims there's no need to dissolve the deal, she can still go on her vacations (assuming she finishes paying what she owes). When we start, I'm a bit confused because it seems plaintiff is making defendant's case. She pretty much agrees the club membership had to go in defendant's name because defendant was the only one with a good enough credit score to qualify - it was no surprise that popped up later, she knew going in that the cub membership would be in defendant's name. Oh, she says, it was a emotional decision, and now after thinking about it she wants out. Hmmm maybe that's why she has bad credit, she buys on impulse, has second thoughts, and stops paying. Anyway, as MM questions her it doesn't take long before her answers have me baffled, I just want to see the membership contract because I don'the think she has a clear understanding of how it works. Ouy, this is one of those times the contract isn'the much help. MM looks at a copy, and says she doesn't understand it. I think time shares and vacation clubs are usually a waste of money - I did go to Reno once and sit through a presentation - received big discounts and free chips to gamble with, but didn't commit to a thing. Anyway, after sitting through the presentation, the 4 friends can't wait to sign up. Defendant puts the nearly 8 grand fee on her credit card, and the other 3 are supposed to pay off their share within 6 months. What actually happens is the other three get second thoughts. One friend backs out, and defendant let her out without paying. When plaintiff wants to back out, defendant realizes she's about to be stuck paying for yet another share, says enough, she's already paying interest because the deadbeats haven't paid on time, she can't afford to absorb another deadbeat's share. (Actually, these two weren't even friends, just friends of friends according to plaintiff. So WTH did defendant put her name on the line for someone she didn't really even know!?!) Don't know about you all, but more plaintiff talks more I'm ready to say she gets nothing and owes the defendant the rest of the agreed amount, plus any interest on her portion of the credit card fees... and defendant hasn't had to say anything except answer a couple questions. When defendant does talk, I have no more understanding of how the deal is supposed to work. Cut through all the vacation club nonsense... heck if a career lawyer/judge has questions about the membership, how is a lay person going to understand it. Much as I hate to, Harvey has a point about getting a lawyer before signing these convoluted contracts. Both agree plaintiff agreed to pay, she changed her mind, but that doesn't negate the agreement, she doesn't get a refund and has to pay as agreed. Now, my problem us the numbers don't seem to match. Plaintiff claims to have paid more than defendant agrees she received. Yep, that's pretty much what MM rules (though her math differs because defendant didn't figure the interest right). Case dismissed, plaintiff has to finish paying.
2. nonpayment for services: plaintiff is an engineer, which says he was hired by defendant, did the work, and obnoxious deadbeat stiffed him. Defendant says guy the work was unsatisfactory, so he ain't paying. Simple case, I'm sure this professional structural engineer knew to get a signed contract before doing hours of work. Uh, no, no contract, but he admits he'll have one before doing work in the future. So, really, this is a communication failure. Plaintiff met with defendant, talked about the project, he thought he was going to do preliminary work with detailed plans later. Defendant thought the meeting was to get a quote, says he met with three engineers to get estimates before deciding who to hire to make the plans ready to take to get a permit. He actually has the notes he made as he met the three potential engineers while shopping for the guy to make the plans. Unlike 99.9% of litigants, defendant actually answers with one word when asked if he hired plaintiff - "No." Don't see a "meeting of the minds" here, so no verbal contract, case dismissed. Ah, but this is TV and we have time to fill. First case went a little long, but need to stretch this out a little. So, MM looks at a coffee table book and gets a lot of background stuff that has nothing to do with the case. Hey, I kind of like defendant. He has a nice accent, maybe a little eccentric, sort of reminds me of a shorter dumpy Judd Hirsch - I believe his story. Even offered to pay plaintiff a little something because he liked the guy's drawing, even though he didn't need it. Now, OTOH plaintiff is asked a couple times if he ever gave the defendant a quote. Simple yes or no question, then elaborate if you need to add an explanation. But, noooo, getting an answer is like pulling teeth with this guy. Even listening to him testify about his hourly rate I would have been showing him the door. Then, more he talks less it sounds like he was hired - he was doing a friend a favor so defendant would let the friend put his kayak on defendant's property. Kind of entertaining case, but not a landmark legal decision - case dismissed.
3. wrecked bike: plaintiff says he paid 2500 bucks to get his motorcycle fixed, but ended up picking up the bike because defendant was taking so long. Says no work was done, so he wants the money back. Defendant says he had to order parts and plaintiff picked up the bike before he had a chance to put the parts on the bike. Sort of sounds like we need to know when the parts were ordered, when they came in, and whether defendant was dragging his feet or actually waiting for back ordered parts. Ok, part of the problem is obvious from the beginning. Insurance was paying 3 grand, but sent the check to plaintiff instead of repair shop because shop was not certified Yamaha repair shop. Plaintiff gave partial payment of $2500 so shop could order parts. Original time frame was 2 weeks - but was that realistic, or did this shop not know how long it would take to get the shops, and would an authorized shop have been able to find and get the parts faster? Plaintiff says the bike had been in the shop over two months before he gave up and picked it up. Says he made numerous texts asking about the delay, and was repeatedly put off with promises that it would be done next week - and next week never came. Defendant says there was more damage than originally thought - says insurance actually upped the damage and issued a supplement check to plaintiff. So, of course that would tack on time. Then,  as I thought, he's says parts were backordered. I don't know enough to say how long the order should take, but if the bike was inspected, parts ordered, more damage found when they start to install the parts, another order... yeah, maybe it took awhile to get the parts. Hey, I can even see not putting the parts on until everything arrives, because you might end up putting stuff on and having to take it off to install a part you didn't know was damaged and was ordered later. Ah, the biggy, though, is defendant is just yapping away with no evidence. The way he could justify the delay in my little scenario is with records: work orders of when damage was found, when a part was ordered, papers showing part was back ordered, when it arrived, etc. Does he even have anything showing a part was ordered? Another thing... plaintiff named the defendant and the shop, but he has since sold the shop. Hmmm, when the shop sold, did liability pass to new owners? Sounds like something that should be in the purchase contract, and far as I see no one us on hand representing new owners. Oh well, delay occurred prior to the sale, so I guess he's on the hook - with no defense except parts were on backorder and Yamaha never sent a refund, and the parts that did arrive grew legs and walked. Not plaintiff's problem, pay the man! Of course, when he gets in hallway defendant says not his fault. Hmmm how does this work with court TV arbitration? Could defendant really sue the manufacturer for a refund? He was paid for the parts, lost the case, but plaintiff is being paid the refund by TPC, so what are his damages?

