SRTouch

Sometimes very smart dogs have next to no common sense when Unfortunately, some dogs lose any sort of common sense when instincts kick in. In my lifetime I've only had one purebred pup, a daschund, named Bo. He was both very intelligent, but also hard to train because he was so stubborn - pretty much like you see when you read the breed charactetistics. Also had a very strong prey drive since the breed was original bred for hunting badgers. What that has to do with the porcupine quilted dogs is that once Bo decided to go after something, you had to physically restrain him. Prime example was the wasps that built nests every year under the railings on on fence. Every year Bo would jump up and be stung multiple times until his snout would be swollen - never learned that 1) he couldn't jump high enough to get the nest, or 2) to just leave the wasps alone.

copyright infringement: P says D posted his independent film to D's late-night internet channel without permission - wants 10 grand....... D admits he never got permission from film maker, but that P has no proof this was his film........ been years, but in early internet days I had a couple Web sites where I posted nature/National Park pix - whenever I came across copyrighted pix I either got permission or didn't post the material - when I could find the copyright holder I never had anyone refuse permission as long as I gave them credit and didn't try to make money off their work - so I wonder what this video pirate's deal is........ film not P's original film - seems he owns a company that buys the rights to low budget horror/slasher films and remarkets them, sometimes after reediting - P started this business at 17yo and has been in business 13 years - ok, so, he says his company spent money buying the rights to film, and he's protecting that investment with this lawsuit......... sounds good, but what about D claim that P has no proof he owns the rights? not so sure this is a $10,000 case, but it sounds like an interesting/different case....... ah, seems copy that D had on his channel was not the original, but was an edited version sold by P - once P knew about the post, he got the video yanked off YouTube after he filed a complaint citing the appropriate laws - and he explains the legalities to us.............. over to D who is using the Sgt Schultz defense - he didn't know anyone owned the rights, it's an old movie, yada yada - his excuses are pretty lame, especially the bit about leaving lists of movies he's going to use online and waiting to see if anyone complains......... ah, more legal Schooling, as MM tells us that since 1978 the presumption is that films are copyrighted - this film is from the 88....... D argues that he remastered the film, but MM immediately comes back to fact he did little to find the owner of the rights to the film, then when P caught him using the film he argues back demanding proof P's company owns the rights - uh, no dude, if the presumption is that 'someone' owns the rights, you stop using it........ I'm not sure what the process is - when you protest content on YouTube, does YT make you prove you own the rights, or do they just pull the movie unless the poster proves you don't?...... really have a growing dislike for D as he mouths off to MM, and I'm finding P entertaining........... oh my, despite D's claim that the original producer/director is dead and the original film company is long out of business, P has the original producer/director ready to testify - and he testifies that he owned the rights until he sold them to P........ not that it sounded like P needed the original owner, but his testimony is the final nail in the coffin - but is it a $10,000 nail......... ok amazon sells physical companies for $30 apiece and you can stream it through Amazon Prime.......... more copyright schooling - apparently, the rules/law requires P to file this case to force D to stop using it because D filed a formal protest saying P doesn't own the rights and the law then requires a court ruling saying yes he does - D even went so far as to say he would keep using the film even if P proved his company owned the rights ...... so, yeah this probably isn't a $10,000 case but both sides had lawyers involved......... ah, side note not first time P has had copyright fight even fought over name of his channel which belonged to someone else way back when ........ MM rules for P, but trims the damages back a bit - P gets $2,500 (not enough in my opinion - I really didn't like D)......landlord in Hallterview D says honest mistake, but P tells us that once he filed this case D's list of films dropped from 70 to 4 - and P is happy...... wrong color bathroom tile: shades of recent zen garden rocks P ordered tiles, but says color is wrong and wants over $1274......... D (cash and carry store that supplied tiles) doesn't deny that 2 different lots were delivered - officially the same color, but sometimes different batches are a little different - says he tried working with P, but P wouldn't hear anything besides a full refund......... gotta wonder how these two ended up in court - I'm betting on super picky customer who doesn't listen cuz he knows everything, but that could be my experience with some customers when I did landscaping........... well, problem was P gave a cursory inspection, looking at 1 tile in the box of 36 out of the dozen boxes, said good'nuf, then once he opens rest of the boxes says whoa, these aren'the all the same, they're pulling a fast one....... another problem, guy was doing work himself over time, and I guess using 1 box at a time - should have immediately opened all the boxes, then he could have maybe maybe mixed tile from different boxes to make slight color difference less noticeable - oh, and these are imported tiles from Italy......... actually, turns out store went to great lengths trying to help P, but he was never satisfied - most of the tile was completed, but a few of the bull nose used to finish the edge of tile was off color - a tile guy from the store came out and concluded only way to make it look right would be to start over (I'm assuming that meant replacing all the bull nose tiles, not the whole shower surround)......... not sure what D meant during intro about trying to work with P over and above what was done - sounds like this business normally installs the tile they sell, and had 1 of the if i stalkers installed this shower the work would have been completed in a much shorter timeframe, and color variations would have been noticed and adjusted by the installer - here P was doing thd work, took way longer than normal, and the factory in Italy probably made several batches before color variation was caught...... oh, and the store policy and receipt warns that colors vary and that store does NOT guarantee a match, and P signed agreeing to the policy....... at most I'm thinking store would be on hook for the dozen or so mismatched bull nose tiles - but not really if the receipt really warns that the colors is not guaranteed, all sales final, no returns - again, as already noted, fault lies with P for not laying out tile and inspecting it before putting it on wall - just about impossible to do anything going now without tearing everything out and starting over (I suppose since he already has a couple different colors they could just replace all the bullnose - speaking of different colors, anybody else see that brown and immediately call it 💩brown)....... ah ha, now store guy is saying his store didn't want to do the install because it required a permit and P was doing job unpermited and job is a code violation........ uh, I would have ruled against P before D said anything going just based on P's testimony, now not even close......... ok, MM now goes back to P and asks, "did you read the contract before signing?" I gather that means D is right about the no guarantee, all sales final etc........ dude still arguing with MM and she's about to bust out laughing at the nonsense spewing from P........ quick decision - case dismissed........ quick look at time, must be a three case day tenant wants refund of nonrefundable deposit after finding better place: seen this one many times - and expect a quick dismissal - ah, but this one has a couple twists - first, P was looking to sublet a couple bedrooms from a neighbor, but neighbor already had tenants in the rooms with 30 days rentals - seems P takes care of elderly clients and she wanted to move clients to into neighbor'she place so they'd be next door - so, P comes to D and asks about renting the 2 bedrooms, he's agreeable, but says he already has tenants, but if she comes up with more eyes he'll give current tenants notice and rent to her (guess he thought easier renting both to 1 renter then dealing with 2 tenants)........ so, she gives him the deposit, he gives current tenants notice, they leave, P changes her mind, and rooms sit vacant two months before new tenants are found......... and she's actually suing him?!?........ another side issue - deposit is a cashiers check from someone else, not P, so. MM says, even if D is ordered to return deposit (which won't be happening) why would MM order D to give it to P when someone else's name is on the check......... now I guess P is arguing that she is entitled to refund because D's tenants never actually moved out, so even if she hadn't backed out the rooms would not have been available - D says tenants did so move out, P says did not, MM tells P to prove her claim - D says let me phone a witness, but clock is ticking and no time for call a friend...... case quickly dismissed

