Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

Community Likes

7,934 Excellent

About SRTouch

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    SW Oklahoma

Recent Profile Visitors

2,425 profile views
  1. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    Years ago (I was still on active duty and I retired in '93, so I'm talking YEARS AGO) my parents were friends with a couple - the wife was about same age as Mom and had been Mom's long time hair dresser - the husband several years older and had grown up during the Depression. Anyway, these folks were fairly well off, but the husband - like many of his generation - didn't have much trust in banks. In their older years they did lots of RV traveling - and of course husband always made sure to carry plenty if cash - just in case. You might have already guessed what's coming - RV caught fire and - depending on how much time had passed since the fire and who was telling story - either hundreds, thousands or maybe tens of thousands of dollars was hidden in the RV when it went up in smoke. If the wife was telling the story she made sure to mention that firemen stood back and let the RV burn because he had guns and ammo hidden in it as well - and hubby would chime in with they wouldn't have known about the guns if she hadn't told them.
  2. The People's Court

    first looks to be a contract case: P wanted a remodel done and hired D, an architect - D does plans/drawings - permit applied for - city denies permit - big kerfuffle - they part ways - P wants $800 she paid back. Doesn't sound like much of a case - unless he guaranteed he'd get a permit (and he'd be a fool to guarantee what someone in the permit/code enforcement office might do). There are all sorts of things not in his control - impact on neighbor properties, fire codes, electric service - heck, think I heard this work was to be done on second floor so can the structure even support the additional weight. D intro - ah, seems he warned them the community board which had to grant petmission is known to be picky, and he suggested they keep it simple during initial planning meeting - but, noooo, he says, they kept adding stuff and board gave thumbs down. Says he explained it's fairly common for first application to be rejected - but that approval could usually be granted after subsequent meeting with board. When, as half expected, 1st application was rejected P went off on him, was verbally abusive, demanded money back and sued when he refused. He's countersuing for $1612, the balance of his fee. Testimony starts - geez, didn't think much of P and her case to begin with, but opinion not improved with MM's first question, where do you live? Simple question, should be simple answer, instead P pulls out some brochure and does a show and tell - who knows, if she had made a poster and made it into something for a presentation to show roomful of people (or something the judge - and camera - could see, it might have made sense, but instead she's holds it and, not even keeping it faced towards judge as she checks her notes, and, at first, not letting Douglas take it to judge when he goes over to pick it up..... uh oh, 'nother big problem with her reno plans - she's not just dealing with a city permit office, she's in a Historical District. Don't think her performance would impress any arbitrator, but especially not this judge who has listened to contractors in her family complain about customers with unrealistic expectations when dealing with permit offices. Anyway, she wants to give her rehearsed presentation, taking who knows how long, instead of answering pesky questions from JM. Only 4 minutes into the hour and, unless there's a shocker coming, like a guarantee clause in the contract, this case could be called now. Geez, lady wants to go step by step through the whole process, and all MM is asking is if she hired D, a certified architect, to do drawing to take to board after her amateur drawing were rejected. MM has had enough of pulling teeth from P, she switches sides to see if D will provide any answers. Ok, we quickly learn D had a written contract, dude was to be paid $200 an hour and each time he had 8 hours of work put into job he's supposed to bill the client... sounds reasonable - not really sure what architects earn, but dude is an established professional with, I think he said, 48 years experience. Says he explained to them that he had made a dozen applications to this board over the years, and only had 1 approved without requiring changes to plans. Sooooo, no big surprise, board shot down his plans. So far, still not seeing a case on P side.... this is one of those cases when I think we might need split screen - every so often, as D is talking, we get a shot of P digging through her papers and raising her hand to interject something - so far she's not verbally interrupting D's testimony, and MM just told her to put her hand down. So, asks MM, what happened when 1st attempt was shot down. Now we get D story of how P went off, calling him stupid, incompetent, dissing work for previous client, etc etc - he decides she's crossed the line, quits (in a polite letter MM receives ftom P and reads aloud later) and sends a final bill. Ok, at this point - P still has no case for return of retainer. Only question for me is how much of the final bill D can justify - IIRC he's to be $200 an hour - he says total bill comes to $2400 - so he should have proof of 12 hours work and proof he notified client after completing 1st 8 hours... geez, only half way through this case - and switching back to mouthy/antsy P. Ok, MM starts by asking P why she thinks she should not only not pay remaining balance, but get full refund when it's obvious D did some work... and again, P ignores question - she's find her place in her script and starts reading... and despite MM repeatedly telling her to STOP yakking and show proof of what she's yakking about, and then stop the yakking so MM can actually read what she passed up to Douglas.... and now it comes out that all this took place back in 2014.... geez, how did D get through the preliminary meeting with this woman!?! MM is about to call this one, she's fed up with stubborn, no-case P and has resorted to yelling - and P is yelling right back, even cutting off hubby when he dares to try to say something.... MM is holding up P's own evidence saying what she submitted doesn't support her position at all, in fact backs up D's position - some