[Brattinella]

Green Chili??  Mmmmmm.

[DoctorK]

Nice summaries SRTouch (as usual). On the motorcycle case, was I the only one who suspected that the plaintiff was quite drunk during the case? His way of speaking seemed a bit slurred and inappropriately informal, his head movements were exagerated, and the way he was dressed (tie hangin down among other things), suggested that to me. A second thought was that maybe when the second check came to the plaintiff, he thought that cash in hand was better than a long delayed repaired motorcycle.

[Hockeymom]

20 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I am so grateful for posts from people like you and SRTouch so I don't waste 20 minutes of my life on something that will only upset me more.

I finally got to watch and it wasn't so bad. Basic dog attack case. Defendant agreed to pay the vet bills until she noticed she was being charged for neutering and some astronomical charge for retraining. The victim dog was some flavor of support animal, and supposedly he was now disobedient. When she saw those charges, def. dug in her heels, questioned everything, and said no way.

JM called the plaintiff on the bogus charges, and awarded him the actual medical. Defendant knew she had to pay, just didn't like getting played. Everyone happy with the ruling.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

vacation club blowup: I was putting the makings of a green chili in the crockpot when this case started, looked up and thought Valerie Bertinelli! - nope, just some girl with an old style wig.

Green chili, and you didn't invite us?? I could bring some garlic bread and wine. Actually, I was trying to eat dinner and drink wine with a totally frozen upper lip (I couldn't tell if I was dribbling the wine) while watching this and maybe that's what made me cranky. In spite of the silly deal they entered into, these two women seemed reasonable and articulate, were appropriately dressed and polite, BUT - I just can't take this grammar anymore! I think my pet peeve now is "had came," although when added to "we was" and "She do dat" I was on the verge of an attack of serious indigestion. Why? WTF?? We had someone in the next case for whom English is a second language. He had a heavy accent but his grammar was impeccable. Why can no one (at least no one we see on this show) for whom it's a first language manage to do that? I need to know. I can remember in the ancient mists of time being in first grade and even then "had came" would have been swiftly corrected.

William Tell statues and Rat(?)Island and an engineering professional who bitterly regrets not using a contract was a breath of fresh air. Def. was pretty funny too.  Personally, I really like contract cases for a number of reasons, one being we're *usually* assured we won't have to listen to our language being murdered and buried.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

wrecked bike:

 Plaintiff was an odd little duck (JJ would have reprimanded him for his "Yup" answers) but totally in the right.  Def was just a deadbeat and a thief who took plaintiff's money and ran. I'm sure he never had any intention of fixing plaintiff's motorcycle and no way did he order any parts at all. Well, he did, but didn't bother bringing the evidence of that. He knew he was selling his business and figured he'd get away with it. He probably owes everyone in town and used the insurance money to pay off some of his debts.

And Levin? Do you think that nasty fungus on your face that makes you look like an old-timey, rail-riding hobo, improves your appearance? Hahahahahaha!