Nasty old folks breakup: not my normal blow by blow recap as I was eating and not worth the rewind..... proof that wisdom does not come with age, here two single old folks meet at the senior center and move in together a couple weeks later - dude acts about as mature as the characters in Grumpy Old Men - think he said he's about to turn 80 and he asks MM if he can get granny for elder abuse because she's 20 years younger - wasn't long after she moved in that she began replacing all his old crap with her old crap, which pisses him off and he tells her to get out - he says she took forever getting her stuff out, but she has a pretty good reason as it appears she had a heart attack and other health problem in the middle of the move out - sometime between her heart attack and other health crises, P says she came back and keyed his truck, boat and motorcycle - his problem is no evidence she did any of this, he has no evidence it was even done, and he waited over a year and a half before getting estimates for repairs.......... also, my guess is he probably has several other folks pissed at him at any one time who might have keyed it vehicles....... granny has a counterclaim because she says he owes for stuff that he got rid of after she moved out, with a fridge being the big ticket item - but fridge was there for months before old grump finally got rid of it - she's also asking for damage to a pop-up camper, but her courtroom testimony is a totally different story of how it was damaged......... in the courtroom old dude is having lots of fun laughing and smiling because old lady is so mad - I skipped over how he left one of her sex toys on their dining room table, and he thinks it's hilarious that old lady is embarrassed saying what the toy is on national TV......... what it comes down to is neither of these two have any evidence showing they should be awarded the thousands they want - both cases dismissed homeowner claims handyman damaged home: p hired dude after finding his online ad - guess hiring someone for electrical work isn't the best idea, but P seems to think high reviews on his ad and pictures of "his work" qualifies him to do wiring in his home....... course, I'm sure fact that an actual licensed electrician would charge way more had nothing to do with her decision to go cheap. ....... D intro has him claiming he did an excellent job, but P testimony is that he didn't finish the job & cut big holes in her drywall......... not sure WTH he was doing, but her video show a hole cut in the wall as well as a long section cut across the ceiling almost the width of the room........ MM asks handyman (who may not be quite so handy as ad suggested) about the holes - his explanation is that there was no way to run the wires because there was no access that space and he had to drill through roof joists - oh, and says he explained this to the customer and about how it would cost extra to patch these holes....... uh, yeah, could well be true, and MM tells us most electricians tell their customers upfront they don't do drywall really, and really, depending on ceiling there may be some texturing/painting involved that an electrician wouldn't want to try to match - still, we're to believe homeowner told him to go ahead and cut big holes in the ceilings of two rooms and leave them like that - or is the reason he never got around to installing all the lights fixtures because he was fired mid-job.......... despite what D is saying, MM has read the texts and she has already seen that patching the holes was part of this deal - with his brother to do the drywall (but bro got sent to jail on unrelated matter so wasn't available).......... in fact, we sort of know drywall WAS part of the quoted price because when bro gets arrested D originally agreed to return some of what homeowner had already paid so she could hire someone to do patches - problem there is that bro works really cheap (P says she was told bro could patch holes for $50 - good luck finding anyone else willing to do that for that amount)............ now D really looking bad, as MM reads him his own texts where he agrees to refunding some money, texts where he is coming at 8 am to finish installing a chandelier but is a no show/no call - D can't answer, instead camera shows him studying spiderwebs in corners of the room, which had MM telling him to stop rolling his eyes when she reads his words back to him......... D going to lose, but from what I'm hearing not sure what he owes - does he owes what he said he would charge for that chandelier and his brother to patches holes (think it heard $25 for light and $50 for holes) or does he pay someone else's price which will be considerably more.......... ah, but as things heat up P gives him an ultimatum - refund everything she's paid and pay for the material & do repairs - plus give her an extra $100 and I guess she'll retract her bad online review or pursue case in court - he says ok, see you tomorrow - and again a no show no call........ apparently he thinks because his texts don't count as a contract and he insists he didn't sign anything (apparently he never heard of verbal contract vizier text, & doesn't realizes how often MM accepts texts as binding........ so, a minute ago I was thinking all D might owe was $75, but here's a new contract for WAY more - MM doesn't enforce the full refund - she says that last minute verbal contract is so unfair as to be unenforceable, so she tosses it - instead she is going to make D refund the money for that remaining light fixture ($25) plus pay fair market estimate for patches (P has estimate for $275, which MM agrees sounds fair)....... P awarded $300 - i would have given more cuz I didn't like D