cross aisle shouting.... we have 5 more minutes - most of that will be commercial and street clown and will be zipped through... ok, ruling time - with additional interruptions from P and MM saying P is impossible to work with, she even interrupts the judge - P has another paper she want to submit, MM says give it to Douglas, but don't talk, MM reads it aloud and I'm not even sure what it says as I was focused on P continuing to yak and interject as MM is reading. This no-case case is running long. P continues to try to interrupt, but MM ignores her. Case dismissed. She cuts the counterclaim in half, giving D $800 instead of $1600... not really sure if she questions his billable hours or fact that he didn't file suit until he got sued. Hallterview - Whoa, Doug bravely asks scary P how she feels about having to pay D $800, and she looks him in the eye and gets ready to rumble - hope security was just off camera - and, true to form, she interrupts Doug and says what she wants to say. family loan: dad suing son in law over money he loaned loving couple back when they were looking to buy house. Well, son in law says, daddy's little girl, his wife, is an alcoholic who has been in and out of rehab - says the house deal fell apart because money loaned for house ended up paying for a trip to rehab. Intro not giving me much - are the loving couple still together? Is daddy suing D because they split up? If D admits there was a loan, what does it matter what the money was spent on - a loan is a loan, and needs to be repaid, right? And, of course age old question in these family feuds - WTH would think it a good idea to come on teevee and air family problems. Anyway, intro makes case sound like it belongs on Dr Phil - or maybe Springer - which I'm not interested in watching - so this may be a quicky. testimony - first thing MM does is point out the women are noticeable absent... ok, pops says he gave loving couple 4 grand with understanding that if house deal fell through it would become a loan - deal fell through, D has repaid 100 bucks, p wants the other $3900 - one problem I heard is that D approached P's wife about the gift/loan, so why isn't she here? Doesn't matter much, as D readily admits it was a conditional gift that would become a loan if conditions weren't met, conditions weren't met - so, why, asks MM, are we here? Now we get into entitled adult children who feel they should be able to unilaterally changes terms of agreement. I agree that dad demanding repayment of money because it was spent on daughter's rehab rather than a house sounds petty - but unless both sides agree to change the deal, the deal stands. Ok, now we're entering the Dr Phil zone... D hid wife's drug and alcohol use from everyone, but she spun out of control and he checked her into rehab - spending $3750 to get her in... a day after being admitted she was booted and came home..... oh no, MM into family counselor mode and wants the juicy details - zip zip - glad I skipped ahead - quick snippet and it sounds like reason for case is P using the gift/loan to pressure D into not pursuing custody of the two kids now that loving couple are splitting (we learn in halltetview D doesn'the know where wife is (she has history of going on benders) and P says he knows where she is (in rehab, yet again) - apparently he blames D for loving daughter's relapse (supposedly history of drug/alcohol abuse prior to marriage, so must be son in law's fault she fell off wagon). Ok.... much to do about nothing.... conditional gift, condition not met, it's a loan - pay up. friend's squabble over fridge repair bill: P says he bought parts and fixed D's fridge expecting to be paid, but D says there was never agreement to be paid. D's intro story is that P was repairman sent to fix her freezer/ice maker - while fixing the ice maker something he did killed the fridge - she ended up having to replace fridge, she doesn't owe inept P anything. (whoa, quite the dress code on Defendant side - D dressed to go out clubbing while sidekick is dude in unbuttoned too-small wrinkled shortsleeve shirt) ok, stories don't jibe - was P acting as repairman for store or was he off the job doing friend a favor. testimony well, from what he's saying he was off books, doing work for friend. She called him - not store - he diagnosed problem, ordered parts (has receipt of purchased parts) put parts in (whole repair - including parts - to be $180. D agrees that was originally deal. P does the work, but D had left house, leaving him with teenage daughter. When he finishes, teenage daughter approves job, and he leaves, saying he'll return later to be paid. When he gets back she claims something he did messed up fridge (apparently this is a high end fridge/freezer with ice and water available in door and a control panel on door with thermometer showing temp in freezer and frifge, and now temp isn't showing). Also, though you can now get water from door, water is not being cooled and no ice is being made. I know nada about her fridge, but I'd be looking for a reset button on the control panel. Anyway, she refuses to pay the agreed upon price, kerfuffle, she says she just replaced the fridge - but sounds awful iffy and has hard time saying what happened to old fridge. MM having lots of trouble getting understandable testimony from D - wondering why she doesn't just get testimony in Spanish and put on her translater hat, as we've seen many time in the past, when D says she's having trouble testifying in English. Finally she gets across that when new fridge was delivered the delivery guys took the old one out. Apparently, from what she's saying, she works 16 hours a day and when she complained his repair had screwed things up suddenly P started dodging her and wouldn't come to fix the fix - she got frustrated, and just bought a new one. I'd be asking for proof of the new fridge, but MM takes a different tact - she says, even if everything D is saying is true, why should P be expected to eat the cost of the parts and write off the labor charge for the service call D admits was made? Rough justice time - P did work, but MM believes D when she says she bought new fridge because old one died after repair - P gets $50 knocked off bill so $130. Hoboy, in halltetview she claims P wanted to her to pay with sex - but she didn't say anything because she didn't want to ruin his marriage - oops, what difference does it make if she tells us in halfway or in the courtroom.
  3. The People's Court