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

BUT - I just can't take this grammar anymore! I think my pet peeve now is "had came," although when added to "we was" and "She do dat" I was on the verge of an attack of serious indigestion. Why? WTF?? We had someone in the next case for whom English is a second language. He had a heavy accent but his grammar was impeccable. Why can no one (at least no one we see on this show) for whom it's a first language manage to do that? I need to know. I can remember in the ancient mists of time being in first grade and even then "had came" would have been swiftly corrected.

What fascinates me is how many grammar disasters are commonly shared.  Why do thousands, if not millions, of people say "we was," while nobody ever says "us was" or "she am" or some other misalignment of pronoun subject and auxiliary verb?  These illiterates learn it at home from whatever influence surrounds them, and when they eventually get to school they stick with what's familiar and ignore what's taught--apparently all the way to college.  While I received outstanding tutelage in my 7th grade English class, it's not as if I was murdering the grammar until I got into that class.  My tongue would have fallen out, even as a kindergartner, before I would have ever uttered "we was."  But then, my parents were literate.  Learning English as a second language means getting the rules up front without any ingrained bad habits.  No ESL course is ever going to teach someone to say "we was."

I know it's not MM's job to be the grammar police but I wish she'd call them out on it more often.  Then again, she makes the occasional boo-boo herself.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

And Levin? Do you think that nasty fungus on your face that makes you look like an old-timey, rail-riding hobo, improves your appearance? Hahahahahaha!

Geez Louise, when he first showed up with that I thought he was growing something in, and then I came to realize his piddly stubble was as good as it gets.  Flattering it is not.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Geez Louise

Nice! Yesterday I wasn't quick enough to click off the "Bailing my uncle out" and "Dog attack" case and heard Levin say "The case of "What a set of balls." How clever you are, Levin, you tiny little creep. I cringed.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

 Learning English as a second language means getting the rules up front without any ingrained bad habits.  No ESL course is ever going to teach someone to say "we was."

I grew up with a lot of people in the neighbourhood who said things like "I seen" (HATE) and used double negatives, but reading books and going to school taught me that is not correct. I've never known anyone to say "We was."

JM must have her own "HATE" words, since she did (futilely) try to correct someone who kept saying "pacific" instead of "specific" and another who said, "That's mineS."

[teebax]

5 hours ago, meowmommy said:

What fascinates me is how many grammar disasters are commonly shared.  Why do thousands, if not millions, of people say "we was," while nobody ever says "us was" or "she am" or some other misalignment of pronoun subject and auxiliary verb?  These illiterates learn it at home from whatever influence surrounds them, and when they eventually get to school they stick with what's familiar and ignore what's taught--apparently all the way to college.  While I received outstanding tutelage in my 7th grade English class, it's not as if I was murdering the grammar until I got into that class.  My tongue would have fallen out, even as a kindergartner, before I would have ever uttered "we was."  But then, my parents were literate.  Learning English as a second language means getting the rules up front without any ingrained bad habits.  No ESL course is ever going to teach someone to say "we was."

I know it's not MM's job to be the grammar police but I wish she'd call them out on it more often.  Then again, she makes the occasional boo-boo herself.

Geez Louise, when he first showed up with that I thought he was growing something in, and then I came to realize his piddly stubble was as good as it gets.  Flattering it is not.

It looks like his face is dirty. 

I thought this episode was boring,  so I have nothing to add.

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, meowmommy said:

What fascinates me is how many grammar disasters are commonly shared.  Why do thousands, if not millions, of people say "we was," while nobody ever says "us was" or "she am" or some other misalignment of pronoun subject and auxiliary verb?  These illiterates learn it at home from whatever influence surrounds them, and when they eventually get to school they stick with what's familiar and ignore what's taught--apparently all the way to college.  While I received outstanding tutelage in my 7th grade English class, it's not as if I was murdering the grammar until I got into that class.  My tongue would have fallen out, even as a kindergartner, before I would have ever uttered "we was."  But then, my parents were literate.  Learning English as a second language means getting the rules up front without any ingrained bad habits.  No ESL course is ever going to teach someone to say "we was."

Hmmm, we're straying a ways off topic, but here's my take on the grammar downfall. I was going through school way back when part of grammar was taught when we diagramed sentences. This was not only taught in our English class, but in California in the 60's everyone was also taught a secondary language. In my part of the State, this meant Spanish in elementary and Junior High, then I took Latin in High School. We not only learned grammar and diagramming sentences in English classes, but also diagramed sentences and conjugated verbs in our secondary language classes. Probably learned as much about English grammar as Spanish. Then, traditional grammar teaching techniques sort of fell out of favor, and it was thought the best way to learn was through creative writing https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-wrong-way-to-teach-grammar/284014/ I'm not going to say that was hogwash - will just say that most of my generation think the way we were taught worked, and then things went to hell in a handbasket. The only way you learn grammar and spelling through creative writing is if errors are pointed out - and lots of times that never happened when papers were graded. Then part of the problem is that today's kids do most of their writing in texts, and spelling/grammar rules are nonexistent in texts. And, you find many of the more common texting grammar and spelling violations migrating into everyday life. How many of us have seen mainstream advertising butchering  proper use of words to save a little space or create a catch phrase? We also used to learn grammar and spelling through newspapers and magazines - heck I had a social studies teacher in high school that required we read the local paper for current events. No big deal, most household received the paper back in the day - not today, though.

