Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

SRTouch

Member
  • Content Count

    2.5k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

9.0k Excellent
  1. Ah, but they can charge an extra buck or two when they add "ay" to "sash"....... a big thing at all pre-proposal affairs
  2. I shouldn't be all that amazed that people still leave their dogs in her care despite her having appearances on national tv and of both regular and social media articles/posts. I mean some of these people treat their dogs like their children - the children they dump into day care without bothering to read reviews or check for licenses and/or background
  3. Once again JJ decides case based on her expert knowledge of mechanical issues. Not for the first time, she rules based on her flawed idea of what a professional mechanic does with absolutely no evidence. Truth is I hit FF when she started asking how much it cost mechanic for the valve cover gasket as if the cost of the part should be the sum total of what mechanic's work is worth..... not sure what mechanic said that part of job was worth, but quick Google search shows average cost would be close to $150, while gasket under 10 bucks - just before the gadkrt she dismisses mechanic trying to explain inspecting, cleaning and reinstalling spark plugs out of hand - JJ, you can tell a lot about how the car is running by pulling the plugs and inspecting them, that's how old time mechanics diagnosed many problems before cars became rolling computers, and if plugs were fouled and only hand tight as D said then simply cleaning and properly installing them could cause major improvement in how car runs, even though it only takes a few minute...... despite JJ casual dismissal and steam rolling over the mechanic, his knowledge, expertise and time are worth something - and without plaintiff bringing an actual expert witness, I'll go with the professional who knows something about the job instead of JJ opinion formed with no mechanical knowledge..... oh well, as we already knew, litigants should never let JJ decide mechanical cases - or cases involving firearms - or a case when litigant had a pit bull - or antique/classic cars, or collectibles - or physics of accident reconstruction - or - well I could go on all day....... sometimes I get hint that a ruling is based on knowledge not shared with viewers, often it's obvious she just has no idea how 99.999% of the the world operates
  4. That's my understanding. In additional to her plane fuel concession, she runs a bed and board operation during summer for people interested in visiting the Arctic Refuge. If you check the Kavik site you see quite a few visitors as well as planes lined up. You can check the Kavik site here.
  5. Did I understand that there have now been 3 dogs that this doggy day care has messed up - the earlier case about a cut paw, this case where she collected a deposit but refused to give P a puppy from later litter, then I believe a third case where dog was attacked and ultimately died, but defendant lied to owner about cause....... my word, you have to wonder why she agreed to appear
  6. Ok, little personal backstory before recap..... I was at work last night around 1130 when I received call that neighbor heard water running/dripping under my trailer - long story short, need new water heater and am currently waiting for the plumber.... I only mention this because I may end this recap at any time as he was to show up "in 3-4" hours when I called 3 hours ago hooptie purchase gone wrong: one of those hooptie-without-title cases - P wants $2500 since she can't register the car...... defendant's intro doesn't even mention the title issue - she's hung up on fact that, when D got upset over the sale her crazy bf came over and cause $3 grand worth of damages to her mama's veeHICkle - interesting, though D claims $3,300 in damage intro doesn't mention a countersuit..... well, at least this isn't a CL deal gone awry - nope, P was buying hooptie from cross the street neighbor - oh, but when things blew up calls were called and P was arrested according to D (so must not have just been bf getting out of control)..... right away MM establishes P really reaching going for $2500 - seems purchase price was $1150, but she didn't have the cash so took out a loan, which with interest came to $1700..... huh, must be some interest rate - maybe we're talking high interest plus late charges...... anyway, P's theory for why D should pay P's loan off is that D refused to return her money when it turned out car couldn't be registered..... ok, wasted time while MM grills D on the title - she jumped title, says she has temporary registration while waiting for emission certification - pretty simple, car sale isn't valid because of the jumped title - D relying on her temporary registration, but I imagine P is right when she says emission certification had to be