    uh oh - dog attack..... skipped... too early for that kind of nonsense - even though I'm just starting to watch 3 hours after it aired..... noticed as was zipping ahead that Clown Harvey has a real clown - in costume - with him on the street car loan to friend of 20 years not repaid: P says she thought she was safe loaning D rent money and money to buy a car since they had known each other for years - but once D got the money he stiffed her and cut contact. Says D owes little over $1600. D is going with what DiMango calls the Adonis defense - yep, he's such a prize that he claims P was throwing money at him trying to buy his love. If not for fact that we see so many pathetic people - of both genders - trying to buy love I'd laugh, but hey, wouldn't be first time we've seen it... nah, but is hefty D worth it. Lady, I think you could do better if you shop around.... ok, in preview clip sounds like MM gets P to admit these two were intimately involved, and silly woman routinely picked up tab when they want out - and while P is admitting to footing bill chunky D is smiling and practically dancing with glee instead of being humiliated as I would be. Testimony begins with MM asking if these two were dating - D quickly answers yes from off camera while P doesn't answer until pressed - then she says she didn't consider their outings 'dates'. Pressed further, she admits they kissed, were intimate - but not really dating? Nah, she says, not really dating since he never took her out - Fat Albert, still with the smirk on his face, interjects, she took me out on dates. Poor pathetic litigants - both of them - I can't imagine agreeing to cone on national TV and telling everyone either side of their story. At least MM is practically having to drag P's story out of her - Fatty seems proud that he found someone to pay the way for his sexy self. Ok, not really into watching pathetic fools today, I zip ahead to hallterview.... hmmm, D comes out the loser.... backed up the tape enough to hear D evidently admitted it was a "loan" .... I think reason he was so happy looking the fool in court is that he's in a haze - when I pause the recording there's a closeup of his face as he's talking to Doug - if I had smell-o-vision I'd expect to be smelling some potent Mary Jane. sketchy car deal: P says he bought a car from D - car died 4 hours later - took it back to, and D traded him another car - stopped by cops and car impounded because of bad plates - wants back the $2430 he's out... as intro goes on lady sitting behind P can barely stop laughing at the pathetic story... D comes out - thick little bald fireplug Michelin man physique complete with belly roll and wearing the requisite cross necklace - his story is P knew the dealer plates on car were only good for 30 days - it's P's fault car was impounded as he didn't register car as required - uh, yeah, when you buy a car you get temporary plate and a deadline you have to meet for going to DVD and registering car... anyone what to bet on whether dufus P ever had insurance. Alrighty, before we go to commercial, in the preview clip we see MM making P look the fool - do you know if there was a warranty on the Saab (first vehicle) mumble mumble from P - while D quickly interjects there was a 30 day warranty while waving a paper - and MM, still addressing dufus P, no, I want to know if YOU know what you bought? - P mumble mumbles again before we hear, no, really didn't know about any warranty.... DUFUS!... ok, testimony starts and P begins by telling us about the Saab - bought it, 4 hours later radiator blows.... ok, all this is showing dufus is a DUFUS. first car sort of inmaterial, except to give MM chance to show us dufus didn't know about the warranty. P says when he got back to the dealer with the sorry Saab, he wanted his money back but was told no cash refunds, but here's a replacement (just like agreed to in the warranty he never read and didn't know about.) D promptly exchanged the Saab with problems for a second car - replacing it with a beemer - dufus probably overjoyed driving a BMW. Ah, but what he's claims is that the beemer was never to be his, no he claims it was a loaner while sorry Saab's radiator was being replaced.... oh, dude, that position is laughable - you think we'll believe a dealer us going to give you a loaner and let you drive around until you're stopped over 30 days later while they replaced a radiator that could be swapped out in an hour or two... oh yeah, and D quickly produces the signed purchase agreement for the beemer. Ah, but when Douglas hands the signed agreement to dufus he claims he's never seen it before. Ok, says MM, but didn't you spend money making some minor repairs on the beemer? Who pays to fix up some loaner instead of just going back and getting a different loaner. Not sure what dufus answers, tired of his mumbled answers and ready to zip ahead. Oops, have to go back and see what happened, appears a switcheroo has been pulled. Now I have to listen to the MUMBLER. What he tells us is that he fell in love with the loaner beemer and told D he wanted to keep it. Says they agreed on the phone that he'd keep beemer for same price, but he never went in and signed an agreement. Still, why was he stopped with expired temp tag? Starting to swing Mumbler's way, but way he talks might take too long - so MM smoothly shifts to Mumbler-wife.... ah, breath of fresh air after listening to litigants from both sides. Hmmmm, don't even have to make the switch to wifey, dufus must have just been nervous and tongue tied, because all of a sudden he's making sense. Ok, car was NOT impounded due to expired dealer tag - he was stopped because cop spotted that dealer tag was a phoney and suspected car had been stolen. Huh!?! Maybe should have led with that! Oh yeah, now that wife calmed dufus down, his brain is functioning. When MM asks for proof tags were fake, he quickly passes up the proof. Hokkkayyyy, police report says tag expired when car was stopped, but P says he still had a couple weeks - uh, date of tag doesn't match the official paperwork, sounds like somebody modified the tag - ok, now P quick to produce picture of phoney/modified tag - sure nuf, police stop occurred in Jan and expiration date on tag is Feb 17 - D now claiming car stopped/impounded because tag was unreadable - pretty lame since P has the picture with phoney date - MM gets him to admit the pictured tag is one he gave P when he drove off in the beemer. Yep, switcheroo, indeed... P started out mumbling and looking the fool, while D was always so quick to have any needed evidence - looks like he just wanted a quick decision before P pulled it together. Now it's D dancing around not making any sense. Meanwhile, beemer sitting in impound, and with all the paperwork shenanigans D pulled impound officials aren't sure who to release car to.... oh yeah, seems when cop ran beemer VIN car still registered to previous owner - beemer registration never transferred to dealer and car hasn't been registered since '15. Yep, what a mess - and none of it fault of dufus (well, cop also cited him for no proof of insurance). Now D still waving papers and starting to talk so fast he's about to start foaming at the mouth. So, car sitting in impound, P can't get it out because the temp tag D gave him is invalid, and D can't get it out until he straightens out the jumped title mess - and D wants P to pay the impound/tow fees before he straightens out the mess he created jumping title and giving P an altered temp tag. Ok, now I understand why, when I jumped ahead I found D coming out the loser. Oh, yeah, and in hallterview D pretty much admits he routinely alters the temp tags, but this is first time he was caught because usually the modification is illegible and slips by.
  4. The People's Court

