Jump to content
SilverStormm

Hot Bench

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Not me, I found the elderly vociferous plaintiff annoying. The judges as a group all displayed major ignorance about tires, wheels etc. Corriero kept referring to "hubcaps" but they weren't hubcaps, they were cast aluminum wheels. These suckers are expensive (the ones I had on my last Camaro were about $500 each in 1990), but some searching on line might find a matching replacement or some place that can repair the damaged wheel. On tires, you probably should replace them in pairs either front or rear (assuming the other three tires are still in good shape and not already half bald and that there is not a full size spare same as the other four tires) though all four at the same time is desirable. I did not like the verdict, the plaintiff got the cost for four brand new wheels and tires instead of the depreciated values, I think the judges just felt that the plaintiff was so cute they wanted to give it to  her.

Just watched this, and agree with you straight down the line. I found P annoying. By the time judges were finished I was correcting them each time they said 'hubcap' instead of 'rims/wheels' - and those babies can be pricey. OTOH, nobody asked about possibility of repairing the damage - according to P the rim was toast, D said just scratch - nothing from a tire/wheel shop saying rather or not it could be buffed out - also nothing saying that rim was no longer made or that a replacement couldn't be found - yeah, Acker points out that estimate says rims no longer available - but this is a time I would have wanted more than one estimate. hey, there are actually companies that specialize in repairing damaged rims and/or finding hard to replace rims https://www.awrswheelrepair.com If her rim is beyond repair then yes she deserves 4 matching rims. (Not sure whether or not I'd depreciate the value or not since we were not shown what the condition of the other three were in.) I heard nothing that would make me think D should buy new tires because 1 rim was damaged - at most I say two tires if tire was damaged - something else not proven. And we have no idea how much trend life was left on her tires. So many unanswered questions mean P didn't prove her case - I wouldn't give her anything.

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/2/2018 at 4:30 PM, DoctorK said:

Not me, I found the elderly vociferous plaintiff annoying.

Me too. Here we see again people getting away with bad behavior and disrespect - telling a judge, "You listen to me!" - just because they're lucky enough to reach a vast age. Why is such rudeness okay from someone who is 90 but not someone who is, say, 50 or 60? Why is it cute just because she's so old?

Couldn't stand the nasty old dragon. She let her friend drive her car even though she said the friend falls asleep at the wheel.  I wonder if just as she's going to her Eternal Rest, she'll be thinking, "I sure am glad I sued my friend over that wheel!"

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Dear Judge DiMango, please enunciate.  It's ELK HUNT, not EL KHUNT.

I swear that guy who went through rehab was stoned.

Why did they let them go on and on with the father stuff, that had nothing to do with the case?

What happened to all of the preview stuff of the guy going off, or looking like he was about to fall down, or whatever they were trying to convey?

Didn't that guy say he couldn't lift a rifle because of his surgery? Yet he's going to go hunting again?  Huh?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

 

Didn't that guy say he couldn't lift a rifle because of his surgery? Yet he's going to go hunting again?  Huh?

He contracted for the hunt in 2017. Defendant was in rehab, and wanted to delay until 2018. Plaintiff had rotator cuff surgery in early 2018, and can no longer lift the rifle. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, just now watching a no-brainer... no brainer not just because this case should never have appeared before any court - but because there is NOT a working brain cell between the litigants (and 28yo D's mommy who appeared here with her broke drunk ass baby boy who needed bail for a DUI arrested in car P has to loan him money to make the payments on.) To make bail, Prince Charming calls his friend, asking her to call mommy. Problem there is, mommy ain't got no money - which Prince already knows - and he pretty much admits he knows the "friend" is a poor desperate girl willing to do anything for him (yes, calling her a girl because no adult should be so desperate for this drunk broke ass loser). Little Miss Desperate is here asking for the bail money and the money she paid on his car because now that he's out of jail he thinks she's crazy for chasing after him (he may actually have a point, there). Dude admits he owes the car money (uh, so why didn't he already pay it back - oh, that's right, DUI's get expensive pretty darn fast.) But claims the bail money was strictly a gift.

Thus my dilemma - to me, bail/restitution/fines etc should always, ultimately, come from the fool doing the crime. Otoh, even if Desperate Girly considered it loan at the time - was it reasonable to expect drunk broke ass dude to pay it when he needs help paying his car loan. Not to mentioned she went a bit overboard when he cut her off - going to his boss and granny.

Ok, commercial over - decision time

Oh dear, Desperate Girl even more desperate than I thought. When Judges read the texts seems she was threatening to suicide if Prince Charming dumped her. Anyway, in split decision, Hot Bench will foot the bill for drunk ass broke dude. In hallterview mommy does all the talking - defending baby out in the hallway cause mean judges wouldn't listen to her shouting out in the courtroom. Oh, and DiMango suggests Desperate Girly use the money on a therapist.

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I wouldn't want the falling down  hunting guide near me with a loaded gun, and I suspect he will be in rehab again shortly, or just disappear.       I watched the entire case, and I didn't see the falling down, stumbling hunting guide part they showed on the commercials. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Not much to watch with today's cases, even though I guess they were new. First up was breeder who claims to be in the record books as breeder/owner of the world's tiniest chihuahua. Not sure why that's something to brag about, but guess it was enough to get defendant to want to pay big bucks for a tiny dog. We hear bunches of nonsense, but what it came down to is breeder offered a full refund because defendant wasn't happy,  but defendant wanted the money plus the dog, plus even more money because... not sure why... not sure why breeder was suing.... I stopped watching and took a shower

 

Next episode - first case - never married couple who have been together 5 years and have 2 children fighting because father, who was the breadwinner, claimed both kids on his taxes. While they were together he gave mommy a cut of the refund,  but now that they've split up he kept it all. She wants her cut.... judges decide to give her a cut one last time, and strongly advise the pair to go to family court and get some type of support agreement in writing.

 

Second case would have fit right in with the mental midgets on TPC today. P had a 12 month lease. Landlord decides not to renew the lease, and notifies P 60 days before lease is up that she needs to find somewhere else to live. She doesn't pay rent the last month she's there, complains he's evicting her, wants back the deposit he used to pay last month rent - plus moving expenses. Judges each take a stab at explaining to dimwit that landlord is under no legal obligation to renew her lease.... oh, and she also tried to claim place was unsafe to live in because ceiling was falling in - but that complaint goes nowhere.

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I hated the breeder case.  The Judges think she cares for and loves animals.  She loves them so much she breeds a sad looking dog that shakes all the time and had its tongue sticking out. And it's an award winning dog.  Why people think that is cute it's beyond me. 

 

Defendent is no better.  She orders this designer dog and is unhappy that it isn't healthy enough.  If you want healthy, get a mixed breed from the shelter.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

I hated the breeder case.  The Judges think she cares for and loves animals.  She loves them so much she breeds a sad looking dog that shakes all the time and had its tongue sticking out. And it's an award winning dog.  Why people think that is cute it's beyond me. 

 

Defendent is no better.  She orders this designer dog and is unhappy that it isn't healthy enough.  If you want healthy, get a mixed breed from the shelter.  

I agree 99%.  I did think the dog was cute.  But it's horrible to breed and also clone! when there are so many wonderful animals in shelters. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, ghoul31 said:

what happened in the tiny house case? I missed the ending

thanks

No money, judges enforced the bargain. Plaintiff has 60 days to get his tiny house off the defendants’ property, and they can’t impede him (have to take the fence down temporarily). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bramble said:

No money, judges enforced the bargain. Plaintiff has 60 days to get his tiny house off the defendants’ property, and they can’t impede him (have to take the fence down temporarily). 

ok thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Anatomy of a bankruptcy: Def, a middle-aged man, needs to declare bankruptcy, doesn't have money for a lawyer, so borrows it from his friend, the plaintiff. Judge DiMango wants to know why he would loan money to someone who has stiffed everyone else? "I wasn't thinking," he says. His incapability to think continues when def., who is so broke he can't pay any of his debts, decides he needs a Lexus. Plaintiff helps him with that too. But what's the point in having a Lexus without fancy RIMS? Plaintiff agrees with that, so fronts him another 600$ for rims. Now def can tool around town in a Lexus with fancy rims and no one will know he's a deadbeat. How people at a mature age can continue to live while being so dumb is beyond me, but at least we know just how def. went bankrupt. Hey, he wants what he wants!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The reasons for the credit crunch, financial meltdown or whatever becomes clearer when you watch these cases. Ivonee Mayberry, who has two kids but no mention of a baby daddy in the picture, says she had everything from her residence stolen. She turns to her mom, Latina, for help, which is a normal thing to do. It's decided that what would aid Ivonee the most in her reduced circumstances is a new 65" television. Neither of them have any credit to speak of, of course, but I guess Mom's credit is not as far in the toilet as her daughter's so she takes out the 1500$ loan in her name, and agrees to pay 50% interest (audience gasps in horror and disbelief) but this what Ivonee really, really needed and really wanted! And then,  gee, who would guess? Ivonee stops paying for the gargantuan TV, and then there's calls to the cops by Mom, etc. Ivonee tells Latina to come get the TV, but Mom has no one on hand at the moment who can carry this monstrosity out of Ivonee's. She does get her son and someone else to go fetch the thing, but it seems Ivonee won't let them have it. Really, this is like bad fiction.

