All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess is most litigants come to court in what they think is their best look.      I'm sure man-baby Shane, and his former love muffin, Ms. David think they look great, but I'm sure both blame the stupidity of possible employers for not wanting them around to serve their customers.     I'm sure Shane looks at his butt ugly, dirty looking facial hair, multiple lip rings, and thinks he's irresistible to women, and future employers.     

[AZChristian]

Pretty much any time we're out in public - whether it be our daily early mall walk, or formal night on a cruise ship - we see people who make us wonder whether there's a full-length mirror in their home/cabin, etc.  Maybe they look at us and think the same thing.  

[AuntiePam]

I wanted so bad to cut those long, stiff, scraggly hairs off the beard on that dad whose son spit on him.  Seriously, I'd risk an assault charge, just give me the scissors.  Doesn't he have a woman to tell him how stupid that looks?  It's as bad as a comb-over.

And son, who managed to rehearse the lead-up to his encounter with dad but couldn't compose himself enough to continue.  I guess there's a limit to the number of words some brains can handle.

Gotta love the litigants who have to start over every time JJ interrupts them. 

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I wanted so bad to cut those long, stiff, scraggly hairs off the beard on that dad whose son spit on him. 

Just think, he spent time in the mirror, carefully separating and moussing the strands to perfection. But it's hard to rag on him, when his son is such a goofy loser.

 

4 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Gotta love the litigants who have to start over every time JJ interrupts them. 

I know, especially when it's painfully obvious they've rehearsed long and hard what they think they need to say and can't deviate or else they're lost:

Lit: "We met on Facebook in the fall of 2015 and he promised to take care of me forever and-"

JJ: "I don't need your autobiography. Get to the loan."

Lit: "Okay. We met on Facebook in the fall of 2015 and..."

JJ: "Argh!!!"

*Byrd rolls his eyes*

[ElleMo]

On 10/26/2018 at 2:39 PM, SRTouch said:

 

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by ElleMo
Have no idea how this quote box good her

[AngelaHunter]

I was so happy for Robert Williams, sawed-off troll, who was suing his former paramour,(he moved in with her because his dwelling was condemned(!!)) Ms. Sandy, for a whole bunch of stuff, mostly consisting of used items he had bought(en) from FB and friends and claimed Ms. Sandy refused to return to him. He had the whole douchebag hairdo/facial hair going on, but he was the lesser of two evils as Ms. Sandy brought her piranha-faced Mommy, who appeared to be the same age - if not younger - as her darling daughter, to back her up. Mommy shouts out and is reprimanded. I wanted Byrd to throw her out but I was disappointed. The amoral liar, Ms.Sandy, has two small children unfortunately for them. I assume the baby daddy(s) wanted nothing more to do with her, so even through the terrible fear she had of the diminutive Robert, she bunked in with him until he left. There was no place else to sleep, you see. Janky masons, the whole bunch of them.

The final words of Robert in the hall must be preserved: "I ain't gotta deal with her no more." Well said, Robert. Well said indeed.

[Byrd is the Word]

An event on the street reminded me of a JJ case for a year or so ago.  A woman sued the mother of a 7-8 year old girl who she claimed jaywalked in a elementary school driveway and slammed herself into the plaintiff's car with such force that the child broke the side view mirror on her car.  Never mind the fact that the child also broke her own collarbone and suffered a laceration on her face that required stitches.  Anybody else remember that case?

More than any other case I even seen, this one made my blood boil.  The horrible P went to extraordinary lengths to convince the judge that she was barely, barely, barely moving and that the kid came out of absolute nowhere to damage her precious car.  She even bought some half blind old man crossing guard to testify that the kid was at fault. (BTW, if he was close enough to see it WTF did he do to intervene?) It should be obvious to anyone with even the faintest understanding of how objects move that virtually the only way a 40# child could slam into a (almost) parked car with enough velocity to break the car AND her own bones was if she were shot from a cannon.  Clearly the car was the moving force and the mirror impacted the girl at her shoulder and broke not only her collarbone but the mirror as well. Picture the height of a side view mirror compared to the height of a 7-8 year old's shoulder.  JJ backed the bitch into a corner and tried to make her answer the question "what if the girl was killed; would you still sue?"  The woman argued that it wasn't a fair example and desperately avoided answering.

