Our forum posters are dedicated to the Daytime Emmy Awards. To predict the winners, they do just like the judges and watch all the episode submissions. Then they rank them.
Below is a sampling of their insightful commentary. Read their thorough analyses here.
“We the People With Gloria Allred”
The plaintiff (a WASP-y white guy) is suing the defendants (a lesbian couple) because of their noisy baby causing him insomnia. The landlord won’t budge, and insists that the defendants have a different lifestyle that he objects to — a white woman, an Asian woman and a black baby living in the same apartment.
Judge Allred says, “What’s so odd in this decade about a interracial couple adopting a baby of a different races?” The plaintiff is seeking damages for medication and doctor’s visits (and sleeping pills he has to take). The Asian woman moved in first, and then after he found out that the Asian woman was a lesbian, he became a complete nuisance, and he has an issue with the two women being a lesbian couple. The girls adopted a black baby from a drug-addicted mother, knowing the challenges they would face. The plaintiff even called Child Services on the couple, thinking that there was some abuse going on. Judge Allred insists that the plaintiff isn’t here because a noise complaint, and ruled in favor of the defendants.
Analysis: At 11 minutes, this was a really short reel. It got to the point, but it was very short. I don’t know how the voters would think on it.
“Judge Joe Brown”
Case 1: Plaintiff is suing Defendant for dental and medical bills; Defendant claims it was self-defense. Plaintiff goes to Defendant’s place to fetch some clothes; Plaintiff & Defendant get into an altercation, Defendant put Plaintiff’s duffle bag of clothes in a creek (100 lbs heavy); after cussing Defendant out, Plaintiff was pushed in the creek; cussed Defendant out, Defendant slammed Plaintiff in the back of the car.
Defendant claims self-defense after plaintiff insulted her Judge Brown says Defendant did something incriminating, ruling in favor of the plaintiff, who wins $ 3,000.
Case 2: Plaintiff is suing Defendant for his portion of a family cruise. Defendant is a poor college student; Plaintiff would pay for everything else. Defendant did not pay.
A conversation happened prior to the cruise. Issue about another family crisis brought up Defendant asked Plaintiff if there is anything else, but couldn’t afford it, and claimed that the cruise was a gift Judge Brown rules in favor of the Plaintiff ($ 789)
Analyis: Two short and to the point cases. This was a “meh”… it didn’t win me over at all.
“Last Shot with Judge Gunn“
David is a 20-year-old charged with theft and possession of marijuana and is facing a 15-20 year sentence. David also failed a drug test. David was skipping school and dealing drugs at a young age. He doesn’t know who his father is and he comes from a broken family. David’s mother talks about the SWAT team busting down the door and David getting arrested, and his younger siblings being taken away, leading to his downward spiral. The prosecutor recommends him getting locked up. “The penitentiary’s doors will swing open for you.”
Judge Gunn tells David that he’ll be serving a long prison sentence, and sends him to six weeks of a residential treatment program. Judge Gunn talks about the case. The defense counsel insists that David has no support. The prosecutor rebuts by saying that David’s current environment is a bad influence on his younger siblings. She says that David has to separate himself from his family.
Judge Gunn recommends David for a six-month residential Drug Corps program, where he will stay clean, get a job, and get a GED. If he gets kicked out, he will get sent to the pen (for 20 years).
A week later: David can’t find a job; Judge Gunn needs David to find a job and to not give up. Two weeks later: David was sentenced to four months by another judge, where he is raped repeatedly by the hoodlums and thugrats. Three months later: At a staff meeting, his probation officer recommends that David be separated from his family. “It has been quiet.” David’s 14-year old brother wants David to be clean
Analysis: Where is the resolution? What is the outcome? The pace was confusing at times and threw me off.
“America’s Court with Judge Ross“
A woman is suing a private school for $2,500 because the school was not properly teaching her deaf daughter. And she doesn’t believe that her daughter doesn’t belong in said school. The deaf girl doesn’t communicate really with her parents. The plaintiff was seeking services for her daughter. At the school, the deaf girl met friends, but didn’t do well academically (D’s in the private school, compared to B’s and C’s in public school), insisting she had more support and tutors in public school than in the private school. The principal had programs for the deaf students to succeed in the program.
The judge is “looking at a functioning, normal human being”, even though the plaintiff doesn’t think her daughter is one. “We sign enough to get enough done in the household duties.” Neither she nor her husband learn sign language. Judge Ross says I don’t have a child who is deaf, Autistic, disfunctionally disabled, or has Downs, but “those parents consider their children normal”. He brings up “Mr. Holland’s Opus” and the relationship between Mr. Opus and his son.
The daughter wants to go back to the private school and for her mother to learn sign language. The principal brings up the college background for the graduates as an example of students succeeding. Judge Ross rules in favor of the defendant saying that it’s not about the contract with the school, but about the communication between parent and child.
Analysis: Judge Ross brings up some valid arguments. But I prefer “We the People” and “Last Shot” over this one.
OTHER AWARDS NEWS: