Bazinga
-
Posts
670 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Bazinga
-
-
Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 53, that was originally aired November 20, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Sticky Finger Stepson"
Case titles: 1) Stealing From A Stepmom; 2) Renting An Illegal Place; 3) Alternating.
Google's title case summary: "A woman claims her stepson went to her house, stealing her diamond ring, a snow globe, a truck and hedge trimmers, but he says he was given permission after his father died to take the items."
Edit: My original post was incorrect, this is now correct for what was aired. Apologies for the error.
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, patty1h said:
**A son wanting $9K from his father. Son came to stay with dad after his mom died and dad kept texting that he was having a hard time coping. Son makes a deal that he'll stay with Dad for 4 months if Dad will give him the $9K he will lose for missing out on an acting role. Son arrives, but finds that Dad has a new girlfriend -- son and GF do not get along. Son leaves and thinks that Dad should still pay him.
**A woman has her fridge stocked with expensive seafood for an upcoming party. Her uncle comes over and decides that the fish is going bad and tosses it all - niece wants $400 from him.
**A woman has a "living funeral" for herself and asked a friend to speak at it. The woman had been in a car wreck earlier in the year which made her feel life is fragile and she wanted to have a party while she is still above ground. She said this friend turned the occasion into a roast, making fun of her. The friend says the woman screened a loooong video presentation of her life -- guests started looking at their watches, so he decided to insert some humor into the event. The funeral holder wanted the friend to reimburse her for the cost of the funeral/party as she says he ruined it.
**A woman tells a work friend that she is pregnant - the mom-to-be (MTB) gets a "Congrats" balloon bouquet next day and now her coworkers know about the upcoming birth. MTB is mad because she didn't want that news out yet and thinks that the friend owes her for the therapy she needed after she miscarried that child.
I couldn't tell you how these cases end because I gave up caring... just that there was a definite theme here.
The results are in:
1) The son wins. JM was disgusted by 60 year old father having a relationship with a 25 year old repeat gold digger a month after his wife died. That is all she cared about in making her decision, without even caring about the promise itself or discussing son's damages in any way. I did not agree with her decision or at least for the reason the decision was made. Why wasn't the son considered an at-will employee who quit the job and doesn't get paid for work he didn't do? To me, the father is entitled to date anyone he wants and it is the son's problem if he doesn't like it. JM was punishing the father because his behavior disgusted her and he showed no embarrassment as she questioned him.
2) It was daughter-in-law vs. father-in-law. Daughter-in-law won as father-in-law should not have disposed of the fish without asking daughter-in-law. JM was more interested in the family dynamics then the stupid fish. Father-in-law spanked the child and had no respect for the dil and huband/son wanted nothing to do with any of it. That is what concerned JM.
3) The speaker defendant won as JM thought the living funeral was a stupid idea in general, she should have known the chosen speaker was a jokester and she had no damages.
4) MTB loses as she told this "secret" to others, didn't tell the friend that it was a secret and, again, no actual damages. MTB tried to claim she took off from work to avoid people but JM thought it was the normal grieving process.
To me, the cases all try to be *cutesy*; to look cute and different in synopsis blurbs on paper, but come off stupid in practice, especially with what appears to be fake litigants sneering at each other over petty, stupid nonsense.
Judge John is back in mid case segments before going to commercial asking JM legal questions.
I watch but really don't enjoy this show. I think the cases are stupid and uninteresting and JM is leaning in to being cute and making arbitrary decisions based more on which party she likes. I wish this show were more popular, so that I could get feedback about whether some of JM's decisions are wrong and/or arbitrary like I think.
-
2
-
-
Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 35, that was originally aired October 20, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Roommate Ruckus"
Case titles: 1) Being A Rotten Roommate; 2) Getting A Rise Out Of A Baker; 3) Selling A Rotten Roadster.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:
Are they still using (really bad) actors, who probably were picked up after the cringe-worthy "Operation Repo" went off the air and are paid with box lunches and a case of discount bottled water? I think I watched one ep on YT and gave up. Using actors, no matter how amateurish, is incredibly tacky.
Yes, they seem like actors with prepared statements. The case I described had two seven year olds testifying and they were painful.
Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 34, that was originally aired October 19, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Mom Sues Her Daughter's Ex!"