Edited March 17, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[meowmommy]

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Hmmm, we're straying a ways off topic, but here's my take on the grammar downfall. I was going through school way back when part of grammar was taught when we diagramed sentences. This was not only taught in our English class, but in California in the 60's everyone was also taught a secondary language. In my part of the State, this meant Spanish in elementary and Junior High, then I took Latin in High School. We not only learned grammar and diagramming sentences in English classes, but also diagramed sentences and conjugated verbs in our secondary language classes. Probably learned as much about English grammar as Spanish. Then, traditional grammar teaching techniques sort of fell out of favor, and it was thought the best way to learn was through creative writing https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-wrong-way-to-teach-grammar/284014/ I'm not going to say that was hogwash - will just say that most of my generation think the way we were taught worked, and then things went to hell in a handbasket. The only way you learn grammar and spelling through creative writing is if errors are pointed out - and lots of times that never happened when papers were graded. Then part of the problem is that today's kids do most of their writing in texts, and spelling/grammar rules are nonexistent in texts. And, you find many of the more common texting grammar and spelling violations migrating into everyday life. How many of us have seen mainstream advertising butchering  proper use of words to save a little space or create a catch phrase? We also used to learn grammar and spelling through newspapers and magazines - heck I had a social studies teacher in high school that required we read the local paper for current events. No big deal, most household received the paper back in the day - not today, though.

I learned rules of grammar and I learned how to parse sentences and I took Latin in junior high in the 1960s, but I already had already known long since more than enough to speak coherently.  If the problem with the vernacular comes from improper teaching techniques, then you would expect all young children to say "we was," until they are corrected in school, and they don't.  I still remember, in the 70s, seeing the sign in my high school for the girl's bathroom and cringing.  There are just as many 60 year olds standing in front of MM who butcher the language as there are 20 year olds.  My daughter is 27 and if I had ever heard her say "we was," I would have knitted her a new tongue.  Because she learned from me, the parent.  Look at all the cases MM encounters of family litigants and witnesses, and every single person in a given family mangles grammar in eerily similar patterns.

[Hockeymom]

17 hours ago, meowmommy said:

What fascinates me is how many grammar disasters are commonly shared.

The new thing that's been driving me nuts is how use of the word whenever has changed. It used to be short for when, every time. For example,  "Whenever we go to the movies, I treat". Or, "Whenever I call the dog, he hides under the bed".

Now, more and more, I hear litigants use it for a one time event. "Whenever we went out on Tuesday, he drove". "Whenever we was talking, I said to come get your stuff."

Has anyone else noticed this?

[HoboClayton]

What is it with this show hiring the creepiest creepers? Harvey has always been gross. But, has Doug Llewelyn always been so damn creepy? I just remember his face and name from his original run. Just finished watching today's show and he was asking about this guy's tattoos and how much he is covered. Then, he asked his ex when she came out about his tattoos and how she's seen them and if they were nice or whatever. It was creepy, very creepy. Kurt was an ass in that hallway too. Is it haunted or something?? Douglas always looks uncomfortable out there, like he can feel the evil in the air. I'm just messing around, but it's so weird out in the hall. 

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, HoboClayton said:

What is it with this show hiring the creepiest creepers?

I think everything is relative. I remember not liking Doug on the old TPC, but after years of that disgusting pig, Levin, and that shifty-eyed, no-neck, trollish Hall Clown Kurt I now love Doug.

 

9 minutes ago, HoboClayton said:

Douglas always looks uncomfortable out there, like he can feel the evil in the air.

LOL! I think when you reach a certain age, you just don't care what you say.

[DoctorK]

Did anybody catch the word that Mr. Neck Tats used that JM called him out on? I was watching closely and listening but didn't hear either the word or a brief silence if the show muted it.

[HoboClayton]

I watched the show a lot more when Kurt was on, and I absolutely agree with you about him.  I don't get to watch too often, so, I haven't seen much of Doug this time around. It just always seems so awkward. Douglas standing in the background smirking is usually what I focus on though. :) :) 

[SRTouch]