In addition to dismissing the P's case, I wanted JJ to advise the defendant to turn the tables and sue the driver.  Any driver who hits a pedestrian, regardless of the circumstances, should simply thank whatever force he/she believes governs the universe that the pedestrian walked away and leave it there.

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Any driver who hits a pedestrian, regardless of the circumstances, should simply thank whatever force he/she believes governs the universe that the pedestrian walked away and leave it there.

This case was greatly discussed at the time. Just want to say I agree 100% with what you say. I once nearly hit a small girl who ran out between two cars as I was driving down the street, going very slowly. Luckily I was able to stop, but I remember how badly shaken I was afterwards. Had I hit her or if she ran into me and my car been dented the thought of suing for the damage would never enter my mind, I would just be so eternally grateful if she lived, no matter how the accident happened or who was at fault.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I remember that case, and there was something totally off about the entire story.    My car (it certainly isn't a high dollar SUV like the despicable plaintiff's is) has folding mirrors, and if the girl ran into my side mirror from the angle the defendant, and her idiot witness said, the mirror would have snapped back to the door, not broken.     So, my guess is considering the amount of damage to the car mirror, and the girl, that either she was running from behind the SUV, and ran into the mirror hard, or the defendant was driving a ton faster than she or her witness said.   Or the defendant was backing up or something else to hit the girl and the mirror.     

There was another thing about the case, where the defendant's mother didn't even look at the girl one time, and seemed to think her trauma as a mother was more important than her child's injuries.       The girl never looked at the mother either, and the whole relationship was just off.     The girl looked like she wished she was anywhere but JJ's courtroom, and it was just sad to look at.   

  I also can't believe the police didn't do anything against the idiot driver, who shouldn't be driving a shopping cart at Walmart without supervision.      

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

This case was greatly discussed at the time. Just want to say I agree 100% with what you say. I once nearly hit a small girl who ran out between two cars as I was driving down the street, going very slowly. Luckily I was able to stop, but I remember how badly shaken I was afterwards. Had I hit her or if she ran into me and my car been dented the thought of suing for the damage would never enter my mind, I would just be so eternally grateful if she lived, no matter how the accident happened or who was at fault.

I had a similar experience years ago.  I was negotiating a difficult left turn across 3 lanes during rush hour and at dusk.  I needed to go north. First there were 2 south bound through lanes and then a center median lane used for left tuns by both north and south bound traffic.  I safely made it to the median lane and was briefly stopped, looking over my right shoulder for oncoming traffic and a safe spot to blend.  As took my foot off the brake to claim my spot in traffic my head naturally turned and my attention shifted to what was in front of me.  Suddenly all I saw was a terrified old woman with her hands braced on the front of my car. Before I could stop again I knocked her down. Granted, she jaywalked across two lanes of rush hour traffic into a median lane and walked in front of a car not bound by a traffic control device/signal and looking to move into traffic.  I still feel this was my fault, morally and probably legally.  Thankfully she wasn't hurt.  If I had been sued I would have certainly defended myself, but I'll never know (fortunately) what would have been decided. I too was shaken and I'll never forget that awful feeling.  Like it or not, the burden is always on the driver.  

Edited December 3, 2018 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

45 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I remember that case, and there was something totally off about the entire story.    My car (it certainly isn't a high dollar SUV like the despicable plaintiff's is) has folding mirrors, and if the girl ran into my side mirror from the angle the defendant, and her idiot witness said, the mirror would have snapped back to the door, not broken.     So, my guess is considering the amount of damage to the car mirror, and the girl, that either she was running from behind the SUV, and ran into the mirror hard, or the defendant was driving a ton faster than she or her witness said.   Or the defendant was backing up or something else to hit the girl and the mirror.     