Custom boat trailer disaster: P ordered a custom trailer for her boat - was assured trailer was made to carry the weight of her 23ft boat - but axle broke when boat was loaded - she wants 10 grand...... D claims P loaded the boat full of fuel (3500 lbs) and that weight difference is cause of axle failing........ P and her whole family are big into wakeboarding (water-skiing with one beefed up ski that let's you do all kinds of tricks, sort of like snowboard compares to snow skis) - both her husband and 14yo son are professionals and this boat was purchased for them to use as well as a commercial venture to train others to do water sports........ ok, not after market custom made trailer, this trailer and boat came from dealer as a package deal - pretty much from beginning trailer gave P problems, and when they took it to be serviced and they're told trailer not up to carry this heavy a boat........ not sure I buy D's intro defense that it was the fuel weight causing the problem - I'm not into boating, but I see people stopping on the way to the water and getting fuel for their boats - and, if I heard correctly, this family have years of boating experience, so I would think they'd know if gas tanks should be empty when trailering the boat........ anyway, P shows us pix of a beat up trailer with obvious axle problems, wheel rims cracked, and torn up tires - thing not roadwork hybrid and she tells us 1 axle had to be replaced after 2 months, few months later other axle (it's dual axle) needs replacement........... ah, one of those warranty musical chair cases - dealership sold this boat & trailer, but when P goes to dealer they say not their warranty, go after the trailer manufacturer directly........ so far P has spent over 5 grand on this $10,000 trailer and neither dealer nor manufacturer will do anything - in fact all they did is tell her to contact the axle manufacturer - geez, so if I buy a car and the brakes fail, I'm supposed to sue the company who made the brakes? - if I understand correctly, P actually did contact the axle manufacturer, and their representative informed her that these axles were not made to carry this weight and should not have been used on this trailer.......... me, I'm not a confrontational person, but I think I would have towed this broken a$$ trailer back to the dealer and parked it and called the local media for an interview rather than paying thousands over a 2 year period........... over to defendant who admits he built the trailer in 2017, but just like P claimed, he telling MM that he doesn't warranty the trailer except to the dealer, then says the axles are warranted by the axle maker......... I'm thinking P should be going after the dealership with whom she had a contract, and then the dealer can go after trailer manufacturer, who can go after after axle maket, etc......... ok, if I have this right, D offered to exchange the trailer, but says he has no way to transfer boat from busted ass trailer to new one - not sure why this was a deal breaker, surely they could have met somewhere, at a marina or dealership, to play musical trailers......... more gibber jabber, but like I said I think P should be dealing with the dealer, and that's exactly what MM is telling P now........ ok, now D disputes what P said and says he wanted boat AND trailer so he could weigh them and find out why the trailer failed, and P was unwilling to surrender them (remember she uses the boat pretty much daily in her water sports school business) - and of course neither side had texts/emails/etc to support their version of events.......... ok, long drawn out case with conflicting stories, but MM, even after saying P should have gone after dealer, tells P to let D trailer guy have bought AND trailer to make the repairs......... I sort of agree, but only because I think P is suing the wrong person........ and MM does give D a 1 week deadline for fixing and returning the boat so P's business can go on........ after the verdict Has MM using similar example is did, except she uses a Honda "you bought a Honda and axle goes out, would Honda send you to axle manufacturer?" Uh, no, Honda takes care of it and then goes after axle supplier......... I still think I would have towed the busted trailer to the dealer and made a stink until they agreed to fix it tenant wants treble deposit: 1st case took up half the hour, and i think this is supposed to be a 3 case day - these next two better be quickies...... guess P is actually suing on her elderly mom's behalf - suing for $1250, so guess 1/3 of that means deposit was little over $415......... landlord says mom left a mess, so he was entitled to witholding the deposit........ but only if he followed the statues if there was a required itemized list deadline......... ahhhhhh mom was a long time tenant of this duplex, and had been lovingly caring for a flowerbed for 19 years - duplex sold last year and new landlord brought in a roofing contractor - who mom hated, and who destroyed mom's flowers - then new owners bumped up rent by almost $300 - that may be reason for mom to decide to move, but as nothing to do with case....... ok, actual deposit was $495, so guess P agrees last D lord was entitled to keep part of deposit and tripled what she feels was unjustly kept?....... hmmmm according to P she was told not to worry about getting everything out, they were planning g on gutting it and renovating unit - then 2 1/2 weeks later P contacts D and is told we sent pix of the tradh left to your sister (and yes, a bunch of crap was left for someone else to throw out) - according to P, when she contacted D he said he'd return the deposit if she had someone come throw out the 'big' stuff that weekend - but P never came because she had turned in the keys and couldn't get in unless D let her in....... not sure she tried very hard, I mean mom just moved across the street so surely P could have arranged to meet and get the keys - I think P just wasn't motivated enough (though not sure why if, as P says, mom was going to get money if they finished carrying trashy dresser out).......... MM starts reading their text exchange - D admits he dropped the ball by not responding to a text asking about P getting sccess, but says P only asked the 1 time and HD would have happily given her access via the key lock box had she followed up - I'm agreeing with landlord, he offered to grant access to save P money, which he didn't have to do since Mom had moved out 2 weeks prior, and P didn't follow up - instead jump's to threatening a lawsuit even though at that point D was being nice in offering to let them back in to finish clearing the property........ ok, weekend comes and goes and P makes no further effort to gain access to finish hauling away mom's trash - come Monday D goes to property, sees trash still there, and goes ahead and had his people do the cleanup......... forget treble damages, landlord had right to keep part of deposit and under no obligation to let P come back weeks after move out date - question is whether he's overstating cost of cleanup (especially as they were apparently going to renovate place) - actually, P seems to really be reaching here as mom apparently moved into an identical Floorplan duplex paying said rent from before the rent increase........... Decision time - landlord kept too much, and ordered to rent 150 - not the asked for $1250......... hallterview proves was why to nice to P, who still thinks she should have won - apparently ignoring fact that landlord had no duty to let her back onto property weeks after it should have been returned in broom swept condition aftermarket auto install fail: p paid $234 for aftermarket Bluetooth to be installed, but it doesn't work like he thought it would - wants his money back...... defense seems to be that shop installed device that P brought them, not their fault it doesn't do what P wanted......... could go either way - does installed device work as it should (we may need expert testimony to tell us) even if that isn't what P wanted - who picked out the device, and what representations did shop make......... testimony has MM playing dentist trying to get info from P - he was at shop to get windows tinted, noticed a display, and helpful salesman suggested he get this do dad installed.......... what caught my attention was what's in the background as P testifies, MP headgear, military certificate or award with dog tags hanging from from, etc........... ok, sounds like salesman/shop guy sold the $40 device thinking it would act as a Bluetooth to allow hands free phone functions, and after the almost $200 install fee thing doesn't work - soon as it's installed Shop everyone knows it doesn'the do what shop guy said it would, even with shop guy trying to make it work......... wonder if maybe it's phone or car model specific and it was just incompatible.......... so, before P leaves shop he is telling them that he doesn't want it if it won't work, and just take it out and give him back his money.......... ok, P is regular customer who has had several things done at shop, but D disagrees with the window tint story, says instead P was there for headlight restoration......... wouldn't matter except someone has faulty memory of the day in question......... D agrees reason dohickey gets installed is that P saw a display in shop and bought it....... thing is this was not a Bluetooth type device, but was a USB port - could you maybe plug in a Bluetooth headset - but why spend over 2 hundred bucks when you can just get a Bluetooth ear plug and charge it up at home between trips............ according to shop guy the customer already has a similar USB port in his other car, and they never really talked about what P might use this device for in this car - and yes, I get that, I use my USB port all the time when I want to charge my phone while in the car, but I know that isn't a Bluetooth device (my Hyundai has Bluetooth though the stereo, but when I had my older Altima I had an earpiece) - not sure it is shop guy's job to ask what P wanted device to do - also, according to shop guy, P bought the device and came back 10 days later to get it installed........... ah, but when we get back to P we get contradicting testimony - P says he already has a USB port in this car, and had no reason to install a second port - only reason was that he thought this device would act let him talk on the phone........ P says no to idea 10 days go by between purchase and install...... the real key here though is that this time we have 3 pieces of written evidence - 1 receipt and 2 work orders, and 2 out of 3 cal this a blue tooth - the receipt and install work order ipt for device calls it a USB port, the work order for installation says USB, but the installation WO is for a bluetooth - so, asks MM, why did installer not question why he was installing a USB port and not a Bluetooth........ oh, and it gets better says MM, when P isn't happy and they write up another work order for removing the device, the WO refers to device as a Bluetooth (really, though, before I had my back up and later dash cameras installed I read every review I could find before spending any money - had the back up camera a couple years, then upgraded to front and rear dash cams when resolution got better and price went down)......... MM decides she's seen enough, and orders complete refund