1. father/son feud: oh boy, recently someone talked about MM having a blind spot when it comes to dysfunctional families. Well, this family sets the standard for dysfunction. Instead of recognizing they should stay far far away from each other - maybe continents apart - pot smoking son lives in parents' basement. Not only does he live there, but according to wack-a-doodle pops sonny has live in gf and 10yo boy. I guess it's a life choice - they all live together so they have stuff to go to court over. Not sure how many court cases they talked about, dueling restraining orders, eviction court, family court etc etc. I got lost, should have skipped it.
2. Auto shop can't fix her brand new old junkheap: plaintiff  buys a junker, spends more than it's worth trying to fix it, and now wants repair shop to refund all the money she wasted. Nothing really to say, she comes to court with no proof except that she repeatedly paid money for repairs, repairs were done, but problem never fixed. MM tried to help her out by hammering mechanic about why he kept trying to fix the problem instead of realizing what he was doing was just a bandaid when she needed sutures. Really, though, I think what it comes down to is she took it to the wrong kind of shop. She kept complaining about a front end suspension problem, and the shop she was bringing it to doesn't even do alignments. She brings it in, they replace the tie rods and a control arm, then tell her to go get an alignment. Couple weeks later she brings it in, they replace something else, send her for an alignment. Repeat the cycle. Finally, after replacing the steering system, mechanic goes with her to get the alignment. Computer says one corner can't be aligned, frame has been bent and strut mount knocked out of place. My guess is a good suspension or tire shop would have spotted that the first time she took it in - oh, maybe not right away, but surely when they couldn't align the junker. Anyway, plaintiff has no case.
3. roommate moves out owing rent: dude shares 3 bedroom apartment with two single women. His gf isn't happy with his living there with these long time friends/acquaintances, so he moves out and moves in with gf a month and a half before lease is up. Roommates say he owes $1300 rent. Ah well, sometimes the intro is the best part of the case, and I love the looks on the plaintiffs' faces when the intro says they were party girls. Then, as we go to commercial MM is lecturing defendant about his choice of language "are you really so low-rent that you can't clean up your language while in court." Can't really tell what he says, sometimes you can lip read and figure it out, but this time he's off camera when he says whatever he says. Actually, only reason anyone will notice is MM stops his testimony to lecture him. Uh, I'm not a fan of tattoos, but can't help but wonder what is under this guy's long sleeved shirt. We see his neck tats, tats on both hands, is he covered everywhere except his face? Gotta say, don't think I would have come after this guy if I were in these girls' shoes. For 11 months the guy paid $1300 while the girls were paying $500 apiece, for grand total of $2300. Everyone had a private bedroom and private bath. Ok, he did say in a text that he'd pay the final month of the lease, and then changed his mind, so they have a legit case, but I would have let it go in the shoes... oh and he was leaving behind his $800 deposit, which he now wants back. Oops, when MM reads the texts aloud I switch sides. Appears when landlord did a walk through dude wasn't getting back the deposit - dirty and walls had been painted and needed to be repainted original color. Ok, he promised to come clean and repaint, but by the time he shows up the lease is up and someone else is in his old room. (New resident moved in first week of September, and they're suing for August rent.) Anyway, even if he has a case for the deposit, MM informs him his case would be against the landlord not the plaintiffs. Then in text and testimony he admits owing, his defense is he just doesn't have the money. Uh, doesn't have the money? Then why enter into this lopsided agreement in the first place? Says he works two jobs and 90 hours a week - take a breath, dude, quit a job and find a place you can afford. Dude doesn't have a defense. He tries to invent defenses on the fly, but they're all lame and contradict the texts. He was gonna pay when he got some money, then when he was served he decided to wait until ordered to pay. This is where Judge Mathis would say "Ok, you were gonna pay, well it's time, pay the ladies!" 

7 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Did anybody catch the word that Mr. Neck Tats used that JM called him out on? I was watching closely and listening but didn't hear either the word or a brief silence if the show muted it.

Nope, couldn't even try to lip read as he was off camera. Only reason we know he said anything is she stopped his testimony to chew him out.

Edited March 18, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[meowmommy]

27 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

1. father/son feud: oh boy, recently someone talked about MM having a blind spot when it comes to dysfunctional families. Well, this family sets the standard for dysfunction.

Maybe MM heard us ragging on her for being too emotional about family, because she was JJ levels of stone-cold not giving a shit about these people.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

father/son feud: 

Okay, is there some rule that the more low-class, trashy and illiterate people are, the more grandiose their names? When I heard "Rudolph Kettering I" and "Rudolph Kettering III" I guess I expected nothing short of nobility. Parasitic, blobby Rudolph III needs to stop assuming that his stupid facial hair is going to trick people into thinking he has a chin. It does not. The most amazing part is that he has what it takes to make (an unfortunate) child. And Rudolph the First is cheating on his wife?  I initially thought no way would any woman want him, but then thought about the many women we've seen here who not only will settle for anything with a pulse, but shower money on them as well. This show so often makes me look at my own life in a different light, and this was no exception. For that, I am grateful.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

roommate moves out owing rent: 

Neck tats make me cringe nearly as much as do boob tats, and def. had them aplenty. I wish I knew what vulgar/disgusting words he used when speaking to JM. "Bullshit?" maybe? I guess his vocabulary is rather limited (his girlfriend didn't seem any more articulate) or maybe he wants people to think that since he's covered his body with nasty tats.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Auto shop can't fix her brand new old junkheap: 

I swear that after this I'll stop commenting on people who cannot speak their own language, as much as "had came" and "should of did" make me crazy. Idiotic, ignorant plaintiff buys a smashed, nine-year old Nissan and pays 1K over the book value ("Oh, there was no frame damage. It's just a bashed-in fender! I don't drive it and blah blah!") Both defendants, for whom English is a second language, spoke it way better than low-class plaintiff, who came with absolutely zero evidence that the defs did anything wrong. She's a car expert! Oh, wait. No, she's not, but someone told her that maybe it was... Doesn't anyone watch this show before appearing on it?

