Jump to content

Florinaldo

Member
  • Content count

    814
  • Joined

Community Likes

2,063 Excellent

About Florinaldo

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,026 profile views
  1. American Crime Story in the Media

    CF showed class by congratulating his fellow cast members who did get a nomination. If his work in Versace is any indication, he will have other kicks at the awards can, especially if his role in the next season of House of Cards is meaty enough.
  2. American Crime Story in the Media

    A whole slew of Emmy nominations for ACS: Versace. Disappointed to see Cody Fern got passed over. Finn Wittrock got selected though, perhaps because his name and face were more familiar to voters than newcomer CF. People make their selection for such a variety of sometimes contradictory reasons, it's hard to find definite explanations at times. I also expected the show's cinematography to get a nod; I thought it was remarkable, through most of the early episodes especially.
  3. I saw Al Pacino mentioned as another sure thing in a few "Emmy predictions" columns and articles over the past few weeks, and yet his name is absent from the final selection in DC's category. There are almost always surprising omissions and inclusions in such a process. As the amusing opening number from this year's Tony Awards ceremony a few weeks ago reminded us, most cast and crew never get nominated, and most of those nominated don't get to win. So it is indeed an achievement for DC or anyone else nominated in any category to find themselves in a rather select club.
  4. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    Once upon a time, you could count on the show to generally be a mix of sharp barbs sitting on a solid legal foundation. Now it's mostly her deciding according to her arbitrary likes and dislikes of litigants and on the basis of the law as she wished it were, not as it really is. The freakishness of most of the litigants is probably the main appeal of the show these days, as reassuring comparative therapy; no matter how bad we may think our lives are going, we can readily see we are nowhere near as irresponsible and stupid as the people appearing before her and we do not make the same outlandish life choices they do.
  5. Judge Judy's worst moments, rulings, etc.

    Well, they don't keep her up there because she's knowledgeable - they keep her up there because she's shmawt (or thinks she is anyway).
  6. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    It just was not in him to sustain the lie concocted by Ma (perhaps with some help from Pa). The inclination to tell the truth or the ability to resist the soft grilling JJ puts litigants through is not a question of age, but of personality and character. Remember those "charming" cousins, probably a year or two younger than this teen driver, who had broken their uncle's phone in an act of spite and were regularly stealing from their grandmother's purse (a fact confirmed by the loving grandma herself when JJ called her)? They barely budged from their lies and denial of guilt, even in the face of all the evidence and testimony to the contrary. I am sure they will continue their denials to their grave, in this matter and others. They were not even coached by the spineless and clueless mother who was ostensibly supervising them. Whereas this mother would probably go to the Supreme Court to defend her story of how the car accident happened and who is responsible.
  7. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    Yes, I think he deserves full credit for admitting his responsibility and not trying to smirk his way out of it as so many of these younger litigants do, even when confronted by the supposedly formidable figure of JJ. Some do eventually surrender and abandon that tactic, but he did not have to because he took the honest road early on. Of course, his mother had enough arrogance and stubborn stupidity in her for the two of them (and probably for three people if you count the father).
  8. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    There was a clear example of that on one of todays's repeats. Plaintiff said "I always tell my employees and rentees" and JJ immediately cut in "she was not an employee!!!", demonstrating she did not hear the second part of the statement. On top of that, she clearly had little understanding of how a booth-leasing contractual agreement between the parties might work, and obviously had it in for unpleasant overbearing plaintiff from the get-go (JJ does not like competition).
  9. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    She does have some prior knowledge from what is in the files and can start from that. I think she uses a lot the technique called "cold reading" favoured by sideshow hucksters and alleged mind readers, i.e. asking leading questions and picking up info that she later feeds back to the litigants in a show of "see how smart I am to have deducted that !"; it works because these people don't realise what they have just given her and often don't even recall what they wrote in their claim or response. She must have honed that skill during her years of sitting on real courts. If her questioning leads into a blind alley or she does not score a hit, a little bit of editing excises it and makes her so-called instinct appear to be unerring.
  10. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    I think that the majority of people who do not fit into these categories are probably too intelligent and not desperate enough to appear on these court shows. A few do slip through once in a while though.
  11. I thought that the plaintiff was awarded more than she really deserved, but MM probably rewarded her for not only watching the show but even more so following her oft-repeated advice to "grab a crayon and a piece of toilet paper and have them write a receipt". Although her evidence might have been laughed out of the courtroom by JJ who yesterday rejected receipts submitted by a plaintiff because they came from a receipt book and "I have one just like that" said JJ. Why do you keep one yourself if they have no probative value? However in this case, the receipts were very sloppily filled out, with no legible identification and a signature that looked like initials rendered in spastic squiggles, the kind so many people use so you can't decipher their name.
  12. Nothing some careful editing could not have taken care of; in most episodes there are moments when you can spot that a few or several seconds were edited out. I think it was one of MM's blind spots at work because she looked like a fragile elderly person (but a vicious one at that). As MM said, in a civil cases a preponderance of evidence is sufficient, even it it's circumstancial proof; I think she correclty estimated that the probability that right after an encounter with that dog the cat would have tussled with another animal (or walked on garbage as the old hag argued) was vanishingly small.
  13. Screechy defendant looked unhealthy; even Doug refrained from his usual tendency to touch litigants, as if he also perceived her as unhygienic. She kept saying they had had many dogs over the years and thus MM had no right to say they were inept dog owners. Numbers are not proof of anything in this instance: from what we heard and saw, they may well have been incompetent owners for each and every animal of theirs. Another customer arbitrarily witholding payment. No, I am wrong, it was not arbitrary: she is a congenital dishonest cheapskate, pure and simple. And she probably spent the money on that god-awful wig (or was it hair extensions?) she was wearing. I am sorry that MM could see no legal way to cancel the agreed-upon discounted rate. From the get-go the case seemed like the slam dunk it turned out to be, so I could not bother to suffer the defendant's mumbling and confused reasoning. At one time women were encouraged not to express their initiative or intelligence, so this might be an understandable attitude coming from older people. But even young women on these shows act as if finances, contracts, technical stuff, etc. are all beyond the ability of their poor wittle female brains cells. I suppose it works with people they know and it means they don't have to make any effort or take responsibility since there is always someone around to save them from their weak distaff nature.
  14. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    Absolutely. But try telling him that.
  15. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    As I recall, it was not over the whole length, but only over two small portions; and the exact figure of the encroachment is in dispute. It seems everyone has known an overbearing cranky neighbour who believes that regulations and laws apply only when they like them to do so. He did the right thing by objecting from the start; from the looks of it, inaction can turn out to be very costly when adverse possession is involved. If it turned out that he became the owner of that strip of land, would it not mean that he would be the one paying the relevant taxes from that point on?