Today we had a fool being parted from his money after hooking up with someone on a dating site. I swear I about laughed out loud when I heard idjit say he loaned hundreds to D for hoopty repairs after the first date. Then another big chunk of money her grandkid's BD party bouncy house. Oh, he also gave her hundreds for a night at the casino, but he's not asking for that money back. Another laugh/head shake when dude explains he expected the bouncy house money to be repaid in 24 house so that he could pay his bills...... really, dude is tossing hundreds at this stranger and who can't pay for her own car repairs or her grandkid's BD party and he expects her to worry about him paying his bills...... biggest laugh is how D acts all insulted at very idea dude expected a "good time" after giving her hundreds to gamble with - yeah, right, we all know what he thought he was buying - I mean, the very idea! She's not that kind D of woman! - especially on the second date!!! Dude ends up winning case - even though all three judges have problems with his credibility, woman even less credible.

nah, way I recap these is to type my impressions while the case is going on - so unless I go back and change things, especially when I'm talking about the intro which is usually wrong, my recaps often have incorrect 'facts' as the litigants contradict each other (and often themselves)......... and yes I was wishing MM would tell P to stop with the faces/head shaking

borrowed jackets: p says good friend, D, borrowed some jackets, and now won't return them - dude wants a grand......... Another element from D's intro - these two must have been roomies, as D is countersuing for $480 in unpaid rent........ I expect MM to spend more time playing couple's counselor trying to repair the broken friendship than figuring out value of any borrowed clothing and owed rent.......... P says he lived in place with D around 18 months - he was working, but had problems because D was nonstop party - says he worked 12 hour shifts, and would come home and want to sleep but the party that had been going when he left for work 12 hours earlier was still going hard....... ok, sounds like possible an iffy rental arrangement as P says he was "contributing" to household expenses, but not paying set amount towards rent - which makes me wonder about counterclaim for $480 in unpaid rent if P's contribution was paying utility bills and groceries......... P getting excited and starting to yell as he talks about his contributions, and MM wants to hear whether or not he was paying rent - oh, and seems D did most of the cooking - another of P's complaint to is that when he came home sometimes there was no food for him and "his kids" - so were P's kids also living rent free?..... says the utility bill he paid ran $3-400 a month........ ok, forget MM fixing this broken friendship, P seems awfully angry - and not about some borrowed clothing......... apparently, these two had a long going fight about their different live styles, and finally P split without officially telling D he was moving out, but he figures the constant sparring was enough notice......... MM has had enough of P yrlling, telks jim to dial it back, and says she's read the texts and that after a fight P announces he's fed up, and he moves out in the middle night, but left behind a couple jackets - which he's now suing for replacement value......... MM asks why did he leave the jackrts, and we hear lame excuse that he was afraid they might get damaged because all he had to move his stuff was a pickup........ over to defendant: dude admits his friends and family occasionally just wander through and take stuff - which might not belong to D - without asking - says he didn't know anything about these jackets being left behind, so guess his defense is it wasn't him - also, he's saying he didn't know P had moved out until he investigated because the utility bill hadn't been paid and the lights had been cut off......... whoa, either their power company acts fast or, more likely, P had power turned off........... anyway, big kerfuffle when P comes walking up the driveway just as D has learned the power has been cut off, and D tells P he can't go in and get anything he might have left - and we're here fighting over these expensive jackets......... geez, time for MM to get on P for all the faces he's been making throughout the case - but guess they bother me more than her....... so, D admits his friends/family have sticky fingers, admits he refused to let P go back in to collect remainder of his property, but denies knowing these jackets were in the house or knowing where they ended up....... ready for this part to be over, let MM do her rough justice to determine value....... let's talk countersuit and whether or not P lived up to his rental agreement to cover the utilities - does this loosey goosey agreement still require official 30 day notice? And has P paid all he needs to as he left in the middle of the night and cut the power?........ ok, MM finds P's proof of the value of the jackets underwhelming - also, and MM has some fun with this, not only does P want to be paid for the lost jackets, he wants D to pay replacement cost for 2 new jackets - so D would end up paying for 4 jackets - P gets $200 and D gets zip on the countersuit these stones don't work: P not happy when wrong color stones are delivered for his zen garden and suing for $615.56..... D says P picked out the stones and placed the order, all he did was make the deliveryear of 8,000 pounds of stones - he's countersuing for the $250 delivery charge........... before going to break, we see pictures of the pile of new stone next to the existing wall - yeah, the color is off - but easy to have made the mistake without seeing new and old next to each other - no matter who made the mistake, if all D did was deliver them I don't see how he should refund the money and/or eat the delivery charge........ actually, even coming from the same quarry there would be variations in the color of natural stone, and fake/manufactured stone will vary between lots - final judgement of how close the match needs to be rests with customer, and he should have made sure to be present when stones were delivered if color match was vital......... when testimony begins P quickly shows himself to be a very fussy customer who would be a nightmare to work for...... the zen garden was being built in 2 stages, and despite intro, D was more involved than a simple delivery man - he was the one who delivered the materials for the first stage, including stones for the other half of the wall these new stones were to complete - P tells us the reason wall was only half completed was that he ran out of matching stone, so now we know color was VERY important to this guy, which is even more reason he should have been there when this new batch was delivered........ yep, it was P who placed the order - over the phone, sight unseen....... when D arrived at supply yard he saw color was off, and called to tell customer, and P essentially left it up to D to decide if color was a close enough match - WTH, if color was so vital to this guy's meditation garden why not check it himself before paying hundreds for a "close enough" based on someone's opinion........ lots of gibber jabber, and it comes to rough justice......... MM agrees with my opinion that color screw up is on P, but problem is delivery was part of the whole job rather than separate, so how much should D get for his time/effort - P says D shouldn't receive anything, in fact wants hundreds for delivering stones P ordered - ah, but D has included some iffy charges - apparently, some stuff customer paid for ended up at D's place (actually, what D has costs a little more than his countersuit - so countersuit is a wash) - also, seems when P realized color was unacceptable he did nothing to try to return the stone, which is why he was charged - but, like I said, D has half the stuff P paid for - which leaves MM to figure out what is fair - not sure about MM figures, but than I zipped through half the testimony so not going to argue - D gets nothing g additional for his time, but he does have half the materials P is paying for - D ordered to pay a couple hundred......... neither side happy, which probably means it's the right decision.