    hair salon case: guess P stopped by on her way to go out clubbing - could that dress be any shorter? She says she went to D's salon to get extensions, and not only did the extensions fall out after a couple weeks, so did her real hair. Says she now has a couple bald spots. I'm not an expert on extensions by any means, but have watched enough of these type cases to know that extensions and braiding can sometimes cause baldspots - but that there are several other possible culprits (more than I realized). So, P will need to show her bald spots actually resulted from her salon visit. She wants $1500 - $550 for the salon visit, money to remove the remaining extensions, plus a doctor's visit, plus pain and suffering. D says not his problem - she was happy when she got the extensions - he has no idea what she may have done in the weeks afterwards before extensions and her hair starting falling out. Ok, testimony coming from P makes me wonder about her case. Says she complained to the stylist about how her hair was thin and slow to grow - dude suggested extensions - she had heard horror stories about other people having problems - what the hey, why not go ahead and spend a bunch of money? It might work, and the stylist - who is going to get paid more if you get the extensions, says he can do it, no problem... uh, so stylist is going to tape extensions, like little weights, to lady's thin, brittle hair - yeah, what could go wrong. Danny, the salon owner, says it'll work.... uh oh, another nail in P's case, this was actually second time she had extensions - first time was approximately 6 weeks earlier and no problems. Sorry lady, you knew the risks, had the procedure done anyway, didn't work out - 2 months after first being put in, and 2 weeks after second application, a coworker notices a bald spot - not hearing what stylist did wrong... MM calls P up to look at the spots even though P is hesitate and says a couple times she has pictures. So far, sounds to me like P doesn't have a case - well unless she has an expert or the doctor's report specifically blame the stylist. Hmmm, salon owner, Danny, earlier explained the procedure and sounded like MM questioned how close the stylist taped the extensions to P's scalp - wonder if we're about to learn it was closer than the 1" Danny says it should have been? Ah ha, sure nuf, when MM shows us pix it doesn't look like the tape is an inch from her scalp. Uh oh, now that Danny sees the pic he wants to change his testimony - now he says tape can be half an inch from scalp. Oh, Danny, that sounds bad - you already told us you don't personally do extensions and aren't an expert with them - why, oh why, didn't you bring the stylist who is your expert, and did the work, to court today? Don't really think P deserves the $1500, but think you just opened the door to her getting something. Ok, P had perfect opportunity to present testimony from the second, independent stylist that took out the extensions - but no she didn't bring anything - no, she brought the co-worker who spotted the bald spot. Doctor report just says "traction alopecia" (probably based on her telling him about the extensions and really nothing saying stylist put them in incorrectly). From MM's questions sounds like P hasn't shown enough, even with Danny waffling about the distance from scalp. Yep, after commercial break case ends up being dismissed. car wreck: P rear ended - D paid for the repairs - now P wants to be paid for lost work (an Uber driver).... oh wow, dude is suing for over $3800 because car was out of commission for ten days?!? Are we to believe dude makes 10 grand a month? Or maybe his bo-NAN-za claim includes pain and suffering?... D doesn't deny he told P he'd make up his lost wages. But says that he agreed to pay 7 days wages when dude was claiming to earn $180 a day... 7x180 = 1,260... nope, dude got too greedy, D withdrew settlement offer..... ok, once testimony begins we learn another bone of contention is that D wanted to pick the shop where car was repaired - preview has MM all worked up over D trying to dictate who makes the repairs - apparently D was doing some work for a repair shop, so he was going to negotiate down the repair bill in exchange for cutting what he charged the shop for his work... ok, no question of liability, just dispute over amount of the lost wages.... at the time of the accident D talked P into not going through their insurance, saying he'd pay lost wages which an insurance adjuster might deny. Ok, D testimony changing some of want we already heard - forget the 7 days, dude just changed that to he was willing to pay $180 for ten days - so $1800 - in lost wages. So, why didn't he pay? Ah, the old reliable 'he didn't have the money' defense'. So, months go by with P waiting for the money D agreed to pay, until P gives up and files suit (and of course asks for ridiculously inflated amount expecting it to be knocked down in court/negotiations). Ok, unless something else comes out, I say give P the $1800 plus interest and call this one done. Nope, all that comes out is D getting upset that P was calling and texting asking for what D agreed to pay and he didn't have - so of course P should be happy to wait, he'll be paid - eventually - and here P is texting "hey, I can't pay my rent and other bills, when am I going to get some of the money you promised?" Heck, I could see my way to giving P extra over and above the $1800. More MM reads more I'm willing to make D pay... and she agrees - she tosses the $180 a day for 10 days figure they agreed upon, and allows P to up the claim to $240 for 10 1/2 days - jumping from $1800 to $2520. Then, because P is pissed and tired of chasing D, he tacked on time wasted and other usual nonsense.... MM awards the $2520 over D shouted objections as case goes 5 minutes over time. rental dispute: confusing intro - not sure who was renting from who - something about someone changing their mind, someone not able to get electric in their name because of outstanding bill, fraud accuses D, trying to put bill in someone else's name, who knows what all - since intro is wrong more often than right, skipping to testimony and to let MM summarize this mess. Ok, P was the potential renter. She gave first month and deposit to D - never moved in - wants back more than she paid. Ok, we've heard these cases enough for me to say D is entitled to a month's rent if place taken off market in reliance of P moving in - IF place was actually available for P to move in.... let's hear this stuff about turning on utilities. P blows her case in opening statement when she tells us reason she couldn't move in on date in lease she had signed was because she - the plaintiff - had to first pay her outstanding bill (4 freekin' thousand bucks). 2nd case ran long, but sounds like we could call this one already. Okkkkkkk she just pulled the "single mother" card (of 4, yet) who just didn't know about the old bill. Says, for last several years, she's been renting with all bills paid, and didn't know about this colossal bill that has been collecting late charges and interest since her divorce years ago. Soooo, the fraud charge? Well, seems when utility company wanted their money P first tried to avoid paying old bill by getting D to rent place all bills included, then asked D about opening new account in kids' daddy's name. 'Bout that time, had I been the potential landlord, I'd be looking for a way out of having P as a tenant. From MM's questioning of D, sounds like that's what happened - D used this as an excuse to refuse to lease to P - I get the reason, but as long as utility company was getting paid by daddy it really was no skin off D's nose. D tries to claim name on utility contract has to match name on lease - says who, asks MM? Ok, guess this is what we have to talk about for these 15 minutes. Who actually breached the lease? P for not moving in - or P for refusing to let P move in? Didn't think P had a case - but now looking like D latched onto this old bill as an excuse to deny renting to P - understandable, but changes who has to eat the lost rent/deposit. Okkkkk, now we learn P actually paid deposit and first month's rent. Big kerfuffle when D refuses to let P move in and wants to keep all the money , cops called, D convinced to return half the money. Now P wants double amount D kept because she says it was wrongfully withheld.... hey, she's got a point - it was D who (understandably) canceled the lease, so she should have refunded ALL the money. Ok - forget the double down wishful claim, P gets back the rest of the money she paid. Oh, and in hallterview D has nothing to say - but have to laugh when Doug finds out it's P's brother who ended up paying utilities in her new place (meaning utility company may still not being paid - but who knows, sainted single mother of 4 may have worked out a payment plan and be paying down that bill - yeah, toght, I'm sure she's paying off her 4 grand light bill from way back when).
  5. The Last Alaskans