On 11/24/2018 at 7:50 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Some places you get to keep your primary vehicle, but still can declare bankruptcy.  

I'm sure you can if you own it at the time of the bankruptcy, but probably not when you buy a Lexus (even an old POS Lexus) post-bankruptcy and dearly need $600 rims for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

There was something odd to me on yesterdays case featuring a 20 year old driving without insurance and with a suspended license.  She even gave her sister's license to the cops after getting into an accident.  WTH didn't she get reamed by the judges?  Pissed me off.  They gave a slight lecture and that was that.  Meanwhile, doting mom smiled at her lovely, lying suspended license daughter and was all 'if the plaintiff had just TOLD me he wasn't going through insurance, we would have paid' bs.  I wanted to punch her in the face sooooo bad.  She is the one who let the insurance lapse but let darling daughter use the car anyway.  Judge DiMango got a little confrontational, but not nearly enough.  Face punching in what I wanted.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/7/2018 at 5:42 PM, AlleC17 said:

There was something odd to me on yesterdays case featuring a 20 year old driving without insurance and with a suspended license.  She even gave her sister's license to the cops after getting into an accident.  WTH didn't she get reamed by the judges?  Pissed me off.  They gave a slight lecture and that was that.  Meanwhile, doting mom smiled at her lovely, lying suspended license daughter and was all 'if the plaintiff had just TOLD me he wasn't going through insurance, we would have paid' bs.  I wanted to punch her in the face sooooo bad.  She is the one who let the insurance lapse but let darling daughter use the car anyway.  Judge DiMango got a little confrontational, but not nearly enough.  Face punching in what I wanted.

I don't know where THEY live, but in California, if you have no insurance, your car is immediately towed.  No driver's license or suspended license?  Impounded for 30 days.  It's one thing to use a fake ID to get into Club-a-Go-Go; it's quite another to present it as valid authorization to drive an automobile.  

Edited by Carolina Girl · Reason: Using the right word is such a good thing....
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

So, when some guy I worked with asked me to add him to my credit card, I said "Okay." He ran up a tab of 11K but I'm sure he'll pay me back, right? Some people are too stupid to live.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Just now watching yesterday's new cases.... by, aren't these yahoos in something? Well dressed, educated, well spoken - but still nitwits. All is explained when D's wife/witness is called up - ah, a lawyer! Case sort of nonsense I think both sides dreamed up to appear on tv. D had tree close to property line,  branch falls off and - crunch - lands on P's solar panel. P wants the D to pay $700 odd for repairs. Even before D tells us she's a lawyer, I suspected this bunch as they were testifying with all this legalese lingo - and not just like they were frequent defendant's in criminal proceedings like many of our litigants... sort of clever how D witness reveals her law background - Judge Acker tells her she doesn't need to be so formal and D wife answers, oh, but that's how I usually talk in criminal cases - sort of double whammy "I practice criminal law" and put down of these pretend proceedings. Not much of a case legally speaking - though I didn't agree 100% with ruling. I thought they should have ruled both sides should pay for the damages - sure it was D's tree limb that fell onto P's property and caused damage, but I agreed with D statement that P assumed part of the risk when he put the solar panel there. They didn't really get into it here, but aren't eucalyptus tress sort of infamous for dropping branches with no warning. Anyway - judgement for P  (is think mainly because instead of sticking to the "assumed risk" defense D and wife were trying to throw their criminal law background in the judges' collective faces... D even tried to argue the panel may not have been damaged when the limb fell, but was instead damaged when P removed it.)