daycare wants owed tuition: P runs daycare and is suing for $720 she says D refuses to pay for her services......... D says the 'daycare' always a mess, and P often spent her time paying attention to bf instead of watching the kids - says she pulled her 3 kids because she didn't approve of how P was running the daycare.........also, from previews sounds like daycare was unexpectedly closed after a traffic accident required P to take a child to the ER - and MM wants to hear how a child was ejected from car if they were belted in - anyone could be involved in an accident that a parent might have to unexpectedly have to close their daycare business to go to the ER can't blame P for that - but she might owe her clients if they are out of pocket making other arrangements........... waiting to see what the contract says and if this was future services or services already performed - is P licensed and regulated - is with all these unlicensed "daycares" - if they're unlicensed let's just call them "babysitters" ........ ok, once testimony begins we quickly hear about the car crash, P says child was in a raggedy carseat - not happy with her lackadaisical response which seems too much like 'these things happen' and I wonder if that carries over to her clients' children...... still waiting to hear the rates P wad charging - just said she offered to deduct $30 because of the missed day, but was that supposed to compensate D for missing work or having to take/pay for her children to go elsewhere at the last minute (think it would have been 2 kids since 1 had started school).......... P actually hurting her own case as she goes on to tell us of earlier complaints about the care she was providing and it sounds like this car accident /daycare closure just happened to fall on day D normally paid, and D decided to just end the relationship......... without D even saying anything I'd think about pulling my kids - but their might be a contract with a clause about unexpected emergency closures - and still haven't hear the rates and if this was past or future service not performed....... ok, this is a 3 case day, so MM is not taking a lot of time digging into back story and asks for a contract - which P DOES HAVE - and it's the standard, boiler plate 12 month daycare contract which requires a 2 week notice before pulling kids, saying parent has to pay whether kids go to daycare or not - but I wonder if P may not have breached the contract when her homeless cousin, who caused some problems, moved into the home where care was provided......... over to Defendant, and not liking her position that much, either - did she really just try to ding P for not looking professional and wearing a uniform - what is the uniform worn my in-home daycare workers? Or, is she complaining P looked like she was just getting up when she dropped off the kids? and, yeah, she did complain that daycare area was not all neat and tidy, but are we talking dirty dishes from snacks or toys not put away........ well, yeah, P says the car accident and resulting 1 day closure was just the final straw, and she starts listing other problems she had with P - paying attention to the bf instead of kids, underage employees taking care of kids, the time no one was watching and one of D's toddlers fell off the couch, etc....... some of this sounds like D looking for reasons to void contract, but still ya gotta wonder - especially when we get to a pic that was sent to D of her little girl walking around with a screwdriver in her mouth - yeah, kids put anything/everything in their mouth, but still the stuff is adding up........ not at all, AT ALL, impressed with P acting all surprised at the pic and saying this is first time incident was brought to her attention - pretty much fed up with this case, and understand why we see MM asking if daycare still in business - yes, still open....... ready to close this out - like I said, D let a lot of things slide that I find concerning - but then I never had kids so maybe babies falling off couches and/or running g around with a screwdriver are old hat to experienced mommy, D - it wasn't until P closed the daycare for a day that Mommy decided to yank her kids........ new take on screwdriver - seems pic was sent to D by the homeless cousin who P invited to live in home - P mentioned she had problem with this cousin, so could cuz have been trying to cause problems - as MM points out later on, cousin time taking picture when they should have been taking screwdriver away from toddler.......... still not sure if P is running a licensed daycare, but seems MM has texts where she complains she's overwhelmed trying to run the business and taking care of 10 kids, parents, bills, etc......... again, P hurting her case as she explains feeling overwhelmed and adding a new complaint mommy had - her kids being dirty when they were picked up........ again, never had kids, but I wouldn't get upset if kids had cheeto stains on their clothes - P saying she washed their clothes so kids would be clean sort of surprised me, I sort of thought it was normal for kids to look messy 5 minutes after getting cleaned up...... MM soft peddles it, telling P she must be really good with the kids and all, but decides there was enough there for mom to pull kids without facing the 2 week penalty clause........ broken the rental agreement: P says he moved out early because of stinky well water problem which landlord did nothing to correct - says he had reason to break lease so should get back deposit - suing for $1500....... D says he put in new filtering system and water was perfectly safe, says water not enough to get tenant out of 50% of lease - apparently case all about lost rent and no claim for damages......... could go either way, was this a pre-existing condition, so does tenant have tough it out for duration of tenancy, and was he pro used problem would be corrected and it never was........... ok, it was pre-existing, but landlord had water tested several times, including a month before courtdate, and tests show water is safe - so I'm not so sure tenant shouldn't be held to lease (though in his shoes I might be willing to pay to get out of lease if it's really bad)........ tenant introduces a couple pictures which sure look bad, but landlord has reasonable explanations - WTH, did tenant really introduce a gallon of untreated water and claimore this is was what it looked like after treatment........ leaning more towards landlord and idea tenant looking for reason to get out of lease........ what's this - as we go to commercial the preview shows a switcheroo coming...... seems when tenant decided to break the lease, he was smart enough to type up a settlement that landlord signed agreeing to let tenant out of lease - landlord tries to claim what settlement says wasn't exactly what they agreed to, but, really, negotiate away any fuzzy parts before you sign - what was signed was that once tenant paid up rent owed landlord wouldn't come after him for more rent, so he can't later decide to keep deposit for rent after tenant was out...... surprise here is that neither litigant mentioned settlement in their filing papers, and MM, or her staff, just happened to find it as she's going through the water test results - even after MM finds the signed settlement neither side recognizes the significance until she explains it.......... at least landlord accepts the verdict broken window case: P suing daughter's on/off again bf (now hubby) for cost of window ($417) they say he broke in fit of rage, but he denies breaking........ couple things, first is where is daughter? Not only should daughter be here, but sounds like parents aren't even sure if the loving couple is together are not - other thing, P intro mentions police are investigating charges for the broken window incident, so why go forward before the official investigation is finished......... is MM playing couples counselor without half the couple when she asks patent about possible problems between the happy couple - seems daughter and bf frequently fought and split, but now they're married?......... anyway, not sure what was going on, or why bf/hubby got pissed at mommy and daddy, but apparently daughter sent copies of texts where bf made threats about going after the parents and trashing their property.......... sounds iffy to me - if the loving couple were on and off, could daughter have accessed his phone to manufacture evidence to hurt bf during one of their off periods - not really liking hearing about daughter changing the car locks and taking away the car - ok, running out of time here - D pretty much loses case when he says he doesn't remember if he sent the threatening texts, cuz back then he was hitting the bottle pretty hard - dude, if you admit you might have sent the texts, but can't reme,before cuz of your boozing, I gotta think you might have followed through on the threats and now can't remember...... MM asks D if the loving couple are back together and instead of answering he says they're 'working things out'....... yep, mom and dad gets the money