    Loved this week's epidodes - focusing on just a couple families, so hoping next week we'll see the others. Krin's insights as she was remembering growing up - watching her track the wolf kill - taking the time to explain that she was trying to only take branches from the older trees because she didn't want to take away from the beauty of the woods. Scott sure sounds like they plan to be back next year The Sheldon's new cabin continues to have little things added which should make great improvements to their comfort - the indoor water hand pump - the meat grinder. Never really thought about it, but a hand pump inside the cabin sounds like a no-brainer - so much better than hauling 5 gallon buckets from a hole you have to cut and maintain in the river.... have to wait and see if it freezes in extra cold weather. Glad to hear this season went much better than expected. Anybody notice the little hand cranked washing machine in one scene? Only reason I even know what it is that I used to have one just like it - sort of like this https://laundry-alternative.com/products/open-box-wonderwash?variant=12582102040688 probably makes things much easier washing get stuff for the little one Heimo - no moose this year, comes up over the rise, sees no game, shrugs, says better luck next time... loved the scene where he talked about how he'd be sitting on a bluff and wish he could be a bird for awhile and fly Edna - perfect match for Heimo - strong woman who ignored traditional woman role - if she wants to hunt and trap, get out of the way, she's going to hunt and trap... I agree with those that say Krin is a reflection of both Heimo and Edna
  6. The Incredible Dr. Pol