[quarkuud]

18 hours ago, teebax said:

It looks like his face is dirty. 

Yeah, when I first saw it, I seriously thought it was some makeup malfunction.  But apparently it's intentional?

[EtheltoTillie]

Well, speaking of "had came," as someone posted yesterday, Mr. Kettering II uttered that locution today!

[Bazinga]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I wish I knew what vulgar/disgusting words he used when speaking to JM. "Bullshit?" maybe?

"First of all, your honor, from day one, it was f*cked up."  Saying "f*cked" in court, to a judge, was what set JM off.  He then changed it to: "From day one, it was a disaster."

Edited March 18, 2017 by Bazinga

[how55]

I go back to the Judge Wapner People's Court, and remember not being a fan of Doug way back when. His voice is a bit whiny, and I think in today's incarnation he's still looking for Officer Burrell to "sign some documents". It seemed to take him a long time to learn Officer Mackintosh's name.

Obviously in the minority here, but I never minded Curt's hallway. Don't get the hate for him, but that's what makes the world go round. 

Now Harvey. Where do we start? Didn't like his little cameos in Judge Wapner's court and he's regressed to a 3 year old in today's PC. What's w/the stupid goatee? It's making me focus on that part of his face & for the first time noticing how bad his teeth are. And he lives in Hollywood? 

Edited March 18, 2017 by how55

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, Bazinga said:

"First of all, your honor, from day one, it was f*cked up."  Saying "f*cked" in court, to a judge, was what set JM off.

Must have been that. I really don't think he knows any better.

[Brattinella]

I remember an insolent girl in a REAL courtroom, who got dinged big-time by the judge for cursing and disrespect.  I think she got a bunch more time than she was originally going down for.  I like it!

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, how55 said:

Now Harvey. Where do we start? Didn't like his little cameos in Judge Wapner's court and he's regressed to a 3 year old in today's PC. What's w/the stupid goatee?

At least on Judge Wapner, Levin got about 30 seconds to flap his gums. Now he hogs nearly the whole show - if we're not hearing his screechy voice making stupid comments, dumb jokes that weren't funny 75 years ago and recaps of the last portion of the case, we're looking at his ugly face. He thinks the whiskers make him look sexy, hip and young. I guess he needs to feel that way because he hangs out with his dimwitted posse of gossip teens on his sorry-assed TMZ.  Levin, (as JM would say) you're dead wrong.

[meowmommy]

.

Edited March 20, 2017 by meowmommy

[teebax]

On 3/17/2017 at 9:50 AM, Hockeymom said:

The new thing that's been driving me nuts is how use of the word whenever has changed. It used to be short for when, every time. For example,  "Whenever we go to the movies, I treat". Or, "Whenever I call the dog, he hides under the bed".

Now, more and more, I hear litigants use it for a one time event. "Whenever we went out on Tuesday, he drove". "Whenever we was talking, I said to come get your stuff."

Has anyone else noticed this?

I sure have noticed it, and it drives me crazy. I've also been hearing a lot of litigants (and non-litigants) use "right now" when they mean "later." I've given up on the "me and him had went..." 

I teach middle school English Language Arts, which was just called English when I went to school in the 80s. I won't bore you with my tales of woe, but grading essays sends me into a Tourettes-style tirade of expletives that would make a sailor blush. It's so bad my partner will leave the house to avoid getting caught in the crossfire.  Maybe they don't teach grammar in grammar school these days. I know there is no room for grammar in my school's seventh-grade ELA curriculum. If the kids aren't learning it at home, there's no hope for them. We're too busy trying to get them to pass the standardized tests on which our funding relies. Don't get me started on how stupid that is.

Personally, being a voracious reader made me a better writer and speaker.  Out of my 136 students, I have three who are big readers. They're also my three best students.

[Eliza422]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

I sure have noticed it, and it drives me crazy. I've also been hearing a lot of litigants (and non-litigants) use "right now" when they mean "later." I've given up on the "me and him had went..." 