Loved this episode - 0nly thing is, now that I've done away with the satellite I'm a week behind by the time I view the episodes. Black/Balou seemed much bigger before they caught him - hopefully he'll BE bigger once he is healthy and eating right. Thin Man/Yukon also has some filling out to do, but I think the biggest difference in him will be attitude one he gains confidence. Once he stops slinking around and stands proud, he'll look to grow a couple inches. Both have such soulful eyes. I was raised with a couple German Shepherds, so they have a special spot in my heart. And Tania certainly has grown during the show. She used to be very tentative. I was impressed at her quiet assurance as she sat with the big bad wolf-dogs. Course, they weren't so much big and bad as fearful, but I'm guessing most bites are caused by fear aggression. Oh my, Sheeka! She so loves grass! Feel sorry for the time she spent in the kennel - but VRC is so much better than the alternatives (except, of course an actual forever home). And of course my heart breaks for poor Eve (?) as she watched whoever walk away after being tied to the fence. Such a little sweet heart, and refusing to do her husiness in the kennel, holding it til taken for a walk.

Really, all three of the Cooper kids are very talented in their own way. Thing is, we come to Young Sheldon with preconceived opinions of the characters based on what we know from the future - and that future is based on Sheldon's world view. Missy's super power is her ability to understand and manipulate others and see through their BS - which are talents Sheldon knows/cares little about.

Agreed - first post here, and I realise we're not to get too much into adult Big Bang versus Young Sheldon, but the adult Missy displays that same sort of humor When they started bringing Brenda into this storyline, I also vaguely thought there had been a daughter - I seem to remember a daughter younger than Billy, maybe answering the door in an episode?........ anyway, if there was a daughter the character disappeared sort of like Richie's older basketballer brother on Happy Days