There was another thing about the case, where the defendant's mother didn't even look at the girl one time, and seemed to think her trauma as a mother was more important than her child's injuries.       The girl never looked at the mother either, and the whole relationship was just off.     The girl looked like she wished she was anywhere but JJ's courtroom, and it was just sad to look at.   

  I also can't believe the police didn't do anything against the idiot driver, who shouldn't be driving a shopping cart at Walmart without supervision.      

The sense I got at the time was that the mother was focused on the judge.  There was a moment when the girl said something to her mom.  Mom seemed to acknowledge but her attention quickly went back to the case.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

Explosive Lifetime Protective Orders-Both plaintiff and defendant have lifetime protective orders against each other.    Plaintiff wants the engagement ring back, and former friend (claims she never would marry him anyway) defendant says it's hers for pain and suffering, and was a gift.    They went to Costa Rica, had a big dust up, defendant claims she had to change her flights, and come back to the U.S. because of the fight, and her broken rib (my guess, fell down in bar and broke the rib).     Judge Judy recognizes nutjob defendant is full of it, and gives the plaintiff $5k.      

Vandalizing Fit of Jealous Rage-Woman thinks plaintiff is sick, goes to his house, and he doesn't answer.   Later defendant nutjob goes to the grocery store, and sees the man strolling around, and I guess had someone with him, or else she surmised that he had another woman at his house.   Next morning he comes outside to see post-its apologizing for what she did, and she had vandalized his house, and car.   A neighbor saw someone resembling the nutjob sneaking into his back yard the night before (all of this happened at late night, into morning).       The nutjob defendant admits she was super drunk that night too, as if that's an excuse.     Defendant claims she was high on Shrooms, and kept saying it was drunk, but isn't that mushrooms?    Plaintiff gets $2,500

Gorgeous Engagement Ring Setback-Woman wanted engagement ring reset, and lots of emeralds added.   She found a man online, looked at his reviews, but didn't contact references.    He wanted a whole lot more for better quality, and so he offered to downsize the ring setting, so it could have better emeralds at her price point.   That made it too small for her taste to highlight the diamond main jewel that was her grandmothers, and Judge Judy didn't like what the ring looked like either, so plaintiff gets her $3,200 back.     She's going to get sticker shock when she sees what a regular jeweler will charge for the ring she wants, with the emeralds added.    I didn't like either litigant, and really hated that the plaintiff kept interrupting the Judge.  I hope next time the plaintiff takes the ring to a real jeweler, with firm estimates and will faint at the cost.  

Conspiracy Theory Flight Plan-Plaintiff wanted money, and punitive damages for a couple of last minute, bogus airline tickets.    Plaintiff paid woman she didn't know for two tickets to Miami, at the last minute, and the source defendant used took her money, and sold bogus tickets.    I wanted to punch the plaintiff out, when she demanded a highlighter from Officer Byrd, and was absolutely hateful to him.     Plaintiff thinks defendant was in some big conspiracy to rip her off, but the defendant's parents got bogus tickets too, so case is thrown out.    

[ButYourHonor]

I had a totally different take on that “girl vs car” case.  It seemed obvious to me that the girl had indeed run full-tilt into the car.  As JJ is fond of saying, cars don’t drive sideways.  The girl darted out and the woman didn’t have time to notice her, much less stop.  The fact that she broke her collarbone is no great surprise.  My son broke his ankle merely missing a step and hitting the next one a bit too hard as he ran down the stairs.

Legally speaking, pedestrians do NOT always have the right of way and they CAN be faulted in an accident.

That being said, I still wouldn’t have sued, but I felt JJ laid it on a bit thick.  The girl wasn’t killed, and she DID do damage to the car.  If it had been a baseball that did the damage instead of her body, would she be considered equally innocent?

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Explosive Lifetime Protective Orders-Both plaintiff and defendant have lifetime protective orders against each other.    Plaintiff wants the engagement ring back, and former friend (claims she never would marry him anyway) defendant says it's hers for pain and suffering, and was a gift.    They went to Costa Rica, had a big dust up, defendant claims she had to change her flights, and come back to the U.S. because of the fight, and her broken rib (my guess, fell down in bar and broke the rib).     Judge Judy recognizes nutjob defendant is full of it, and gives the plaintiff $5k.   

