Probably more... first off the casting directors look for the good characters (cases, low IQ, characters, etc). Also, the "fame" factor... normal people are more concerned with their law suit than being on tv.
On 1/4/2011 8:18 PM, WiltW@xxxxxxx wrote:
I have wondered if the TV judges get a higher percentage of cases with idiots for plaintiffs and defendents, than the court docket has for all cases. It always is distressingly amusing to see the airhead young adult females with their nonsensical attitudes and logic.--wiltIn a message dated 1/4/2011 3:27:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, JayPax@xxxxxxxx writes:This is Judge Joe Brown, similar to Judge Judy and the original such show, 'The People's Court' with Judge Wapner. These are real cases, but the way the thing works (at least in the case of the People's Court worked), the parties sign an arbitration agreement and the judge's ruling acts as an arbitration award. It is not a real court, although the judges are real judges, or maybe retired judges. And the court's decision acts as an arbitration award. They also may pay the side of the loser if there is an award to the plaintiff, so at most, only egos and feelings get hurt. -----Original Message----- From: nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Osthus Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:31 PM To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography Um ..this isn't a real trial is it? It was entertaining but this is a TV show, right? My favorite part was the hot bailiff with the sidearm. Best, JO -----Original Message----- From: nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tigermike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:39 PM To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography What's even funnier is that he always says this too. "You know, your mouth and attitude aren't helping you any. I suggest you just be quiet." Of course, they never do. I loved her response when he said he used to do photography "yeah and when was THAT?!?!" -----Original Message----- >From: Jay Paxton <JayPax@xxxxxxxx> >Sent: Jan 4, 2011 11:08 AM >To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography > >And of course, the defendants violated the first rule of being in court: > > >"Don't p*** off the judge by being a smart mouth." > >-----Original Message----- >From: nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >On Behalf Of tigermike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:03 AM >To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography > >The defendants were lying, they were hoping that saying "we didn't meet >her at a wedding show" would be enough to break the plaintiff's case. >Problem is, some people are just plain naive and take verbal promises of >"you will get professional prints" as that. As the old addage goes, >"you get what you paid for." >"How fast is your lens? You are using a Rebel XT, and you are a pro? >Where's your 1-series, 7D, 5D, hell 10D? The Xt is your base model! >Where's your 28-70? How can you get a decent photo with such a slow >lens, the cheapest you can buy!" LMAO, I loved it! > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Mark Stein <mjstein63@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>Sent: Jan 3, 2011 5:39 PM >>To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography >> >>Nice to see bad pros slapped down, but the plaintiff made her own >>mistakes... >> >>Why was there no mention of a contract, which should have listed what >>the deliverables were? If she didn't meet them at a wedding show, >then >>did she really see samples of their work? >> >> >> >>On 1/3/2011 11:15 AM, Frank Armstrong wrote: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIiH9uxdE5M >>> >>> >> >> > > >