    Yes, IIRC she only had the dog for a week.... even do, I hope the dog is spayed once the pups are weaned - I'm totally on board with Dr Jeff's practice stressing neuter/spay Sort of what I figured, as well. ... my question - were both father and mother of the bride on crutches? Also wondered if father was an amputee, or maybe I just couldn't see his leg because of the dark slacks?
  7. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    Wellllll... ok I guess - as long as you key their car after they slash your tires, you might still make the cut and get on the teevee
  8. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    Had that conversation not long ago with fellow employee at pizza store. Kid was running down the owner because these days owner is semi retired and only on the schedule to work two nights a week. Geez, kid was saying, owner is making money hand over fist, pizza ingredients are a faction of what he charges customers and we're only guaranteed minimum wage - though good drivers who hustle make considerable better. All kinds of things wrong with his position - first, our wages and the ingredients are just a part of the cost of the operation . As far as owner only on schedule a couple nights a week - he probably spends more time working off the clock as he does on. Besides. When I first started there years ago, he was there 4pm til closing at 1or 2am - and beyond, since he was last one out the door and 1 is when we stopped making food. This was 6 nights a week. His wife there to open at 10:30 those 6 days a week and worked til 7pm.... they did that for years and he managed a resturant at 18yo.
  9. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    As most know, I skip most dog attack cases (didn't so much as watch this episode as let it run in background while eating dinner). Even if that wasn't my usual practice, watching defendant's half smirk/smile as she entered courtroom would have been enough to dislike her.... both defendant's on this episode were absurdly entitled, and @AlleC17 comment fits either. Really, she brought her 3 kids and her dog to a friend's house for - I guess a weekend. Knowing her dog has issues with at least 1 other guest and his dog, she leaves her dog tied to a tree, and it's the other guest's fault there was a dogfight because he didn't give it a wide enough berth as he was walking to breakfast (actually, I question the plaintiff as well, I would hesitate to bring my dog and camp out in a friend's backyard - dude apparently didn't even know why he was invited - maybe it was a doggy play date/camp.) And, obviously she should not have to pay his medical bills - he would have never been bitten had he not tried to stop her pit bull from mauling his "swamp hound" so, again, it was all his fault for "sticking his hand in a dog fight"... not to mention she dodged paying her share of the plaintiff's vet bills by sticking her friend the homeowner with the bill (insurance, maybe). First case was "boxer" lady who actually tells us on national tv that plaintiff should keep her little dog in a cage to protect it - that's what a good dog mommy would do, after all... Lady, if my count is right, your Boxer has now attacked three times. This time it was "muzzled," yet still able to maul another dog. And, WTH!!! are you doing bringing this dog into a small reception area where you are bound to encounter other people and dogs. Call ahead and ask if you can wait in the parking lot, or in the shade somewhere, and avoid bringing your dog inside... and get a freekin' muzzle that fits! For the record, I hold her dog blameless - the dog was being a dog, placed in a strange environment and, my guess, is either fear aggressive or trying to protect his/her mistress from strangers - properly trained, with the right handler, this could be a great animal for all I know.... but probably destined to be put down because of this owner refusing to recognize and deal with its issues.
  10. The People's Court

    I have Direct TV and have the same/simliar problems. I blame mine on the channel that airs my TPC and Hot Bench - a MyNetworkTv channel (subsidiary of Fox). I never see descriptions of cases for TPC, just the episode title. I get two half hours of Hot Bench on weekdays, usually one will have case descriptions while the second either has a duplucate description or just "Hot Bench".... a real pain when I get same description on both half hours since DVR thinks it's the same episode and skips the second unless I go to each and tell it to record. JJ is on my local NBC channel - better episode descriptions but more likely to interrupt with "breaking news"... oh like 20 minutes of "There's a thunderstorm 90 miles away and the front is due to hit our area in 4 hours." (Uh, like, southwestern Ok - pretty much any spring day a thunderstorm might pop up) or they spend 15 minutes telling us something is happening so tune in the evening news which airs immediately after JJ
  11. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    I sometimes find it amazing that people find out they're going to appear on one of these court TV shows and fail to watch a few episodes to see what to expect. Once you find out you're going to appear on JJ you should go over your paperwork with a fine tooth comb until you have that thing memorized - cuz more often than not JJ has already decided the case after reading the written statements, before hearing any testimony. If testimony and statement deviate - well, obviously you a liar and not to be trusted. Same thing hold over on TPC with JMM - just yesterday a shady contractor tried a song and dance to explain why a 7 day kitchen tile and bathroom remodeling ended up taking 2 months and cost more than double the original (verbal - nothing written down) estimate - and that was after MM told him she knew exactly what the job entailed. I'm guessing similar to people who get exotic pets - thinking wolf-dogs or any of the hybrid domestic-non domestic cat breeds - pretty much any exotic animal that requires special handling/food/environment.
  12. The People's Court

    Yeah, I have the DVD set to only record new episodes - and today is the only one scheduled to record. Somehow they must have got the date of when it was aired in the wrong year LOL not the first time (probably not last, either) this channel screwed up the schedule info 😉
  13. The People's Court

    Hmmm, didn't recognize folks from first case, recognized the case but not the litigants in second case, and pretty sure I've seen the 3rd case before contractor case: P homeowner says she hired D to do tile work in kitchen & bathroom - supposed to take a week and D was to receive 7 grand - now two months later work still not completed and so far P says she's paid over 17 grand. D counters by claiming P kept changing her mind and adding more stuff to the contract (yeah, I believe it, she does the same thing here in court)... easy dude, write change orders for each addition with the added price, and get authorization signature - I used to do that with this type of client when I was landscaping, mainly because after the 2nd or 3rd change I'd start getting frustrated with them, and when they actually SEE the cost mounting they'd change their mind - most of this type are never going to be satisfied, no matter what you do - from preview we know MM is going to grill contractor about why nobody bothered with a written contract, so forget change orders... oh, and here we get another contractor who claims homeowner wanted Him, and was sending him video of her nude self in the shower - so 2nd part of defense is the old woman scorned defense. testimony oops, need CC to make sense of P's accent - in fact she has trouble understanding MM's question when asked in English. To make the whole mess worse, she runs a day care out of her house which had to shut down while this remodel was happening - she says her customers were okay with her being shut down for the agreed upon 1 week, but not the couple months it took (and apparently still not completed). Oh yeah, not to forget MM comes from a family of contractors, so she knows exactly how it supposed to happen and she doesn't accept D's "didn't have time" to write a contract. Yeah, I grew up around concrete guys and carpenters, and a big topic of conversation when they got together was how some customer decided to change the finish or lay out, how much longer it was going to take etc... ok, now MM tries to get the two sides to agree on what job was to entail - new tile on floor & back splash in kitchen, complete remodel of bathroom, removing a wall in daycare area... anybody else think 1 week and 7 grand sounds like wishful thinking... uh oh, what's P talking about - I thought this was supposed to be a $7000 job, and she just said D wanted $7500 to start work and she wrote him a 10 grand check to get started since she wanted it done quickly - so does that mean she had added a whole bunch to the job and agreed to a new price before work started and still expected it to be done in 1 week... MM backs up and asks for clarification - by time she wrote first check the $7,000 job had ballooned into $15,000 job - and still no contract!... oh, this promises to get good! Turns out D's employee is here as witness for the other side.... not looking good for contractor dude - P claims he was sending workers every day, but not showing up to run the job site - nothing getting done in a hurry and she claims she paid an extra $2,500 over what he asked for in a deposit so that it WOULD be done expeditiously. MM turns to D to ask why, even tells dude she knows exactly what a tile job entails and how long it takes, and dude still tries to dodge and weave. Yeah yeah, dude, demo goes much quicker when you don't have to move her junk out first, but we're talking a job promised to be completed in 7 days and still not done in 2 months and you're talking about wasting a morning to move stuff around. Now he's taking about the extras - uh, yeah, job grew, not just kitchen and bedroom, now all the floors except 1 bedroom, ceiling fans, hot water tank replacement, rewire of bathroom to include CFI, etc - all the more reason to have a written contract... ok, 7 days and 7 grand was never realistic, but now we're talking 2-3 months and more than double the 7 estimate. P having trouble presenting her case with English as second language - but she's in the right court as she has lots of texts, a Judge with a construction/contractor background, and fluent in Español... only hiccup is she starts to bring phone up instead of handing it to Douglas... ok, dude, strike one was the song and dance routine when asked about why things were taking too long - or was strike one no written contract - no I think strike 1 was the nudey video defense (may have been a foul ball as it hasn't come up during testimony yet - may be intro clown BS) - anyway, I think strike 4 is not answering any of the many texts from client until she's threatening to take you to court. D really hasn't had a change to say much since MM shut down his dance routine, but now's his chance - nope, not happening, now he's starting in with how she was pursuing him, cooking for him, saying she wanted to show how a real woman treats a man, etc. He really lays it on thick, saying she wanted to get hitched, was willing to get reconstructive surgery "down there" etc etc Dude, she had moved out while the work was being done, according to her you were mainly a no-show, when she finally got fed up and texted you she was going to take you to court all that was left was the kitchen back splash - even I could do a simple back splash in a day if you give me the materials, and I've done like 2 in my life. I really don't care if she was flirting, sexting, or any of this crapola - you agreed to do a job, were paid, and didn't complete the work (started to say contracted a job, but of course you don't do contracts). My only question is how much he has to pay - they agree all that was left incomplete was the backsplash, but without a contract does he have to pay anything for taking to long and essentially shutting down her daycare - heck unless he comes up with something to back up all the sexting and flirting crapola I'd be fine with Douglas taking him out back for a little talk. (Well, he does know about her tattoo "down there".... what the heck does knowing about tattoos mean!?!...) for first time in long time MM puts down a phone instead of digging through