completed withing 10 days - so I'm guessing since P didn't get it smogged within 10 days after she bought hooptie, there are a bunch of hoops that need to be jumped by original seller plus D before P can get a clean title....... and did they say where these folks come from (later there's some yakity yak about original seller being in Missouri, but not sure where these folks live) - pretty sure California makes seller do any needed emissions work, so that would mean original seller would pay for needed work when D bought it, and then D pays for any additional after she registered it - no wait, she never registered it so it goes back to original seller - no - wait again - if P is right about a 10 day grace period and D had it for months, is it too late to stick it with original seller..... this case is interesting just because of all these twists and turns - and we haven't even gotten to P's bf ramming D's momma's car or the arrests...... more time wasted over title with momma claiming DMV told her P could get title without following the law - right, MM says, prove that - course she can't (poor Douglas gets a workout running her "proof" back and forth before MM moves on to bf's bumper car tantrum).... hokay! D talks of idiot actually caught on camera as he did his bumper car thing...... ah, nah, no videos of the smashup, but when it happened (at 5am) momma woke up and came out to see idiot trying to get his car out of her backseat - more useless back and forth as they argue whether or not P was in car with bf (or maybe fiance, or even her hubby, these folks are as confused about that as everything else).... to make the story even more hilarious, bf/fiance/hubby was driving his own car - which D says had no plate, was not registered nor insured..... ok - more back and forth about whatever they're blabbering on about - we see the video, but really it's so shaking and not sure what we're supposed to see - visually not worth much, but the sound certainly doesn't paint P or bf in very favorable light (well, according to D bf split after crash and left P passed out drunk/high in passenger seat - not sure I heard P's explanation of what she was doing outside trying to fight when cops arrive) and a neighbor is shown separating the litigants as they want to fight each other (not smart on P's part - I think momma could whip her AND her son/witness without D daughter's help)....... when cops arrive P arrested for trying to fight D momma, bf/hubby in the wind, though D say there's a warrant out...... ok, 'bout over these fools - since hooptie sale never legit, I say that gets rewound, not too sure about the extra for the loan, and still haven't heard how the $1700 for hooptie made the leap to $2500 claim - maybe reason there's no counterclaim due to pending criminal cases and fact hubby was driving and not P...... ok, MM puts on her counselor hat and I zip ahead..... decision time - seems the extra money is to garage the car (can't park it on street as it's unregistered - though apparently hubby has place to park his unregistered/insured car) - nope, when asked P can't show a penny spent on storing car - same with the loan sharky loan - not up to D to pay off loan - and of course no claim would be complete without litigant asking for pain and suffering - nope, not happening - ah, but it is up to D to return the $1150 purchase price for car with jumped title...... $1150 goes to P and D gets return of hooptie.... D not happy with having to return money, not sure if she was lapping off to MM or trash talking to P, but MM tells her to "stop talking".... she apparently took MM's order to heart, as Doug has to really work to get a hallterview out of her patio unlevel: p paid for backyard patio, but thing is so out of level it's a mess - wants $1140...... D says homeowner was satisfied when job completed, even hired him for additional job..... uh oh, may not go well for P - she's suing over job D did to extend her existing patio, but when asked if her picture is the original patio or the extension she isn't sure (could be question of her eyesight as she's wearing coke bottle lens in a frame) - another pic shows why she's upset - the add-on section turns into a wading pool when it rains.... ok, seems this was patio made with pavers - not something I've done, but his description of the installation matches what I would expect after years of watching This Old House - ah, but then he explains he didn't actually followed the normal installation - seems customer asked him to switch the levels of materials around, which resulted in foundation of sand and rock settling - ok, dude, if you didn't follow installation procedures and it failed, shame on you, you're the professional and you're following directions from amateur DYI'er..... if I'm understanding this right, he was supposed to put down landscaping fabric then put a bed of rocks on top for the foundation - instead, P wanted the fabric on top 9f the rocks to keep weeds from sprouting - when he did it her way, the rocks settled into the earth/sand below...... if she insisted on fabric on top of rocks, why didn't he counter with suggestion of fabric both above and below rocks - wouldn't add much to cost, and way cheaper than digging it up and redoing job..... uh oh, back to P and she doesn't help her case much - she doesn't argue she suggested putting Fabric on top of rocks, but says she didn't insist he do it that way after he told her it wasn't a good idea - says she didn't know he did until he came up with it as the reason it was so out of whack...... ok, clock ticking and expect ruling after break..... not sure how much, but I think D owes at least partial refund - properly installed that patio should be good for years and years, instead it needs to be replaced in 1 year, and I don't buy D's "she's the customer, so she's the boss"..... for those who avoid shorty and the peanut gallery on the street, slow your roll and look at the Reuben (pup probably the smartest in the crowd).... ok, not thinking much of defendant's work, but not MM ready to ask about why the heck would homeowner hire D to come back 11 months later for a different job........ yep, after 11 months she brings him back to lay more pavers (this time a walkway to the terrible patio) and then a week after he finished the walkway he gets served with lawsuit for patio - yep and when D passes up his phone for MM to read their texts she catches P in big lie about not even knowing about fabric being out of sequence...... MM does not appreciate the lies and dismisses case (I would have been happier had she slapped D a little, even if it was only $100 - to me he admits he knows how to install pavers, and I think he should have stuck to his guns..... oh, and MM thinks reason the pool forms is that the fabric restricts the water from draining - nah, I may be wrong (but I think it has more to do with the gravel sinking into the sand when there is no fabric) - when I Google it, it says the fabric allows water through - but some has an up and down side, so that you can slow drainage by putting the upside down and downside up..... case dismissed dog napper: convoluted family case where P suing 11 yo son's half sister for stealing dog - says she wants the dog back, and if not the dog the $1800 she claims dog is worth....... 44yo D claims she saw the dog was being neglected, so when brother brought dog over she refused to return it...... ok, 2 of my cats came to me after being neglected, and I essentially stole them by refusing to return them when their owners tried to reclaim them........ seems 44yo's dad also dad to P's 11yo. Seems big sis had taken Pops to an appointment and he had a heart attack enroute - sis calls 911, is talked through CPR, but dad doesn'the make it..... to make it worse, 11yo in car and witnesses dad passing away - dang, poor kid - and instead of family banding together, here they are on national tv airing laundry...... seems dog was family pet, given to pops back in '15, pops lived with P, so has been in her home with her 3 kids for 3 years...... ok, the week pops died the 11yo goes to visit with his 44yo sis, and on way out door asks if he can take the family dog along...... this is tough one, and not necessarily one I would decide following the law (one thing I like about JJ is she sometimes tosses legality to the wind and settles these cases on what would be best for the animal) - to me, it'll come down to whether D can prove the dog was neglected..... nope, not hearing much in way of proof - says dogs smelled bad, and she could feel his ribs, she gives it a bath, waits a week to bathe it again - sorry, must have missed a wellness check at the vet - IIRC this is a senior dog, so there could be medical reasons for everything D is claiming - her answer to MM is that the aunt who gave dog to pops years and years ago told her (D) to keep the dog - her once good relationship with 11yo has ended, mom (P) has severed communications (not to mention 2 other kids who have lost pops (even though not biological, my understanding is he lived with them) and now the family dog has been stolen...... D looks to be losing big time, so now she just remembered how 11yo told her he was being abused in the home..... huh!?! So surely his big sis immediately was reporting that to child services - nah, no report and not even worth mentioning in her answer to the complaint...... soooooo no vet report, no call to child services, nada but her word on the dog neglect and child abuse...... ok, MM going to do a text dive to see if sis ever mentioned neglect/abuse - nah, what I'm hearing is D offering to return the dog if P gives her pops stuff left in P's house when he died (worth noting, MM was giving P hard time for offering printed copies and not having the actual texts, so these texts are being read from D's phone).... turns out the dog is just a pawn in the game D is playing - Pops is in line for some money from grandma's estate, died without a will, and family vultures are circling for a cut of the action - D says she's been appointed executor of dad's estate, they're going through probate, and she wants any of daddy's papers he left in a safe at P's house - oh, and MM shuts that line down when she points out that the probate court decides who will be the executor, and D admits she has not, in fact been appointed executor of anything - oh, from what MM just said pops has a total of 12 kids (all three of P's kids) and had a different wife when he died (but living in P's house?)