2nd case back to normal clueless litigants - a tenant/landlord case. (Also a cat was left behind when tenants given the boot so was prepared to hate them for that alone... but no, cat went into hiding as they were leaving. They reclaimed it as soon as it was found.... perfectly understandable to this cat slave - there's a separate dimension our feline masters/mistresses go to when they want to hide and sometimes you just have to wait for them to reappear.) Longtime tenants move out owing rent and utilities, and of course leaving damages/trash behind. Typical non defense, even the often heard, shouldn't be held responsible for 2yo's canyon mural in wall. Should have been a slam dunk for landlady, but nooooo, landlady was also D's employer. Seems landlady was withholding part of D's paycheck to cover rent/utilities. Would have been no real problem, 'cept no one was keeping track of how much was withheld, how much was owed, or.... well pretty much anything. So D admits they owe, but not sure how much was paid. P - same thing - she collected money, but came to court without her records showing what was owed for utilities or wgat/when she did her unofficial garnishing of her employee's paycheck.... heck I'm not sure if they ever agree on how much her paycheck should have been - somewhere in there  D was given a raise,  but no one seems to be sure when or how much since she never received the money as P was doing her under table garnishing? I gave up trying to figure out the mess.

Then I started the reruns.... nah - P threw herself a BD bash, drunken brawl erupts - I stopped watching.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just commenting on yesterday's case with cigar smoking asshole, who completely lied in his answer that the plaintiff "pulled a knife and came at me" in an attempt to make his assault on plaintiff somehow justified.   Of course, what the dirtbag didn't know is that the plaintiff had had his husband recording the encounter, which proved that he was an out-of-control asshole and that the plaintiff remained relatively calm in the face of bullying.  Oh and I LOVED that defendant's witness was someone with whom he had a personal relationship but who in the end supported plaintiff's version of the events.

And I don't know who the "boss" is of that organization, but I suggest he get his damned act together, if he's permitted smoking in a room with flammable substances, thereby endangering everyone and tells employees to ignore bullying and aggression by a "tenured" jerk who thinks his shit doesn't stink.  Loved the Judges attacking him lack of character.  If I were the plaintiff, I'd drop a dime and call OSHA and have them immediately investigate the working conditions.  Because this looks like a hefty fine is a-comin'.

Does anyone remember what state they were in?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

And I don't know who the "boss" is of that organization, but I suggest he get his damned act together, if he's permitted smoking in a room with flammable substances, thereby endangering everyone and tells employees to ignore bullying and aggression by a "tenured" jerk who thinks his shit doesn't stink.

That is exactly what I thought. Tolerating such workplace conditions is a serious abdication of an employer's responsibilities. It wasn't clear what relationship exists between the bully and the boss (relatives, very close friends, something else), but whatever it is, it cannot justify such a laissez-faire style of management. It only encourages the entitled jerk to continue behaving the same way, may endanger the other workers's safety and open the employer to costly litigation.

Does "tenure" have meaning outside of academic institutions? I suppose he may have meant that he has achieved some permanent employment status as opposed to term or probationary employees, but even that does not grant immunity from discipline or dismissal based, which could very well be justified considering the way he is behaving.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

That is exactly what I thought. Tolerating such workplace conditions is a serious abdication of an employer's responsibilities. It wasn't clear what relationship exists between the bully and the boss (relatives, very close friends, something else), but whatever it is, it cannot justify such a laissez-faire style of management. It only encourages the entitled jerk to continue behaving the same way, may endanger the other workers's safety and open the employer to costly litigation.

Does "tenure" have meaning outside of academic institutions? I suppose he may have meant that he has achieved some permanent employment status as opposed to term or probationary employees, but even that does not grant immunity from discipline or dismissal based, which could very well be justified considering the way he is behaving.

Worse.   Complaints were made about this cigar-smoking piece of crap.  Failure to investigate and solve the problem would be actionable.  And I agree with Judge Acker - this asshole should have been arrested for assault.  I did notice that he tried to say he DIDN'T say the plaintiff was coming at him with a knife and Judge Corriero read his answer verbatim, where he made up the threat with a weapon.  They should have shut him down for that lie alone.