Case titles: 1) Being A Real Deadbeat; 2) Fast & Loose With Uncle Sam; 3) Ripping Off A Customer.
Google's title case summary: "A woman says her former son-in-law owes her money for a loan and he hasn't paid her back or paid her daughter's child support, but he claims all the money was passed on to her daughter."
-
3
-
-
Thought I would post to give the show a bump. New episodes started airing last week. No real improvement in quality (yet I still watch). Yesterday's episode was a father who, while watching defendant's son, fed his son and the defendant's son dog treats. Defendant's son got sick afterward from the treats or from eating too much pizza. Defendant is a standup comedian and during his show, put a spotlight on the plaintiff and made jokes about him subjecting him and his son to ridicule. He was suing for that and the cost of tickets to the charity show. Defendant was countersuing for money he needed to spend on childcare, as he won't allow plaintiff to watch his son. Plaintiff lost as JM did not think defendant's actions amounted to anything. Ridiculous case trying to be cute that just felt fake. Judge Milian ate a dog treat and seemed to go out of her way to show that she didn't like it, though she did not need to eat the treat and whether the treat is edible has nothing to do with the case, though plaintiff seemed to think it was important.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 33, that was originally aired October 18, 2017.
Discussion Link: "You Broke My Window"
Case titles: 1) A Power Struggle; 2) Chicken Nuggets In The Bed; 3) What A Double Crosser.
Google's title case summary: "A woman claims she brought her Mercedes to the defendant's shop to have the windshield repaired and her power window was ruined. He says he fixed the windshield and did nothing to the power window."
An off-topic aside: I thought I would mention that "Justice for the People With Judge Milian" is airing new episodes since last week. No real improvement in quality (yet I still watch). Yesterday's episode was a father who, while watching defendant's son, fed his son and the defendant's son dog treats. Defendant's son got sick afterward from the treats or from eating too much pizza. Defendant is a standup comedian and during his show, put a spotlight on the plaintiff and made jokes about him subjecting him and his son to ridicule. He was suing for that and the cost of tickets to the charity show. Defendant was countersuing for money he needed to spend on childcare, as he won't allow plaintiff to watch his son. Plaintiff lost as JM did not think defendant's actions amounted to anything. Ridiculous case trying to be cute that just felt fake. Judge Milian ate a dog treat and seemed to go out of her way to show that she didn't like it, though she did not need to eat the treat and whether the treat is edible has nothing to do with the case, though plaintiff seemed to think it was important.
-
4
-
-
Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 32, that was originally aired October 17, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Jewelry Tussle"
Case titles: 1) Creating A Tag Snag; 2) Not Fixing Up The Fixer Upper; 3) A Hasty Vacate.
Google's title case summary: "A man claims he was hired to make custom tags for a woman's jewelry company, but she was angry when they arrived because instead of saying `made in America' they said `made in China'."
-
1
-
3
-
-
On 4/23/2024 at 8:28 AM, chessiegal said:
The episode doesn't have the recipe on the FN site, nor does Molly seem to have it on her site. That is disappointing!
Episode's recipes here (no yogurt whipped cream recipe, though):
-
Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 31, that was originally aired October 16, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Shared Driveway Dilemma"
Case titles: 1) Not Sharing; 2) Unloading A Poor Puppy; 3) Handing Off A Hoopty.
Google's case summaries: "A crumbling shared driveway becomes the focus of a neighbour dispute. Then, a couple sue a dog breeder after they buy a puppy with what they believe to be existing health problems."
Thank you for next week's listings, CrazyInAlabama.
Have a nice weekend, everyone.
-
3
-
-
Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 30, that was originally aired October 13, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Dog Fight Fiasco"
Case titles: 1) A Doggie Dust Up; 2) Refusing To Give A Refund; 3) Tripping Out On A Tran-ny.
Google's title case summary: "A man claims a woman's unleashed dog began fighting with his dog, which led to ligament damage. She says the two dogs never had any contact."
Warning #1 - Case 1 is another dog attack case.
Warning #2 - NYGirl wrote the following: "Today's cases were so boring."
-
1
-
-
Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 29, that was originally aired October 12, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Truck Driver Tussel"
Case titles: 1) Trucking Around With A Driver; 2) Taking His Sweet Time; 3) Not Getting It Right.
Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims he was hired to drive a truck for the defendant and hasn't been paid, but the defendant says that on the first delivery the goods were damaged and on the second the driver disappeared for three days."
-
1
-
3
-
-
It is easier to know which episode will air when the episodes are shown in order.
Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 28, that was originally aired October 11, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Victim of a Vicious Dog"
Case titles: 1) My Dog Did Nothing; 2) Fleas, Fleas, Everywhere Fleas; 3) Weaseling Out Of A Deal.
Google's title case summary: "A woman sues for money she believes she's owed for vet bills following a dog attack. The defendant says there were no witnesses of any attack and he's never seen a vet bill."
Warning - If the title and summary didn't clue you in, case 1 is a dog attack case.
-
3
-
-
Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 27, that was originally aired October 10, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Beer Can Battle"
Case titles: 1) Charging For A Beer Brigade; 2) Not Getting The Picture; 3) What A Couple Of Lug Nuts.
Google's case summaries: "David takes Bill to court when his rental security deposit is not returned to him. Then, Dawn takes video editor Michael to court, for outstanding costs after she was forced to redo his work."
Thank you for the listings, CrazyInAlabama.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 26, that was originally aired October 9, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Phone Fight Ends Friendship"
Case titles: 1) A Phoner Fight; 2) Not Giving Anything Back; 3) Being A Drag.
Google's case summaries: "Tyler is taken to court by Kayla, for an unpaid loan, and a replacement phone. Then, Paul sues his former landlords for not returning his property or security deposit."
Have a good weekend, everyone.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 25, that was originally aired October 6, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Taking Out an Opponent"
Case titles: 1) Taking Him Out; 2) An Embroidery Error; 3) Not Fixing Things Right.
Google's case summaries: "Mike decides to sue his opponent in a soccer match, for a malicious physical assault. Then, James takes Joseph to court for ruining his shirts when adding monograms to them."
-
3
-
-
Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 24, that was originally aired October 5, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Playing Dirty"
Case titles: 1) Playing Dirty; 2) Taking A Fall; 3) Unloading On A Friend.
Google's case summaries: "Jason sues a customer of his mobile detailing company, for unpaid services. Then, a woman is sued four outstanding payments after purchasing a boxing club."
-
2
-
-
Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 23, that was originally aired October 4, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Exes Bicker Over Belongings"
Case titles: 1) Give Me My Stuff Back; 2) Wrecking The Joint; 3) Taking Advantage Of A Brit.
Google's case summaries: "A couple has a disagreement about their belongings, after a friend interferes in their relationship. Then, a woman sues her tenant for unpaid fees."
-
3
-
-
Thank you for the week's listings, CrazyInAlabama.
Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 22, that was originally aired October 3, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Model Mayhem"
Case titles: 1) Not Snapping Enough Pictures; 2) A Canine Caper; 3)Misrepresenting.
Warning - Case 2 is a dog attack case.
-
1
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:
In the ruined couch case I assumed (probably wrongly) that the plaintiff lawyer being denied legal fees because she is a lawyer who did the work herself was like landlords being denied cleaning fees when they admit they cleaned the place themselves.
Yes, the request for attorney fees was denied because she was her own lawyer. My point was that JM's original intent was to award the plaintiffs attorney fees. But car owners didn't get the requested fees and JM was acting like they were overreaching even though two cars were totaled. Alternatively, the stepfather was awarded attorney fees. Why two plaintiffs got/or were going to be awarded attorney fees and the third request was denied? The outlier reason was that JM did not think the car owners needed to hire an attorney but I don't see why stepfather and furniture owner needed to hire attorneys. I see this as inconsistency; just my opinion.
As an aside regarding your accurate comparison to landlords doing repairs themselves, I think landlords forced to repair and clean up after tenants do deserve to be compensated for their time and effort but Judge Milian and Judge Judy disagree.
Yes, I remember the dog cases. They made no sense, either.
-
3
-
-
On 9/29/2017 at 8:46 PM, meowmommy said:
And why did MM consider attorney's fees in the couch case reasonable until it turned out the wife was the lawyer, but not in this case where the plaintiff needed legal advice to respond to another attorney?
I hate MM's inconsistencies, especially with similar cases, particularly those shown close in time. We have three recent cases with different results as to attorney fees.