Looks to be a 3 case day ex's fight over utility bills after separation: couple had been together 15 years and have a couple kids - 4 or 5 years ago they buy a house (in his (P) name) - they divy up the bills responsibilities and one of the bills she was responsible for was the electricity, but he discovers it's past due by a few hundred bucks, so he's here trying to get her to pay past due amount - breakup sounds nasty, house was in his name so when they broke up he had her evicted........ sounds like she should owe for any amount up til she got booted to curb, so MM will need to examine the bills and look for dates - in fact I wonder if D may not be owed child support from the P now........... D excuse for not staying current on her portion of household expenses was that her father had died, then grandma died a few months later........ cue waterworks and MM expression of sympathy........ and, oh yeah, she says P was verbally abusing her........ P counters her abuse charge by saying she's a mean drunk who was arrested after punching him (yet she had custody of the two daughters).......... as usual, it's the kids I feel sorry for - even more so after the parents decided to air their laundry on national tv......... D says when P kicked hef out she least with nothing, but now has 2 jobs and is reestablishing her life - some free legal advice for D, when MM asks if dad is paying child support Mom say no, that she was told that she can't get support because dad has court case asking for custody - MM tells mom to go ahead and file now, so that if dad loses his custody case she'll start receiving child support sooner rather than later...... I really don't care for daddy even if it turns out mommy is a mean drunk, but as so often happens sounds like both are using pawns in their battles.......... well, lots of gibber jabber about stuff which another judge will end up deciding, MM decides to get back to this electric bill that both litigants agree D was responsible for paying........... I guess MM has looked at the bills, and it looks like D didn't pay for last 7 months she lived in house........ now D really beginning to look bad - she claims she was checking into getting money from the church when P decided to go ahead and pay off the bill - ah, except as MM points out, after 7 months the utility company was about to turn off his lights if the bill wasn't made current - surprise, when MM asks if D has any proof she was looking for financial aid D says no........ after all the gibber jabber, the actual case is over as soon as we get back to it - D has no defense for not paying, so is ordered to pay the $750+ - mom really working at playing the victim with more waterworks at the end (watery eyes, but no actual tears)........ after the verdict has judges wondering about dad evicting the mom and 2 kids from the family home - dude filed the eviction papers, but with covid would she actually have been evicted (at least once she voluntarily left to go to a motel, so was she served or leave when she heard it was coming)........ fight over iPhone: P says she bought an iPhone from friend/acquaintance from middle school days, and when she tried to use it the phone comes up stolen - when P complained she's told all sales are final, go pounce sand - wants $825 she paid......... whoa! When we get to D intro we hear D claim that she doesn't know P, never sold any her a phone, it's a case of mistaken identity after someone stole HER purse.......... ok - not exactly friends in RL, but FB friends who attended same school back in the day - so essentially a stranger that P gave $800 without checking out phone first......... D big into denial, never met P, never sold a phone, her purse and phone were stolen - could be, but she's coming across as a scammer......... oh, and no, she has no police report about her stolen purse/phone/credit cards and doesn't answer when MM asks if she can prove she canceled those stolen credit cards......... oops, and MM pulls up an ad from D selling this model iPhone.......... yep scammer - and like so many scammers, not very smart about it....... D has stopped listening and answering MM's questions and is just parroting her rehearsed story.......... oh ho, this time litigant caught by zell - seems P paid for phone using zell and payment went to D's supposedly stolen phone after the theft....... can we check to see when the account associated with that phone number was opened - I doubt the thief would have had P zell it to D's account after delivering the stolen phone.......... oh, and wait, D still has that phone number because it's the one TPC has been using to contact her about her appearance/case.......... soooooo I didn't consider this, but MM believes D probably had the 'stolen' phone insured, so she got the insurance money PLUS the money from the sale....... MM orders return of the money, but I didn't hear anything about P having to return the phone to scammer contractor booted from job: P says he was just about finished with the job when D called cops and bared him from job - says he's owed $1434.81......... D says old guy was hired to install a water heater - yeah, he did work, he installed it 4 times, but never without it leaking, she got fed up and hired someone else to install it properly........ well, sounds like D had reason to fire dude, and reason not to pay labor, but was old guy out of pocket for materials - oh, and old guy says when she chased him off job she came at him with a paint stirring stick (like a nun with a ruler)......... ok, intro referred to P as a contractor, but I get feeling this is an old retired handyman type guy doing things on the side (nothing wrong with that, I've done that a time or two - when I knew WTH I was doing - and of course as long as everything is up to code)......... pretty much right off the bat homeowner's (D) story developed some problems - intro had this about a water heater and D is talking about not just a water heater, but general cleanup as well as new cabinets he brought to site and owner trashed because she changed her mind? If it was P not being able to install the water heater that's one thing, but more I hear more I'm leaning towards P getting paid (amount to be determined)........ not surprising, what homeowner says isn't quite what intro had me thinking - her complaint is not so much about a leak, but fact that it took 7 1/2 and multimultiple trips to the store for parts and it still wasn't completed......... still not sure where the cabinets and garage cleanup factor in........ so, after 7 1/2 hours D kicks him off the job and refuses to pay anything - oh, and not just him, D seems to think fact that P had a helper somehow means he shouldn't be paid because someone else did the work? Her complaint about how long it was taking might mean something, except he was not charging by thd hour, he was being paid by the job - same with complaint about his having a helper - it was going to cost the same if he was the only one there as it would if he brought 3 or 4 guys to help....... MM is getting frustrated with homeowner as woman is just not listening - still not 100% sure where the garage cleanup and cabinets come in, but so far I hear P charging $300 for the install plus $400 for the water heater itself and D deciding to boot him after 7 1/2 hours and pay nothing?............ turns out D kicked P off job after it water heater was installed waiting for final connection, and she paid someone else $200 to make the final connection.......... now MM and D are just repeating same thing over MM, is it fair that P delivered and mounted $400 water heater, except the final connection or you pay nothing - D but he was there 7 1/2 hours and wasn't finished....... MM isn't going to get D to admit she owes a cent, so let's move on to rough justice and be done........ still not sure where the cabinets come in - were they to be installed in D's home, or did P unload then to make room in van to go get water heater....... apparently, P put them in garage, and when D booted him she dragged them (maybe with a neighbor who she went so that she would have backup as a single woman - anyway, P says they damaged the cabinets so that he couldn't return them, but no, he has nothing to prove any damage - likewise, no proof he cleaned garage and hauled a load to the dump...... ok, finally, P says part of job was to install cabinets over the washer/dryer - I believe him but he had no proof - no contract, no emails/texts, nothing.......... P interrupts the ruling to complain that D lives in a gated community and drives a convertible BMW, but really, dude, that has nothing to do with case, makes me wonder if he might be padding his bill with the cleanup and cabinets portion of claim....... ok, rough justice has P getting $837