And his smug snotting that the Plaintiff paid him $1 for his cee-gar later like he had won some moral victory?  No, dirtbag, that is what grown-up people do when circumstances force them to damage another's property.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Worse.   Complaints were made about this cigar-smoking piece of crap.  Failure to investigate and solve the problem would be actionable.

That is why I mentioned the possibility of costly litigation. Whether through lawsuits after an accident if an explosion does occur or through citations for violations of workplace safety standards. The bullying behaviour is another factor of liability for that employer since the boss tells people to ignore it.

Even in a relatively safe office environment like ours we make people, especially managers and supervisors, go through regular reminder sessions about workplace health and safety. The presence of fumes and flammable materials in their workplace increases an employer's duty of vigilance by a few notches. Letting someone smoke in the vicinity of such substances appears very negligent, even though the defendant alleged the presence of ventilation; he did not come across as a qualified H&S inspector.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

That is why I mentioned the possibility of costly litigation. Whether through lawsuits after an accident if an explosion does occur or through citations for violations of workplace safety standards. The bullying behaviour is another factor of liability for that employer since the boss tells people to ignore it.

Even in a relatively safe office environment like ours we make people, especially managers and supervisors, go through regular reminder sessions about workplace health and safety. The presence of fumes and flammable materials in their workplace increases an employer's duty of vigilance by a few notches. Letting someone smoke in the vicinity of such substances appears very negligent, even though the defendant alleged the presence of ventilation; he did not come across as a qualified H&S inspector.

Indeed.  We regularly do evacuation drills, etc. and even duck and cover for earthquake preparedness (Oakland, CA) - but you'd still be amazed how many people run to an effing WINDOW if there's a tremor.   And I loved that "well I smoke there because there's a big vent to handle the fumes."  This guys was stupid in a way that almost defies science fiction.  I wonder if the "big boss" saw this episode and immediately fired the dickhead before he cost him his business.  I don't care if he is "tenured".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Indeed.  We regularly do evacuation drills, etc. and even duck and cover for earthquake preparedness (Oakland, CA) - but you'd still be amazed how many people run to an effing WINDOW if there's a tremor.   And I loved that "well I smoke there because there's a big vent to handle the fumes."  This guys was stupid in a way that almost defies science fiction.  I wonder if the "big boss" saw this episode and immediately fired the dickhead before he cost him his business.  I don't care if he is "tenured".

I really hope the idiot boss did fire him after this.  It would serve him right.  Such a despicable person all around. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmmm, think Hot Bench is the only of my court shows with new cases - and the episode that my DVD recorded was actually recorded yesterday. I just watched it - whole half hour spent on 1st cousins fighting over a stolen phone and fancy handbag. P (of course she's a single mom) hired her cuz to babysit while they travel to D's hometown for P's job. Both agree D was paid 10 bucks an hour. (If P was my cuz and was driving me to my hometown where I'd be visiting my adult children and parents while P worked for a couple hours I don't think I'd have asked for the 10 bucks/hr. But, that's just me.) Anyway, D drops P off at the job site, then proceeds to drive to daughter's house - stopping for groceries on the way. Once she gets to daughter's house, she collects the baby and daughter comes out and grabs the groceries... all would be well and good, except P left about a grand worth of stuff in the car and it's not there when D comes to pick her up. Did D steal it? Did she leave the car unlocked and someone else stole it? D could have maybe had an out depending on whether or not she was negligent - she admits she MAY have left the car unlocked. Case hinges on whether or not D knew valuables were in the car.  If she knew, judges say she should have made sure car was locked. If she didn't know - well, they might have let her slide. Yet again we get an example of the old Judy-ism about not needing a good memory if you tell the truth. Here we waste time with testimony from D which contradicts her written statement. No, no your honor i never said that! So we she Sonja carry the signed statement, and hear Acker tell us how much did hates when litigate testimony doesn't match the sworn statement. So, when litigants are arguing about whether or not D knew valuables were in the car, judges believe P because D has already been caught in a lie. P wins - not quite as much as she sued for - seems in court she stated hand bag was worth $300 but told coos in police statement it was $400 - judges go with lower number.

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

and hear Acker tell us how much did hates when litigate testimony doesn't match the sworn statement.