..... anyway, not sure why D figures she's entitled to things anymore than any of the other 11 offspring........ oh shoot, back to wishing JJ was hearing this as she would probably go ahead and order dog back home to her 9f 3-4 years - instead MM is treating dog as pops' property, and is going leave him in limbo til probate is settled Ok, plumber finally called and on way - only 4 hours late
  7. When we get these jerks that seem to be begging to get tossed and the judges do nothing, I look for a switcheroo. Here both defendants needed to get the heave ho, but judges restrained themselves because they already knew "the rest of the story" - namely those texts from P........ bet the reason the judge at the restraining order hearing granted a 3 year order had more to do with defendants' courtroom antics than the video or texts
  8. Yes, not only making the decision, but questioning yourself afterwards. 😢😢😢
  9. Two case day, but I zipped through second roomie kerfuffle landscape design fail: P paid big bucks for landscape design, says designer did nada, wants full refund - 3 grand...... designer argues he did plans, submitted multiple (11 total) design drawings, when he scheduled a construction start date he says P notifies him to forget it, he's hiring someone else...... sounds like big time landscape job, including install your irrigation system and a pond - right off bat, no way P gets full refund if D can prove the he did work........ D not only wants to keep 3 grand retainer, but wants additional 5 grand he says represents lost wages when P pulled plug on project........ yep, big time landscape project, MM tells us total bill would have been $60,000 - lots of money and really not much room in the yard (which started out as a concrete slab)....... ok, P not looking for full refund of retainer - retainer was $4,500 and he's asking for 3 grand back..... they had a written contract for the retainer, but that was just for the design planning, with a subsequent contract to be signed if P decides to go ahead after approving plans - D just said they never signed that subsequent contract, so no sure where he got idea P owes 5 grand for not going ahead with construction...... oops, P seems to be trying to pull wool over da'judge's eyes - both sides agree designer submitted 3 color, full-sized concept drawings, and when MM asks to see the drawings P hands up drawings on 8x11 paper while designer shows us big full sized copies of designs - MM not happy to learn P was given full sized drawings, which he left at home and brought these reduced sized drawings to court - oh, and the originals, which P left at home, were color coded...... P not looking good here, he left the actual plans at home, and now is complaining about lack of detail in the preliminary sketches (which MM dismisses, saying she wouldn't expect detailed measurements and material listing with the first draft) - and P complaining about designer not keeping in touch after drawings have been approved, but sounds like there was a 6 months period after he approved the plans before P wanted construction to begin (plan was rented and tenant moving out in 6 months).... so designer puts the plans on back burner until a couple weeks before tenant due to leave, then sends P additional detailed drawings..... ah, wonder if P didn't have second thoughts about the big bucks it was going to take and decide to go with cheaper design..... ok, turns out they got into it over what wood the fence was going to be made out of - not talking treated pine here, designer wanted to use mahogany while P wanted to go with epay. (Epay, aka ipe, wood is an imported hardwood - very dense and hard to work with, but lasts for decades - very good outdoor project wood choice if you disregard how much of the rainforests has to be cut to harvest the lumber) both sides are not arguing about how well their choice would work as a fencing material, they're arguing about where the lumber comes from and how harvesting the trees impact the world's forests - me, I'm thinking why not composite - lasts forever, can have just about any texture/color imaginable - nah, guess it wouldn't fit in this $60,000 backyard garden....... anyway, designer