2 cases today, both featuring adults acting like 2-3 year olds with cases that should have been settled by grandma with a switch 1st case is dueling $5,000 cases between what looks like 2 mature special snowflakes after argument over parking turns physical - even before testimony starts the only question is who I'll find more despicable - P is middle aged blond woman who could stand to lose a few pounds - she says she was at the marina with her 5 month old puppy to socialize the pooch and parking was at a premium - apparently she decided to berate D, claiming he was taking up two parking spots, not only was his parked straddling the line, but he was sitting in his car smoking pot - D is middle aged tatted up dude with multiple chins covered in stubble who appeared for court dressed in no sleeve t-shirt to display tats and set off his shiny necklace......... really can't recap these idjits because they're both so fricking unbelievably wrong - P acts like one of those 'karens' that pop up on YouTube & FB, I mean even after all this, she researchs dude and learns of his lengthy criminal records and she's actively harassing him, even texting him so now he had her phone number - heck, she even tracked down D's ex-wife and had her ready to testify even though ex had zero knowledge of incident - MM is trying to warn her she needs to stop, 'karen' agrees, repeatedly saying you're right, but MM doesn't believe for a second she'll actually stop..... D also wrong for many reasons - first, he freely admits he daily parks there to smoke his pot, he always takes up two spots, and, oh yeah, how he couldn' just call real cops when 'parking police Karen' started giving him a hard time cuz he and cops don't mix, & he drives around with no license smoking pot, etc - so, he gets out of his car and slaps Karen across her face, then gets in and drives away with karen chasing car - she ends up with spectacular bruise on thigh and red face........ hard to award either of these two anything - ah, but MM takes a recess and calls a witness who took a couple pix of the incident - when she comes back she reminds us D did get out of car to slap Karen, but karen definitely provoked him in witness' pix........ getting out of car to slap karen costs D $500 (not 5000) and 5 grand counterclaim for damaging car and harrassment is dismissed drunken bbq brawl between friends after political debate: unlike 1st case where both litigants were happy to boast about their deeds, no matter how wrong they were, this time P says physical altercation left him with a broken tooth, doctor visit and broken bike (wants over 6 grand), while D denies things ever became physical........... gotta admit when I heard about a broken bike I wondered if maybe drunk P might not have taken a header on way home after being asked to leave the party - still, D sure does his best at looking like an angry young man as he talks over MM in previews......... I would much rather listen to story of a couple dude's in the Bronx sitting around playing dominoes drinking and getting into a fight over whether Black Lives Matters actually matters (these guys are young blacks from Dominican Republican)........... anyway, whether it was the Corona and/or Hennessy they were drinking or what, we get very different stories of what happened to break up the party and somebody is lieing - not sure how to settle this without a witness or some supporting evidence......... ah, but D's "nothing got out of hand" sort of falls flat when we hear P's story about getting slammed to the sidewalk and a neighbor lady insisting he call an ambulance (has pix) - I'm believing P, but not 100% convinced yet.......... so far at least, that could still be a drunken header off his bike........... ok, after commercial is the part where I thought D came across as an angry young man talking over MM, but hey, that's how some folks are, doesn't really mean he bashed his long time buddy......... ah, yet another case with a surprise witness - this time we actually get to see/hear the testimony and not just MM taking a recession to call witness during commercial.......... ok, this IS the P's witness, but he sure is backing up P's story over D......... witness even more believable because his story differs just a bit from P, so it doesn't come across as something they got together and rehearsed - he actually sort of soft peddles D actions until MM presses him.......... D has pretty much lost all credibility - this was a group of guys who have known each other since junior high and D claims he gamely knows witness......... MM believes P and the witness......... P awarded his dental/medical/ambulance bills ($4966) but not cost to replace bike since he brought no evidence bike was totaled

Looks to be a three case day..... according to TPC website schedule we're due new cases through the end of the month. With the current setup, due to the after the verdict chats, cases fly by on the 3 case days. Like yesterday, the first case today is over almost as fast as it begins. That's fine though, often I find the after the verdict better than the testimony. faulty stove: P bought a stove from a used appliance store ($125 plus $25 for delivery) and thing quit working after 2 days (nice that P ready with dates, price, etc - just wish camera wasn't aimed up her nose). Wants $725. Store tried fixing stove multiple times, but couldn't get it working right. Eventually they offered a replacement stove, but by then P had lost confidence in stove and demanded refund........ uh, really, a gas stove that goes boom when it is turned on - geez, that doesn't sound good........ after used store lady trying on multiple occasions to fix stove customer called gas company because she could smell natural gas and they shut off the gas........ guess difference in price versus her damage claim is P gave up on used store after months of having stove not working right and bought a new stove, elsewhere and paid the other place to take away the non-working used stove........ She gets her refund plus the $20 she paid the new stove people to take away the faulty stove - so $170 to P....... during hallterview Doug asks how she survived without a working stove - oh she says, the stove top burners worked for boiling grits and frying stuff, she just couldn't use the oven/broiler........ D objects that P gave away the faulty stove, but MM is not hearing it, says that's what happens when you sell a faulty stove and walk away when customer complains over several months lousy computer repair shop: case about a sloppily run shop where customer takes his laptop and desktop, which contain irreplaceable family photos, only to have shop first lose 'puters and than ghost on customer....... really back up those irreplaceable pix - in today's world you can walk into Staples and buy a flash drive for next to nothing - which reminds me, I need to back up my kitty pix......... really really didn't like attitude of computer repaid dude with sloppy shop where customer's stuff was lost - his story is a troublesome employee, since fired maybe lost or stolen it.......... lots of back and forth about something that could happen to lots of people who keep their life on phone/tablet/laptop without backups......... P even went out and hired a PI to try to retrieve missing 'puter after cops said they couldn't help........ really, 2 things to take away - regular backup with multiple copies of any 'irreplaceable' data/pix; and realize that, in the eyes of the law your irreplacement pix/data may not be valued nearly as high as you believe it should be - here P wants 5 grand.......... as I said, D does NOT impressed - he likes customer's computer, but finds it once the PI begins her investigation - seems PI found the missing computer after tracking down shop owner's elderly parents and the parents started busting their kid's ba!!s - once mommy and daddy got on D's case he produced the computer and 'some' of the data had been recovered........ as usual, P over estimates his damages - thing is D ends up paying the 2 grand for the PI - which is the majority of the money awarded - P awarded $2300 rather than 5 grand........ moral of story - BACKUP!!! flash drives and external hard drives are dirt cheap these days so there's no excuse! hair case - Hate these almost as much as abuse cases - so zipped through most of this ..... P went to D and D accidently dumped bucket of glue on her head....... ok, I shouldn't laugh, but that just strikes me as keystone cop funny........ D denies the bucket, says she just spilled a little bit........ yada yada and gibber jabber - zip zip to end....... mildly interesting decision - MM initially awards the $175, P paid D, but D interrupts and points out that P was given $50 worth of unused hair, so MM revises decision and awards $125......... I may not have enjoyed case, but, as has become thd norm - after the verdict left my smiling - sounds like thid haird do was a first for the stylist, she watched a youtube before trying, and admits she messed up - sounds like she may have tried using nail glue instead of hair clue 😯

Long ago I lived in a small apartment complex with 2 buildings and a total of 16 units. Anyway, our manager offered to let the police set up surveillance in an empty 2nd floor appartment - very hush hush, no police cars or anyone in uniform. I lived downstairs and didn't have a clue until they made arrests. Only took a couple weeks until they made several arrests and closed place down - course I imagine the dealers just moved a block or two beffort it was business as usual.