I teach middle school English Language Arts, which was just called English when I went to school in the 80s. I won't bore you with my tales of woe, but grading essays sends me into a Tourettes-style tirade of expletives that would make a sailor blush. It's so bad my partner will leave the house to avoid getting caught in the crossfire.  Maybe they don't teach grammar in grammar school these days. I know there is no room for grammar in my school's seventh-grade ELA curriculum. If the kids aren't learning it at home, there's no hope for them. We're too busy trying to get them to pass the standardized tests on which our funding relies. Don't get me started on how stupid that is.

Personally, being a voracious reader made me a better writer and speaker.  Out of my 136 students, I have three who are big readers. They're also my three best students.

You are on to something with the effect of being a reader as a kid. I credit that for much of my ability in reading, writing, and speaking.

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 0:50 PM, Hockeymom said:

Now, more and more, I hear litigants use it for a one time event. "Whenever we went out on Tuesday, he drove". "Whenever we was talking, I said to come get your stuff."

Has anyone else noticed this?

As Teebax said, we do notice it - using "whenever" when they mean "when."

 

2 hours ago, teebax said:

I've also been hearing a lot of litigants (and non-litigants) use "right now" when they mean "later."

They also like to use "currently" when talking about something in the past.  "I was currently incarcerated at that time." That one I just do NOT get. What do they think "current" means? Have they never heard of "current events?" Well, at least they all know what "incarcerated" means. 

So: "Me and him had came home early and whenever I was watching this show today, I was currently eating my dinner at that pacific time." I could be a litigant! I don't know how JM can listen to that day in and day out without throwing her gavel and screaming, "Stop it, you fucking illiterate morons!"

It's as though they all learned grammar by watching "Honey BooBoo."

2 hours ago, teebax said:

Personally, being a voracious reader made me a better writer and speaker.

 Voracious reader here too. I would be willing to bet a considerable sum that 99.5% of the litigants we see have never picked up a book in their lives.

Now I'm so annoyed I have to go and eat another Russell Stover Caramel Easter Egg.

[califred]

I miss you guys my inlaws came to Hawaii to visit so my viewing time has been limited!

[aemom]

On 17/03/2017 at 0:22 AM, teebax said:

It looks like his face is dirty. 

So, so bad.

The bad grammar also drives me bonkers.  I'm also an avid reader and my kids will tell you that I have always corrected their grammar.  The one that really drives me nuts is "I axed" instead of "I asked."  Thank goodness I can't determine the quality of their spelling too, or I would likely have to shoot myself out of frustration.

Doug continues to delight me with how he so cheerfully seems to throw shade at the litigants.  I'm quite sure that half the time, they don't realize that he's kind of insulting them.

Edited March 22, 2017 by AEMom
Because typos drive me crazy too

[SRTouch]