Gee, I love it when litigants hear their own statements read and stand there shaking their heads like cows ridding themselves of flies and protesting that's all lies. Awesome, it is.  I think def. stole the stuff - her tale of "some guys" standing there watching while the trunk was opened sounded like dumb BS to me. I guess blood isn't thicker than water, not on these shows anyway. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh my, today's new cases had a candidate for most obnoxious defendant ever. The nasty person defended her three (not quite?) pit bulls that tore the plaintiff's dog to pieces in front of him on the basis that her dogs "didn't start the fight". As was repeatedly pointed out by the judges (not that she listened to them anyway), she WASN'T THERE! Add on her yelling, smirking and constantly talking back to and over the judges, while full of red faced indignation when the judges tried to explain to her that her defense was total BS, this produced quite a case, a new classic. And she was still yelling and sputtering, red faced, in the hallterview.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Oh my, today's new cases had a candidate for most obnoxious defendant ever. The nasty person defended her three (not quite?) pit bulls that tore the plaintiff's dog to pieces in front of him on the basis that her dogs "didn't start the fight". As was repeatedly pointed out by the judges (not that she listened to them anyway), she WASN'T THERE! Add on her yelling, smirking and constantly talking back to and over the judges, while full of red faced indignation when the judges tried to explain to her that her defense was total BS, this produced quite a case, a new classic. And she was still yelling and sputtering, red faced, in the hallterview.

I heard a bit of this from the other room before I got back and hit the remote - not only was she not there to witness the attack - if I heard correctly, she had left her INTACT dogs with her roommate and been gone for two week and one of her unleashed, unrestrained dogs was in heat... but not her fault because she didn't know it was going to be in heat while she was away, and there are no leash laws in her jurisdiction (though it was quickly pointed out there is an ordinance against letting a dog roam while in heat).

Ok - nuf said, I only heard a few minutes and the teevee was safely in the living room while I dressed for work in the bedroom. 😠😠😠

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Oh my, today's new cases had a candidate for most obnoxious defendant ever. The nasty person defended her three (not quite?) pit bulls that tore the plaintiff's dog to pieces in front of him on the basis that her dogs "didn't start the fight". As was repeatedly pointed out by the judges (not that she listened to them anyway), she WASN'T THERE! Add on her yelling, smirking and constantly talking back to and over the judges, while full of red faced indignation when the judges tried to explain to her that her defense was total BS, this produced quite a case, a new classic. And she was still yelling and sputtering, red faced, in the hallterview.

I didn't understand why they didn't have Officer Sonia dump her ass out in the hallway.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Gotta love Angel Reynosa(sp?) being sued for hitting plaintiff's car while driving his drunk cousin home. Part of his defense was: "I have a wife and kids! I'm very responsible!" Yes, he spends a bundle getting super huge tires put on his truck so he can look really macho and special, but I guess he didn't have enough money left over for insurance, since he had none. Who wants to spend money on insurance when you can get your ride pimped out instead? Very responsible behavior, indeed. Glad plaintiff had proof of his losses due to his Lyft car being out of service and got the 5K max.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, beverlyoc said:

Since PTV reorganized the forums, no one's posting here any more.  I miss the snark!

I'll snark with you.  I think HB gets some pretty good crazies!  Show also seems to get new episodes when JJ and TPC are in reruns.

Big Big fan of Judge Acker here!  Your fav?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, beverlyoc said:

Since PTV reorganized the forums, no one's posting here any more.  I miss the snark!

Hot Bench is # three in my court room viewing - first I watch any new TPC, then JJ, followed by HB.... Thing is, if it were just my viewing pleasure, HB would easily edge out JJ... I often get exasperated with JJ Judyisms - a lot of what she repeats over and over and over may have been funny once upon a time, but have been heard so many times it's beyond rating a tired eye roll... but, add in the busy JJ forum - I sometimes watch JJ just to see what people are writing about 😉

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Hot Bench is # three in my court room viewing