all the texts - well, yeah, all this flirting nonsense is nonsense and irrelevant - and case already running long. Finally, we get to hear what defendant's employee is hear to testify to.... basically, he's here testifying he was on the job for several days, D never paid him a penny - says D claimed P never paid him, so he couldn't pay the employee, so employee went to get money from P and ended up completing the backsplash (part of her lawsuit is she paid this guy and bought the materials to finish the job even though D was already paid to supply materials). Rough justide time - some of what she's after is clearly not going to happen - missing receipts, a jacuzzi that was never mentioned before needs hundreds of dollars to be installed correctly - but no proof anything is wrong, lost business/wages because of the extra time, but just a wild-ass guesstimate with no evidence, etc... pretty much everything is tossed - P ends up getting $800 out of the 5 grand requested tow job case: P suing because car was towed from space they claim they were authorized to park in in their gated community - they want the $139.95 it cost them... D is tow guy, says he has contract with the community, says P's vehicle was not displaying proper permit and director of complex signed the tow authorization - says he was just doing job he was contracted to do.... sounds simple enough that we ought to get back on schedule after 1st case ran long.... ok, we've seen this before - P have more vehicles than authorized spaces, so they drive around looking for empty units and appropiate that space - I know I've heard this story - even the bit about how they were on the way to church when they noticed car was gone - but are these different litigants... doesn't matter if these are same fools or not, P admits while stating her case that they parked where they shouldn't have, tow truck was let onto property by security, their vehicle was pointed out to be towed by community staff, it was towed after authorization was signed.... WTH do they think tow company owes them a refund? didn't watch after I heard P testify how hubby parked where he had no right to park - seem to remember their case was based on wrong person calling to get car towed - nonsense, even if true tow company did nothing but job contracted to do. dueling headwear: ok, another case I remember - checked program info and it claims this is a new epsiode, but no case info just a "date first aired" - this is the old-time Auntie Jemima, back when she still wore a head scarf, suing her ex-landlord for over 4 grand - over property lost after a judge ordered eviction, seems when she was shown to the curb she expected landlord to safeguard property left in the apartment. Landlord comes in wearing a black Jewish kippah/yarmulke (one of these days I'm going to look up what the different styles mean). Ok, yeah, 99.9999% sure this is a repeat - I remember D coming in and pausing at the gate like he's not sure if he's supposed to cone through and go to the lectern. Another non-case - P locked out after court ordered eviction owing 2 months of back rent - expected to be given extra time to move out after court odered deadline - apparently she's an expert at being kicked to the curb and in the past she was granted extra time to finish moving.... ok - no sympathy for Auntie - besides she has no proof of what was left behind or value of anything left - oh, and she wants back double the deposit because she claims she never received an itemized listing of why it was withheld. Yep, dejavu moment, I don't care what the program info says, I remember Auntie and her rambling. Whole lot of nonsense, she talks about repeatedly being taken to court like that's expected - every six months or so your grown kids rotate in and old and your landlord takes you to court for nonpayment of rent, yep just the way things are. Then when the landlord wins and the judge orders you out, you're supposed to be granted an automatic extension past the final date. Not sure what there is to talk about - Auntie doesn't even know that which of her sons were on the lease, but D has the signed lease ready to pass up. Anyone else think this case - such as it is - should have been referred back to Housing Court where the original judge would be familiar with the case/litigants. Ah, but after D provides the lease everything gets foggy. He can't testify about the eviction proceedings - he wasn't there, his lawyer was - doesn't know if she moved on her own or was moved out by marshals - dude is irritating enough that I want to award Auntie something - but then she's just as irritating and doesn't even deserve the free lunch. Oh, yeah, Auntie had just gotten out of hospital for her heart and back, basically, don'cha know, didn't have tools to take apart the crib and needed tools to remove doors to get fridge out, yeah she left them behind after mean landlord put locks on doors after final move out date issued by judge passed - oh, and landlord stored her left behind property for 30 days after she moved and she didn't retrieve anything. - but of course D can't provide any proof he stored anything..... yep both litigants need a visit out back with Douglas.... doesn't mean I'm going to watch 10 more minutes of this... zip zip... case dismissed
  14. Veterinary and Animal Rescue Shows

    Hmmm, haven't watched yet, though it's been recorded. From your description I'm thinking the Vet Life, and why I stopped watching that program - way too much shtick about family and not enough about the animals.... actually, too bad with Vet Life because when they focused on animals there was some good stuff
  15. The People's Court

    One of the funny parts with Watermelon Witch - her arguing that she wasn't so much concerned about the watermelon explosion - no she was upset about her handbag. Just how fast and hard would a shopping cart have to be going to cause a melon to explode? Anyway, just another example of a litigant only being concerned about themselves and not caring about how their irresponsible behavior impacts others. Far as @DoctorK comment about the Irish lass - I skipped Harvey's peanut gallery and have already deleted the episode, but could it have been something lost in translation? What do Irish folks call shopping carts anyway? Trolleys, maybe? Oh well, guess Ireland has its share of halfwits just like the rest of us -