Actually, JJ gave him $5,972 and change.  Was JJ so pissed off at the motor-mouth defendant that she awarded over $5K? 

I think JJ's anger was partly becausethe woman just wouldn't shut up, but also that the woman thought JJ was stupid enough to believe that the ring was an "apology ring", not an engagement ring.

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge Judy recognizes nutjob defendant is full of it,

Defendant gave testimony that was as close to a stream-of-consciousness narrative as I have heard in a long while. A Joycean litigant on JJ; will wonders never cease?

JJ's numerous admonitions could not bring her to deviate from her droning story.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

The problem with the Vandalism case, and Restraining Order cases are that the plaintiff's forgot my cardinal rule, "Never sleep with anyone crazier than you are".   

 I bet the restraining order defendant won't go away easily, and looked like a bunny boiler to me.  

The vandalism woman certainly scored a distinctive way to harass the plaintiff with apology post-its everywhere.   

There was something really off about the girl breaking her collarbone running into the mirror.     I know people who have had broken rear view door mirrors, but they were all hit from the glass side, not the front the way the defendant claimed.    I'm wondering if the defendant was actually backing up, going fast, and hit the girl.   That would account for the mirror damage, and the collar bone break.    That case was just strange all the way around.

Edited December 4, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

14 hours ago, ButYourHonor said:

I had a totally different take on that “girl vs car” case.  It seemed obvious to me that the girl had indeed run full-tilt into the car.  As JJ is fond of saying, cars don’t drive sideways.  The girl darted out and the woman didn’t have time to notice her, much less stop.  The fact that she broke her collarbone is no great surprise.  My son broke his ankle merely missing a step and hitting the next one a bit too hard as he ran down the stairs.

Legally speaking, pedestrians do NOT always have the right of way and they CAN be faulted in an accident.

That being said, I still wouldn’t have sued, but I felt JJ laid it on a bit thick.  The girl wasn’t killed, and she DID do damage to the car.  If it had been a baseball that did the damage instead of her body, would she be considered equally innocent?

Perhaps if the damage to the car was on a body panel of the car I’d agree with you. But the fact that she stuck or was struck by the SIDE view mirror changes everything. I live in an unban area and pedestrians who are often standing still on a curb or in a crosswalk are stuck by vehicles (often buses) and their mirrors often. It makes 0 sense to me that a small child in ran full speed into a slow moving car with enough force to do that damage to herself and the car.  Also, it was almost a certainty that the blow that broke her collarbone came to her shoulder. So unless she was running sideways she would have impacted the car face first and that doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense that a person would run full tilt into a (almost) stationary object. The likely impact came when the mirror moving at the speed of the car impacted her shoulder and broke the bone. That’s the direction the evidence points and the judge made the right decision.

If the evidence inticated that the girl negligently threw a baseball and damaged the car the girl would be at fault. And if the driver negligently ran over the girl’s baseball the driver would be at fault and theoretically liable for the damage. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Byrd is the Word

[nr65000]

13 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Defendant gave testimony that was as close to a stream-of-consciousness narrative as I have heard in a long while. A Joycean litigant on JJ; will wonders never cease?

Pilots hit on me, passengers hit on me....lololololol...doubtful.

[Byrd is the Word]

“Locked and Loaded Neighborhood Patrol?!” Small (spiritually, certainly not physically), argumentative men like Mr. Gorman terrorizing neighborhoods with his handgun, anger issues and self righteousness are a nightmare. This ass hat wants to be Dirty Harry or Charles Bronson so bad even I can taste it, but he’ll sooner be the next George Zimmerman.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Byrd is the Word

[Silver Raven]

Woman hits plaintiff's car, plaintiff has video evidence, but I was hoping he would get nothing because he narrated the video by saying the defendant was "waddling back to her car."