Same here. I don't alway watch, but yeah, the crazy is often pretty wild. I just get exasperated with the overly-kindly Judge Correiro, who, while he seems very sweet will look at some unrepentant vicious scammer or scumbag and try and give them attributes they'll never possess: "You didn't really mean to smash plaintiff's car/steal her credit cards/trash his house, did you, young lady/young man? I'm sure you meant well. You seem like fine person." If the other two weren't there to straighten him out, I would never watch this.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I personally liked the Judge Eyebrows guy better than Correiro, but  guess they needed a foil to the women judges.  I would be cool with Acker all by herself.  She has good common sense without touchy feely crap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I really like the combination of the three.  Michael (we refer to him as Papa Mike) is so willing to see the good in people, it sometimes is a strain.  Acker cuts to the chase, and Patricia sometimes spouts off about things she knows nothing about.  But they all bring a different perspective and it's interesting.  I disagree with them sometimes on the verdict, but I'm not the one looking at the actual evidence.  I read an interview with Acker once where she said that each case takes a while to hear and deliberate, so I know there's edit monkeys involved as well.  Fun show!  And thanks, my fellow snarkers, for answering my plea.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Hot damn but those plaintiffs - students from USC - were impressive yesterday!  That landlord was a walking turd - she doesn't read her lease, kept insisting she didn't get notice when it was written into the lease and wanted an additional $7K rent and damages that the plaintiffs were told by both the Management Company AND the plumber was not their fault.  Their answers to every question were so articulate and well thought out, moreso than litigants twice or three times their age.  And Judge DeMango was right - "you picked the wrong group of Milennials to mess with."   I wonder how many times this landlord has pulled this stunt and pocketed some extra rent and damages from college kids who didn't know enough to challenge her.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/3/2019 at 4:20 PM, beverlyoc said:

Michael (we refer to him as Papa Mike) is so willing to see the good in people, it sometimes is a strain. 

Yeah, no matter how vile and unrepentant anyone is, he thinks maybe they're just misunderstood. The only time I saw him get truly steamed was when some young POS gave him the middle finger. Even then I was half-expecting him to say, "You don't really mean that. You're just upset."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Hot damn but those plaintiffs - students from USC - were impressive yesterday!  That landlord was a walking turd - she doesn't read her lease, kept insisting she didn't get notice when it was written into the lease and wanted an additional $7K rent and damages that the plaintiffs were told by both the Management Company AND the plumber was not their fault.  Their answers to every question were so articulate and well thought out, moreso than litigants twice or three times their age.  And Judge DeMango was right - "you picked the wrong group of Milennials to mess with."   I wonder how many times this landlord has pulled this stunt and pocketed some extra rent and damages from college kids who didn't know enough to challenge her.  

Absolutely, after wondering if all hope is lost watching so many semi literate "nurses", "teachers", and "college students" who are unable to utter a single coherent sentence, these 5 young adults seemed amazing. I can only hope there are a LOT more of this caliber we're NOT seeing. Because, you're right about the defendant - had defendant no tried to rip them off we would have never seen the 5 plaintiffs (did any of them utter "like" or "basically"). We spent so much time with judges praising the plaintiffs there was only a smidgen of time spent on defendant who was deserving of much harsher treatment than Judge C's mild "have YOU read the lease?"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Absolutely, after wondering if all hope is lost watching so many semi literate "nurses", "teachers", and "college students" who are unable to utter a single coherent sentence, these 5 young adults seemed amazing. I can only hope there are a LOT more of this caliber we're NOT seeing. Because, you're right about the defendant - had defendant no tried to rip them off we would have never seen the 5 plaintiffs (did any of them utter "like" or "basically"). We spent so much time with judges praising the plaintiffs there was only a smidgen of time spent on defendant who was deserving of much harsher treatment than Judge C's mild "have YOU read the lease?"

There are practicing attorneys that would give their eye teeth for the poise of those young people.  Their answers were informative - no stumbling over words; and even when one of them needed to interupt another, it was by saying "if I may interject here for clarification, your honor....."  Holy cow.

And they didn't have to trip over a single question.  As you said, no "like....um....uh...."

Judge Judy would KILL for plaintiffs like these.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

And they didn't have to trip over a single question.  As you said, no "like....um....uh...."

Not a single "literally, basically" or "like" in the whole case! 

See, dumbasses it CAN be done!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Today's case of the killer Huskies was so sad.   The goat owners lost one goat the evening before, then the next day or a few days later,(if I have that right) a woman came home to see the Huskies in her goat pen, with blood all over them, and a dead mama goat, with her babies cornered.      Then the dog owner claimed it wasn't her dogs, even though they had a lot of blood on them when animal control saw them at her house, then she claimed a small cut from the evening before caused the blood, and she was too busy with midterms to wash the blood off of the dog.

