Well, JJ is as brilliant as she ever was. But the cases and people are in serious decline. A battle over a chest of drawers, squabbling over a 20-year old car, and people who can barely count from one to ten (much less speak intelligibly). Are the producers desperate for cases? There have been some that are both interesting and funny like the bride who didn't get spandex in her wedding dress (I loved her honesty!), or the ins and outs of dog breeding (one case was enough--didn't need two and counting), selling a vehicle twice, renting the same room seven times, etc. Some of the cases where the charges are patently wrong or unreasonable are made interesting watching her powers of logic and reasoning. But I have yet to hear my favorite slap-down: "SPEAK NOT!" Somehow, this phrase loses something in the written recounting. So, JJ, SPEAK MORE!
UPDATE: Since I wrote my initial review based upon the first few episodes, cases have come and come again. Well, take heart: the Old Girl still has the blood and guts for which she has become famous/infamous.. The quality of the cases has improved substantially through Season 1. "Speak Not" seems to be replaced with "I'm speaking, not you". Would that her common sense and unvarnished rhetoric could be making a difference beyond just the entertaining aspect of this series.
NEXT UPDATE: I just watched Season 2, Episode 40. To be said of both cases: How is it that people seek a judgment and are totally unprepared to provide documentation. Somewhere in the many clauses of a contract there must be specific instructions of what will be needed. There may also be some verbal instructions to ensure the accuracy of a claim/case to be heard.
The second case was very troublesome. The plaintiff paid the defendant $2700 for a truck and he never delivered the goods. The defendant had no written documentation nor provide accurate and honest information about the auction and the date--and verging on incoherency. The defendant was either drunk or high, or both. Are there no clauses in the contracts which permit the producers to 86 a guest if they show up plastered? And if they did show up drunk/high would there be a forfeiture of their fee for appearing? I am really surprised that this case ever made it to the point of taping. But in this case it would not have been fair to the plaintiff who was able to communicate very well. Here is one more example of the death of common sense and honesty.
UPDATE: Since I wrote my initial review based upon the first few episodes, cases have come and come again. Well, take heart: the Old Girl still has the blood and guts for which she has become famous/infamous.. The quality of the cases has improved substantially through Season 1. "Speak Not" seems to be replaced with "I'm speaking, not you". Would that her common sense and unvarnished rhetoric could be making a difference beyond just the entertaining aspect of this series.
NEXT UPDATE: I just watched Season 2, Episode 40. To be said of both cases: How is it that people seek a judgment and are totally unprepared to provide documentation. Somewhere in the many clauses of a contract there must be specific instructions of what will be needed. There may also be some verbal instructions to ensure the accuracy of a claim/case to be heard.
The second case was very troublesome. The plaintiff paid the defendant $2700 for a truck and he never delivered the goods. The defendant had no written documentation nor provide accurate and honest information about the auction and the date--and verging on incoherency. The defendant was either drunk or high, or both. Are there no clauses in the contracts which permit the producers to 86 a guest if they show up plastered? And if they did show up drunk/high would there be a forfeiture of their fee for appearing? I am really surprised that this case ever made it to the point of taping. But in this case it would not have been fair to the plaintiff who was able to communicate very well. Here is one more example of the death of common sense and honesty.