[CrazyInAlabama]

Locked and Loaded Neighborhood Patrol-Woman thinks the rules of the HOA about sheds don't pertain to her.     Defendant was part of neighborhood patrol, and had run in with niece of plaintiff, and JJ says he was in the wrong.   Bet the people who had burglaries about that time don't think so.   Plaintiff gets shed that doesn't follow appearance rules, and set back rules, gets taken to court by HOA, moves shed in January to follow rules, and redo roof, and so case was dismissed by court, but it was without prejudice, and from court decision, plaintiff lost.     There were other sheds not in compliance, but my guess is they were much older and were grandfathered in.  

I think plaintiff should move, not the defendant she's harassing, and I'm sure she is.       There is a similar problem where I live, with minimal HOA rules, compared to the subdivision in question.   We have two people who were given and signed the rules, and think they don't have to follow them, and they have been advised they aren't special, and have to follow rules.     Some do move to subdivisions that have rules, and think they can do what they want to.     

Defendant lost in court too.    Plaintiff is trying to sell, and defendants constantly parks right on the edge of his driveway, and I think it is harassment, and ruining his chances to get a decent offer.   I'm not buying a place that has a neighbor like the plaintiff irritating people, and I bet his buyers won't either.    My guess is JJ will totally blow off the defendant's counterclaim. but I've seen enough of the same behavior from others to think she's definitely trying to get him.     Nobody gets anything, but good luck getting a decent price with that woman's cars parking solid in front of his house constantly.       

Falsely Imprisoned Bad Driver-Defendant claims she didn't hit plaintiff's parked car, but there's a video.   Another defendant from Planet Nutcase.    Defendant doesn't know the date, claims plaintiff falsely imprisoned her by not letting her leave before the police got there.    Defendant didn't have insurance that night, because it "overlapsed".     What a shock, Googling Stacey Grifall in California produces an arrest for drug paraphernalia, plus multiple other offenses including reckless driving, driving suspended, and my guess it's not the first time.       Ditso defendant backs into plaintiff's car, and then tried to leave.    Defendant got ticket for no insurance, and no license was on her either, and she got a fine when she went to court.   The video is really interesting, and she totally hit his car.   Her car is stuffed full of junk, and I doubt she could even see out the windows, and she backed up in a traffic lane too.   I bet $4,200 in damage qualifies as a felony, so plaintiff should have tasered her for that amount.      Plaintiff gets $4,200 for the damage.     

Ex-friends Fight Over Money-Defendant failed to repay loan from plaintiff. and defendant says plaintiff just went and paid the car insurance bill on her own.     Another defendant who doesn't remember what they wrote in their sworn statement for court.    Defendant also owes for seven months of cell phone bills.     Plaintiff gets $ 260, because she let the phone service keep going without payment for seven months.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

9 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

Woman hits plaintiff's car, plaintiff has video evidence, but I was hoping he would get nothing because he narrated the video by saying the defendant was "waddling back to her car."

I found him pretty overbearing also. But I also gave him some slack for being forced to sue to get that fool woman to face her responsibility for clearly hitting him and lying about it to everybody who asked. He was a smug douche but she was 3/5 nuts. She testified that she slammed on her brakes and felt a jolt. What did she think that was? Although I think slammed brakes and jolts are not a rare occurrence for that one.  

[Florinaldo]

Both litigants in that shed dispute were distateful, and prime example of a minority that gives condo and gated communities a bad reputation. The plaintiff seemed to think that the HOA rules apply to her only when and in the manner she decides they should.

In comparison however, that arrogant little moral pipsqueak of a defendant is definitely worse. He seems to think that having an open-carry permit invests him with a holy mandate to act as a bargain-basement marshall straight out of a Z-grade version of Gunsmoke, and to police the neighbourhood according to his whims. I bet he was as insufferable as the HOA president. It's because of people like him that many visitors to the US are more and more wary when being approached by unknown people, even in the most innocuous contexts, going as far as to checking beforehand gun laws in the specific states they are planning to visit.

Instead of worrying so much about his neighbours' behaviour, he should be mindlful about what appears to be his incipient morbid obesity.