It must be a rural area, because the plaintiffs (who did a very good retelling of exactly what happened) said there were no fences on most of the properties.     I feel so sorry for the goats, and their owners, because they know that the Husky owner will never keep her animals contained, and never care about the harm they do.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's case of the killer Huskies was so sad.   The goat owners lost one goat the evening before, then the next day or a few days later,(if I have that right) a woman came home to see the Huskies in her goat pen, with blood all over them, and a dead mama goat, with her babies cornered.      Then the dog owner claimed it wasn't her dogs, even though they had a lot of blood on them when animal control saw them at her house, then she claimed a small cut from the evening before caused the blood, and she was too busy with midterms to wash the blood off of the dog.

It must be a rural area, because the plaintiffs (who did a very good retelling of exactly what happened) said there were no fences on most of the properties.     I feel so sorry for the goats, and their owners, because they know that the Husky owner will never keep her animals contained, and never care about the harm they do.    

To quote JJ's litigant - I find it "incredulous" that anyone who sees bloody fur on their dog and failed to investigate and wash the blood off to check for injuries.... but, not going to watch this one, thanks all the same

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's case of the killer Huskies was so sad.   The goat owners lost one goat the evening before, then the next day or a few days later,(if I have that right) a woman came home to see the Huskies in her goat pen, with blood all over them, and a dead mama goat, with her babies cornered.      Then the dog owner claimed it wasn't her dogs, even though they had a lot of blood on them when animal control saw them at her house, then she claimed a small cut from the evening before caused the blood, and she was too busy with midterms to wash the blood off of the dog.

It must be a rural area, because the plaintiffs (who did a very good retelling of exactly what happened) said there were no fences on most of the properties.     I feel so sorry for the goats, and their owners, because they know that the Husky owner will never keep her animals contained, and never care about the harm they do.    

But the plaintiff said that the defendant did have a gate, the D claimed it was blown open by the wind, but P said it was a roller type gate, not a swinging one.

Share this post


Link to post

Just watched "Heraldene" suing her daughter's ex-roommate/friend for a bunch of junk daughter left behind when she moved out. I don't know how this case made it here because it was, as Judge DiMango said, "triple hearsay."  Heraldene's "My daughter said that someone told her that she heard..." Is this a joke? When asked why daughter, who was actually there, didn't show up here, well, seems she's had a blessed event and no doubt joined the exalted ranks of "Sainted Single Mothers" and simply couldn't make it. Why wouldn't the judges take all this hearsay as gospel?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

How can a guy whose name is Justice Love Peace be so hateful?  This guy moved in as a sub-letter and decided that he could walk all over the original tenant.  Those kind of people are scary and then you have to jump through hoops to get them out.  I'm glad the judges gave the defendant $5K for having to deal with that creep.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/11/2019 at 9:29 AM, patty1h said:

How can a guy whose name is Justice Love Peace be so hateful?  This guy moved in as a sub-letter and decided that he could walk all over the original tenant.  Those kind of people are scary and then you have to jump through hoops to get them out.  I'm glad the judges gave the defendant $5K for having to deal with that creep.

Not just hateful, but so obstinate he tried to argue points of law with all three judges - two of whom were actual sitting judges before their TV judge careers. Did I hear he wanted to go to law school? Man, can't you just imagine how happy his law professors will be when he begins to educate them? Then, even after being lectured about how he was in no position to determine visitation, he spouts off again in hallway about how he was just protecting the bf's rights to visit his child.

Edited by SRTouch

Share this post


Link to post

I have a feeling that the piece of shit plaintiff Hate Fear Loathing probably has his own little history of bullying women, since he had no trouble bringing in that jerk abuser of his "landlord", even AFTER she pleaded with him not to.  Who the fuck are YOU to decide that this abusive man gets to go visit his child at 3:00 a.m.?   I'm so grateful each of these judges in turn kicked his self-righteous ass to the hallway and back, and awarded the defendant $5,000!  You don't get a whole lot of cases where the gallery applauds, but this was one of them.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Whoo hoo!  Today's Snark Score: 5 !!!

I wanted a full show of Acker calling Weirdo Plastica everything but a white woman.  Plastica wouldn't have learned a damn thing, but it would have been fun to watch her squirm.  Even with a completely immobile face it was hysterical!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×