Case 1, the sort of stepdaughter a few days ago, who was willing to pay back the loan to the sort of stepfather until the plaintiff charged her with late fees, also had to pay plaintiff's attorney fees when plaintiff hired a lawyer to write her a threatening letter. He knew her and could have just spoke to her about the situation instead of going to the mattresses. Why did he deserve attorney's fees? In my experience, unless the original loan agreement allows for attorney fees, like in mortgage documents allowing the bank to charge attorney fees for foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiff does not recover attorney fees. Obviously, this was a person to person loan and no way she would have agreed to pay attorney fees when she borrowed the money. Same reason she was objecting to the late fees; he knew her and was not an institution like a bank for him to be charging late fees in the stepdaughter's opinion. The ruling as to attorney fees bothered me then and bothers me in comparison to the two cases shown yesterday.
Case 2, the couch case, JM was willing to award the plaintiff's attorney fee until the attorney in question turned out to be the wife.
Case 3, the car accident case, JM blew off the plaintiff's request for attorney fees because she decided he didn't need an attorney to respond to the court documents he received. The judge barely bothered to understand what papers led plaintiff to think he needed a lawyer, somehow concluding that since he initiated the lawsuit, he didn't need a lawyer; easy for a lawyer to say. Why would the criteria for awarding attorney fees be whether the plaintiff needed to hire the attorney rather than the fact that the plaintiff hired and paid for an attorney?
Did the stepfather really need to hire an attorney to write a $500 letter to his own stepdaughter? I don't think so, especially as she was willing to pay the original loan and was only objecting to his tacking on late fees. Did the original loan agreement provide for attorney fees? I doubt it. Was whatever the wife did in the couch case not something that could be done by a non-attorney? Yet JM was willing to grant them attorney fees. Were the car accident victims, faced with daunting legal papers about depositions, discovery and, though JM didn't care to listen, the wife said language about plaintiff having to pay defendant's attorney fees, really not justified in hiring an attorney, just as stepfather and couch couple were justified according to JM?
I just don't like inconsistencies in the judge's rulings (and treatment of certain litigants*, too).
*Compare the way JM treated the innocent car owners, the actual victims, to the teen who most likely was reckless in causing an accident that damaged three cars, could have killed himself and his passenger. JM was annoyed the plaintiff, in anger at his parked cars being damaged, called the defendant an a$$hole. She was so defensive of the defendant that she even tried and failed to show the plaintiff's daughter had a car accident because accidents happen and it is not really the poor defendant's fault.
-
2
-
-
Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 21, that was originally aired October 2, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Greedy Girlfriend"
Case titles: 1) You're Outta Here; 2) Taking Shoddy Shots; 3) Misleading A Mitsubishi Buyer.
-
1
-
-
Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 20, that was originally aired September 29, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Couch Catastrophe"
Case titles: 1) Couching The Issue; 2) Cracking Up; 3) Cooling Off A Tenant.
-
3
-
-
Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 19, that was originally aired September 28, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Romance Rent Rage"
Case titles: 1) Skipping Out; 2) Cleaning Up; 3) Cracking A Guy Up.
-
3
-
-
Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 18, that was originally aired September 27, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Hospitalized After Dog Bite"
Case titles: 1) Ouch; 2) A Back-Up Crack-Up; 3) Being Too Nosey.
-
3
-
The People's Court - General Discussion
in The People's Court
· Edited by Bazinga
Thank you for the listings, CrazyInAlabama. But the listings aren't in order. Monday and Tuesday are actually Season 21, Episodes 54 and 55, respectively, from November 2017, though your episode titles are correct. Then we retreat back to Episodes 36, 37 and 38, from October 2017. This past Friday's episode had jumped ahead a month to Season 21, Episodes 53 from November 2017. My Friday post was therefore wrong and has now been corrected. Why they jumped out-of-order, I don't know? Trying to keep me on my toes and not let me get complacent, I guess, if I want to personalize it, which I do. Embarrassingly, I spent well over an hour getting this sorted.
Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 54, that was originally aired November 21, 2017.
Discussion Link: "Custom Car Paint Catastrophe"
Case titles: 1) Bring A Sloppy Artist; 2) Being A Drip; 3) Not Playing Nice.