 

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I found him pretty overbearing also. But I also gave him some slack for being forced to sue to get that fool woman to face her responsibility for clearly hitting him and lying about it to everybody who asked.

It does indeed happen that overbearing or unpleasant people are legally and morally in the right, as was the case with him in this instance.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Florinaldo

[NYCFree]

I’d much prefer to have shed woman plaintiff as a neighbor, than gun wielding ousted HOA president. I would also bet that when he fined plaintiff, his fellow HOA officers were like “whatever, let’s just get this meeting over with.” So not a conspiracy, per JJ, but more of a “if we do what you want on the shed, will you go away?” Regarding the car issue, it looked like there were two cars in her driveway, and two cars in spots in front of the house. I think he was complaining about too many cars, but I’m not certain.

Edited December 5, 2018 by NYCFree
Two and too are different.

[lynny]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Locked and Loaded Neighborhood Patrol-Woman thinks the rules of the HOA about sheds don't pertain to her.     Defendant was part of neighborhood patrol, and had run in with niece of plaintiff, and JJ says he was in the wrong.   Bet the people who had burglaries about that time don't think so.   

He wasn’t on neighbourhood patrol though. He was putting caution tape around a bee hive. Like @Byrd is the Word said, all I could think of for that entire case that I was looking at the next George Zimmerman. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think the parking with the HOA dust up was because the woman parked two cars in front of his house, and that's what the picture showed.     

The bee hive block off at night with the caution tape is because that's when the bees are inactive, and they were trying to find someone to relocate the hive, and save the bees.     I find it ridiculous that the relatives visiting the plaintiff were cruising down dead end streets, and going at very low speed, and not stopping at the aunt's house (I guess it was aunt) until after.    That strikes me as very suspicious, especially since there had been trouble in the neighborhood.      People forget that the gated communities just make it a hassle to get in for deliveries and visitors, and they don't keep the bad guys out.   However, every place where I've lived near (fortunately not my subdivision) with a crime problem, it's been someone in the subdivision when they get caught.  

My street is not super wide, so the regulation is you park in your driveway, or in the visitor spots, and that way you're not trying to back out past some jerk that is hanging over your driveway, or blocking the mailbox, or in front of the trashcans, so they can't be emptied.   It's also restricted parking so emergency vehicles have access at all times.      

 

I really disliked the plaintiff from the HOA case, and think she's going to have issues where ever she moves too, but didn't find the defendant all that likeable either.   

Edited December 5, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[lynny]

They glossed over it, but it was pretty clear that the niece was home and her mother (plaintiff’s sister) didn’t know she was coming so the niece was hiding away from the aunts home until she got word to come for the surprise. It also wasn’t “they” who were trying to save the bees. It was the defendant. He said that the others in the neighbourhood wanted to get rid of the hive and he wanted to protect it. It’s an admirable thing to do. But it’s pretty clear he was acting alone and not on any kind of neighbourhood watch patrol regardless.  

[Byrd is the Word]

9 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I find it ridiculous that the relatives visiting the plaintiff were cruising down dead end streets, and going at very low speed, and not stopping at the aunt's house (I guess it was aunt) until after.    That strikes me as very suspicious, especially since there had been trouble in the neighborhood.

I don’t know if it’s suspicious but it is unusual. But it all assumes that the Mr. Gorman’s testimony can be taken at face value and I don’t. Cleary he had his entire defense mapped out citing obscure HOA bylaws and call logs to law enforcement, none of which JJ found germane. The petty bickering about sheds and parked cars was lost on me. The only thing that I’ll remember from this case is that the last think I’d want in my neighborhood full of teenagers is an untrained, armed HOA president pretending to be law enforcement and possibly firing gun shots from his moral high ground.

 

(PS, sorry for buggering up the look of the page)

[Byrd is the Word]

On 11/28/2018 at 10:05 AM, AngelaHunter said:

That is truly the mystery. The oddest Odd Couple ever. What was it about Wharf Rat that made Mr. Sluka say, "A likely lad -  perfect for my next roommate"? What??