tries to argue environmental impact on the rainforests, climate warming, etc etc, but MM reigns him in and sounds like she's about over both these fools...... she starts in on defendant's claim for lost wages on a project he doesn't have a contract for - uh no to 5 grand in wages for job D wasn't hired to do....... now over to case in chief - we know D did work, what part of the design work, MM asks P, does he feel was not done - P says none of the design was completed.... we know that isn't true, but so far I haven't heard of completed design for anything except the fence so P would be entitled to a partial refund....... I was leaning towards D's side, but his position that he deserves to keep the money for a design that was never completed is not going to fly...... measly mouth designer trying to spin his failure (well, no plan was never 'technically' complete) to deliver a completed design, but MM cuts him off and awards P a grand (not the asked for 3 grand)...... course both sides come out thinking they were ripped off....... ex-roomie fight: p says it got too point where she couldn't take D's controlling ways - says when she moved out D wouldn't let her take all her stuff, wants $1700+...... wheelchair bound D argues P was verbally and physically abusive, stole stuff and left owing for utilities - countersuing for $2100+ (actually, turns out it was a walker, and part of counterclaim is from when P allegedly tossed walker down stairs/steps)....... watching sour puss P storm into courtroom would be enough for me to veto idea of renting a room to her in my house, and hearing D talk in preview is like chalkboard screech - nope, wouldn't want to rent a room with her........ actually, don't really even want to listen to these two, so I just hold down the FF button and zip through to decision..... just as well, I need to head out to the lab for results from last week's tests for doctor's appointment tomorrow (which BTW will prompt tomorrow's recap)....... anyway, MM P awards $481
  10. Welllll, sometimes you have to wonder if they can even see. I mean, think of the litigants who enter a video/pic into evidence which blows their case out of the water. ie, litigant who claims to have barely 'tapped' a parked car and video shows a reenactment of carnival bumper cars. Or tenant arguing for return of security depisit showing pix of bags of trash left behind - sometimes without the 'bags'
  11. Ok, hectic week and I have 5 unwatched days of TPC on the DVR. Instead of beginning viewing Monday I decided to start with today's and do a short recap - almost regretted my decision when I heard first case intro mention 'dog,' but turned out case really about a dog training and not some injury or attack..... only 2 cases today bad dog trainer: case more about P hiring a 'professional' who failed to do a job than about a dog..... P had a puppy, and mutual friend who knew D was a dog trainer, so they got together and P ended up giving D over $1100 to train the pup. If you listen to D he's a world class trainer, trains service dogs, police dogs, etc etc - lots of claims with little evidence of his amazing proficiency..... really doesn't mean much to case, but P manages to bring up questions about D's guns, sex life, beer drinking, and suspended driver's license (6 speeding tickets according to D).... Trainer does have a point when he says no matter how well the puppy was progressing while under trainer's care, it's pointless if owner doesn't do her part when pup is at home..... Heck, I remember watching Cesar have problems training dogs when owners didn't follow through - really telling to me is that even now P talks about dog not being housebroken...... Thing is, he has nothing showing he did any training. Heck, as MM points out, when P picks up the dog after it had been with the trainer for 4 full days, D didn't even offer show his client the dog obeying simple obedience commands. Also, I was not happy to hear our professional trainer was quick to resort to a shock collar after telling P he wouldn't be using one. (According to p only command dog obeyed was 'sit.') Along with his failings as a trainer, apparently he knows nothing about professional boundaries. Seeing as how they had a mutual friend, he decided it'd be cool to add his new client to his friends list on FB and started sending her questionable posts about his guns, booze, and off color memes. Course, now p says she was offended, but at time she was responding with smiley faces and haha emojis. In the end, dog owner lectured on need to do her part in the training, and trainer told his 'contract' is way to loosey-goosey and he needs to learn to treat clients professionally. Owner gets half her money back. Barely touched on, D's $2500 defamation countersuit tossed as he has no evidence of anything except P stating her opinion. Ex roomie breakup: platonic flatmate situation