Reruns still

1. family drama: parents fed up with addict daughter, so are suing her for a grand after a family big blow up. Apparently this is a long time coming. Back in '14 daughter was caught with some heroin, and mom and step dad stepped in and took custody of her kids - their grandkids. (The daddy of the kids couldn't take custody because there's some silly rules about not having custody while in the hoosegow.) Daughter cleans up her act for awhile, gets a job, goes to school, new hubby, etc. 'Rents provide her with a car, phone and break the CPS supervised visit rule by letting her visit her kids - including sleepovers. They work out a deal where she's buying their car for $1500 - a really good deal, since when she totals it insurance gives them over 6 grand for it. Since she still needs a car, new deal is the 'rents give her another $1500 from the insurance check, but they're supposed to be listed as Lein holders on the registration. Second $1500 is a gift, but she's supposed to continue paying off the first loan. Ah, now's where Judge Mathis would say she's still showing her "crackish ways" (although her drug of choice is heroin). When she registers the car she forgets the part about listing parents as lien holders. And momma cries (reminds me of Alison Krauss' song Mamma Cried, but Merle's Mamma Tried may be more apt), she's back to acting like she did when she was using. (Daughter claims she's been clean for 7 months - goes every day to pee in a cup and get her methadone.) Yep, I get a hint of that with her trying to dodge the question of why the father of her children wasn't granted custody. Then mommy shows where daughter gets that from when she tries to explain away not following the supervised visit rules as per CPS. Ah, big blow up when suddenly the rules are going to be enforced... they have very different views on why the rules are now going to be followed. Parents insist it's because CPS has found out about the rule breaking and is talking about taking the kids from them. Adult daughter says they found out she pregnant, and they wanted her to abort the new addition, and now refuse to let her visit her kids. So, daughter goes online and trashes mommy on FB, big kerfuffle... now parents are suing. MM goes into her standard spiel about "say it forget it - write it regret it." And we get a glimpse into how confrontational daughter gets as she first tries to talk over the judge, then puts her hands on the lectern and leans forward looking like she wants to get into it with - da judge. Mommy is just about crying as she talks about the FB post and HER parents reaction when they saw what her daughter, their granddaughter had posted. Meanwhile, daughter looks to be enjoying mommy's pain as she watches mommy's testimony. Ah well, sad sad story, but not sure what it has to do with the case... yeah, daughter looks like a terrible person, but that's sort of what I expect from a long time addict. If this WAS Judge Mathis, this would be where he says she's not acting like she's clean, and offer her treatment. When it's daughter's turn, she turns on the waterworks (and now I want to hear Judge DiMango say, "that doesn't work on me, don't cry!") FINALLY back to the case. Daughter admits she owes money, but doesn't know how much because she always let mommy keep track. So, of course, MM has to go with the amount mommy says daughter still owes. She gives the parents what they're asking for, along with urging them to work out their problems and get over the fight... and everyone needs therapy, but she isn't the therapist... she da judge.
2. bad workmanship: plaintiff says she hired dude to fix her ceiling, and he made a mess of it. Defendant's argument is that he was hired to take down part of the ceiling so it wouldn't fall down, someone else was supposed to do the repairs. Course, no contract. Plaintiff has picture of how defendant left it, but then if he's telling the truth that's what it WOULD look like. And, yes, some folks hire people to do the demo and then a skilled craftsman follows to do the repair. Makes sense if the skilled dude gets paid twice as much per hour - but defendant is claiming to be the unskilled labor doing demo... and lady paid him $400? Oh, it was originally a $400 deposit and his worker was to finish the job, the completed job was to be $1100. Whole thing makes no sense to me. My first thought is water damage from a roof leak - waste of time replacing the ceiling before fixing the roof. Anyway, dude takes down part of the ceiling, his drywaller quits, so he brings in someone else who estimates the job at over 2 grand. Nope, his story doesn't work for me. If, as everybody seems to be saying, they planned to put up drywall, shouldn't he have taken down all the ceiling tiles - heck, even if the plan was to replace the bad tiles with tiles, I would have expected him to pull all the over 30yo tiles, not leave sagging tiles as the picture shows. When I freeze framed on the picture I question putting drywall up without better support, so ceiling tiles may be the way to go... but either drywall or tiles I say the whole ceiling should have been taken down for that $400 deposit. And, just an sidenote: asbestos ceiling tiles were still in use into the 90s, so before demo I hope they checked. Anyway, dude was either overpaid or only did a partial job, so I say he needs to return at least part of the money - I want to make him return everything after he calls plaintiffs "bottom feeders", but he did do SOME work. MM agrees, splits the $400, and orders dude to refund $200.
3. Fishing shack (just watched a couple minutes then zipped to hallterview): Way back when some guys went in together and bought a little get away. Defendant's poppa was one of those original guys, but he's dead and buried. Even though she never used the shack, and Daddy was never a legal owner, without her knowledge her hubby kept paying her daddy's share of the maintenance/taxes for years. Well, now hubby is dead and gone, and she refuses to pay. Plaintiff wants her to pay the back payments, even though she never received any benefit from the shack, never knew where it was, has never owned a share, nor had any legal obligation to pay a cent. She says she repeatedly told plaintiff she wants nothing to do with the shack, she relinquished any and all claim to the place... she ain't a gonna pay. Surprise, MM agrees. Hallterview is great. Plaintiff is all "justice is not fair!" Guy's a hoot... almost makes me go back and actually watch - but no.

Edited March 22, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

59 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

parents fed up with addict daughter

I shouldn't have watched this, since it peeved me off even more than it did the first time. More children selfishly and carelessly brought into the world - two kids, 5 and 6 now, whose parents are a heroin addict and a criminal. Daughter can't be bothered (or is horrifically unfit) to care for those two (daddy can't care for them since he's a jailbird) so wrote them off as mistakes, ditched them on her parents to raise and figured she'd start over. Gets knocked up with her new "husband" and is expecting another bundle of joy - when she is unable/unwilling to take care of the first two she squirted out. She made me sick. Her parents have to raise HER kids, and have to pay for HER car (why can't she and hubby buy their own 3K beater?) yet now the parents are demons to be reviled because they thought that maybe having a third baby when she doesn't care for the others she helped make might not be the most brilliant plan. Ya think? BTW, she's working two jobs and going to school (which makes me wonder how she has all this time to do something as stupid and frivolous as FB-fight)? Who is going to take care of this new baby? Hope the parents still have some free space in their home.  

 

59 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

bad workmanship: plaintiff says she hired dude to fix her ceiling, and he made a mess of it.

Of course her grandchildren live with her. When do we ever see people of grandparent age here who aren't saddled with another set of kids to raise? Reminds me of something I read awhile ago. Couple is talking: "We better hurry up and have kids while our parents are still young enough to take care of them."

Edited March 22, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Wings]

I love to watch Marilyn go off on something that is a hot button for her! Love this woman.  She has said it before and will again,  say it forget it, write it regret it.  Clearly she has been through this with her daughters!  

She could not get the woman, who lived in filth, to respond to her horror on what was in the tub and everywhere!  What an odd woman and she looked so well groomed.