There are certain people, men and women, who befriend (and sometimes prey upon) these stray mutts. They shelter and support them in what I imagine is motivated by misguided kindness, loneliness and a need to rescue/nurture. At some point one or the other realizes they’ve been victimized when the money runs out, property goes missing or some calamity occurs. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Byrd is the Word

[augmentedfourth]

Allegedly, HOAs get a bad rap because you only hear about the bad ones, and good/normal ones just collect some fees for maintenance of common areas and make sure your neighbor isn't keeping a hoopty on the front lawn so you don't have to stare at it for months on end. However, Mr. Gorman was the epitome of every negative HOA stereotype all rolled into one rather overstuffed package and is what makes people say they'd never buy a house in a neighborhood with an HOA. (Also probably a good argument against any schmuck being able to concealed carry in some places, but let's not open that can of worms.) I absolutely believe he was the type to go mad with the little amount of power he had as HOA president and made other residents' lives miserable just because he could. You know he spent many nights staying up late going over the HOA guidelines with a fine-toothed comb just to find ways to stick it to people.

[funky-rat]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 8:45 PM, AuntiePam said:

Actually, JJ gave him $5,972 and change.  Was JJ so pissed off at the motor-mouth defendant that she awarded over $5K? 

Occasionally, there is someone who gets more than $5000, and they usually explain that it's because in their jurisdiction, they're allowed more than that (a lot of places cap the small claims amount at $5000).

17 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Both litigants in that shed dispute were distateful, and prime example of a minority that gives condo and gated communities a bad reputation. The plaintiff seemed to think that the HOA rules apply to her only when and in the manner she decides they should.

In comparison however, that arrogant little moral pipsqueak of a defendant is definitely worse. He seems to think that having an open-carry permit invests him with a holy mandate to act as a bargain-basement marshall straight out of a Z-grade version of Gunsmoke, and to police the neighbourhood according to his whims. I bet he was as insufferable as the HOA president. It's because of people like him that many visitors to the US are more and more wary when being approached by unknown people, even in the most innocuous contexts, going as far as to checking beforehand gun laws in the specific states they are planning to visit.

Instead of worrying so much about his neighbours' behaviour, he should be mindlful about what appears to be his incipient morbid obesity.

It does indeed happen that overbearing or unpleasant people are legally and morally in the right, as was the case with him in this instance.

8 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

Allegedly, HOAs get a bad rap because you only hear about the bad ones, and good/normal ones just collect some fees for maintenance of common areas and make sure your neighbor isn't keeping a hoopty on the front lawn so you don't have to stare at it for months on end. However, Mr. Gorman was the epitome of every negative HOA stereotype all rolled into one rather overstuffed package and is what makes people say they'd never buy a house in a neighborhood with an HOA. (Also probably a good argument against any schmuck being able to concealed carry in some places, but let's not open that can of worms.) I absolutely believe he was the type to go mad with the little amount of power he had as HOA president and made other residents' lives miserable just because he could. You know he spent many nights staying up late going over the HOA guidelines with a fine-toothed comb just to find ways to stick it to people.

We don't have an HOA where I live, but we do have a LOT of rules, and it always slays me when someone tells me they USED to live where we do, but couldn't stand the manager and her ridiculous strict rules, and they left.  They go over the rules with you and make you sign them before you buy a place.  I don't understand people who think "Oh well.  I don't need to bother with all of that".  While I had no use for the defendant, who is like the housing scammers who know every regulation inside and out and use it for maximum advantage, I also believe the plaintiff had beef with him (and perhaps justifiably so) and used that to her advantage.  I could see the situation could have turned badly, and I did get distaste for the defendant when he yammered on about "I have a carry permit" because I know a number of people personally who are just like that.  They want to yammer incessantly about their concealed carry permit, or open carry permit, and how they REFUSE to patronize stores that won't allow them to bring guns in (Wal-Mart and Dick's being two) but then 3 weeks later you see on social media that they were at one of those stores, so they either left their gun in the car/at home, or they carried it in anyway.  They insist that they need the carry permit because of crime, but they can't/won't understand they make themselves bigger targets for harassment by constantly yammering about it, starting a vicious cycle.