falls apart when D moves in a bf and expects P to continue to pay half the rent/expenses - P says D locked him out and kept his stuff - wants 5 grand...... D argues her bf paid a third of the expenses during short period he lived there while looking for new place - says P left on his own and that she made numerous attempts to get him to come get his crapola, but he refused..... countersuit for $931 worth of rent/expenses owed when P moved out...... no mention by D about a lockout during intro, but preview has MM yelling about D illegally locking P out...... wow, when P starts out he's way more organized than expected in these type cases - he gives us dollar amounts of various utilities before and after the bf moved in, and MM verifies with D that P was footing 50% of the bills (she argues bf contributed, but turns out bf paid half her 50% not a third of the total)..... turns out, though, that P unilaterally changed rental agreement and only paid a third last month before the lockout.... when bills come in after a month of bf being there, P adds everything up, and instead of paying his rent he sends text to D (who is actually his landlord as she's subleasing room to P) explaining why he thinks he should be paying 1/3 not 1/2 of bills - D responds to his text by giving him a 3 days notice - when he comes home from work 4 days later he finds his key no longer works - and all his clothes and some of his furniture is in hallway.... time for commercial, then MM tries to teach yet another landlord that landlords have rules they have to follow...... pretty straight forward so far, P has dates and figures backed up by texts - unless there's major switcheroo coming P will win, only question is will he get the asked for 5 grand...... oh, and D has the bf here, and when MM starts asking him questions it turns out bf was paying more then 50% of the rent..... sounds to me like bf was paying 50% of total bills, P paying 50% and D not paying anything (turns out part of reason she couldn't meet and return P's stuff was a vacation in the Bahamas) - and forget bf just being there temporarily, dude has job out of town, but this is where he lives when in town..... yep, and so much for D intro about her trying to arrange time for P to pick up his stuff, turns out texts show just the opposite - it was P setting up times and D ignoring him - after text exchange where it appears a time has been set up he shows up with a U-HAUL, helpers and a police escort she's a no-show and doesn't get back in touch until that night.... oh, and all the time this is coming out in court, with MM telling her she has some nerve, defendant is smiling and treating it as a joke - man, I want MM to just give P everything he asked for denied if he can only prove his stuff was only worth a couple hundred..... one hiccup in the case is that D sent text saying she had already disposed of P's property, but miraculously, once she gets served stuff reappears and now is available to be returned...... 😐 sounds like MM is trimming stuff off P's claim (ok, yeah even at best he would have had trouble getting 5 grand)...... forget everybody suing for 5 grand, in the end both sides get a fraction of their claim, with P coming out with under $300 and chance to get back his stuff - which I wouldn't trust D to actually give back after she has already claimed in a text to have disposed of.
  12. Well, I only had 42, but I'll leave them alone for now if it'll help.
  13. Oh my, so many dog cases - then a silly bride vs seamstress case thrown in. Actually watched the found dog case - but it turned into a waste of time. JJ established the timeline and tosses the case in less than a minute. Only comment I have comes from the hallterview where good samaritan turned greedy shrew accuses owner defendant of running a puppy mill. Lady, from the little we saw of that pup, that little Yorkie has to be the happiest puppy mill dog alive.
  14. Since I watch both shows and had just finished reading the Amanda forum, I didn't even notice until you pointed it out
  15. reading FB page certainly give makes me have second thoughts about my earlier 'scam' label. Backstory I get from the FB page and a couple Google links - P started out rescuing bunnies, expanded to guinea pigs, (even a hamster adoption post on site) and now is into feral cat TNR & rescuing kittens and getting them adopted. Now I'm leaning more towards D being the self proclaimed scammer and P as sort of an unorganized lady with some good heart. It doesn't hurt P that a couple of the kittens on her page look at lot like my two tabby tuxedos - Princess was a rescued stray and her daughter Furby was well on her way towards becoming a feral when trapped. Added note: reading on down their FB page, looks like they stopped their guinea pig rescue in Sept and converted to focus on cats/kitten/feral cats
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size