[SRTouch]

22 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Allegedly, HOAs get a bad rap because you only hear about the bad ones, and good/normal ones just collect some fees for maintenance of common areas and make sure your neighbor isn't keeping a hoopty on the front lawn so you don't have to stare at it for months on end. However, Mr. Gorman was the epitome of every negative HOA stereotype all rolled into one rather overstuffed package and is what makes people say they'd never buy a house in a neighborhood with an HOA. (Also probably a good argument against any schmuck being able to concealed carry in some places, but let's not open that can of worms.) I absolutely believe he was the type to go mad with the little amount of power he had as HOA president and made other residents' lives miserable just because he could. You know he spent many nights staying up late going over the HOA guidelines with a fine-toothed comb just to find ways to stick it to people.

You mean the type you just avoid rather than debate an issue. As soon as you try to reason with the jerk, he/she starts quoting some nonsense that you're not interested enough to check to see if said nonsense is true or the event ever happened. Brings to mind so much of what passes for debate on social media... if you do bother to research the "facts" the jerk is quoting you discover it's based on fake news - pointing out the fact is false accomplishes nothing because jerk's weak little mind is set in stone and it'll take a jackhammer to change - easier to just walk away and avoid jerk in future.

Edited December 6, 2018 by SRTouch

[speac]

37 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

Allegedly, HOAs get a bad rap because you only hear about the bad ones, and good/normal ones just collect some fees for maintenance of common areas and make sure your neighbor isn't keeping a hoopty on the front lawn so you don't have to stare at it for months on end. However, Mr. Gorman was the epitome of every negative HOA stereotype all rolled into one rather overstuffed package and is what makes people say they'd never buy a house in a neighborhood with an HOA. (Also probably a good argument against any schmuck being able to concealed carry in some places, but let's not open that can of worms.) I absolutely believe he was the type to go mad with the little amount of power he had as HOA president and made other residents' lives miserable just because he could. You know he spent many nights staying up late going over the HOA guidelines with a fine-toothed comb just to find ways to stick it to people.

I think the indication that he was a poor HOA president is that he was voted out.  It's been my experience people are very happy to keep someone who wants to be on the HOA board on that board unless they are a problem. 

[funky-rat]

5 minutes ago, speac said:

I think the indication that he was a poor HOA president is that he was voted out.  It's been my experience people are very happy to keep someone who wants to be on the HOA board on that board unless they are a problem. 

Yes, and he was voted out after one year, if even that long.  I don't know how long their terms are, but that's not a good sign.

He should move to Del Boca Vista and be on the HOA there.  ; )  (Bonus points for those who get the reference)

[Byrd is the Word]

2 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

He should move to Del Boca Vista and be on the HOA there.  ; )  (Bonus points for those who get the reference)

I've often wondered if Morty and Helen were masters of their own domain there in Phase I.

[funky-rat]

6 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I've often wondered if Morty and Helen were masters of their own domain there in Phase I.

They're just lucky that Estelle and Frank decided to not stay there.  They could have been a formidable threat.  And we won't talk about Jack Klompus.  :D

[KittyMom4]

1 hour ago, augmentedfourth said:

Allegedly, HOAs get a bad rap because you only hear about the bad ones, and good/normal ones just collect some fees for maintenance of common areas and make sure your neighbor isn't keeping a hoopty on the front lawn so you don't have to stare at it for months on end.

The seasonal park we own a trailer in is like this, we pay a lot rent with additional costs built in for lawn maintenance and road repair. Tenants are expected to maintain their property in a clean, safe and organized manner. No falling down sheds/decks/roofing. It has only been in extreme cases where a tenant has been asked to sell and move out. I'm told it's only happened twice in the 30 years the park has been open.

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I really disliked the plaintiff from the HOA case, and think she's going to have issues where ever she moves too, but didn't find the defendant all that likeable either. 

And then there was one owner, "Lynn", who felt she shouldn't have to comply with rules, one which she violated regularly was parking her veeehickle next to her trailer instead of in the lot provided. But what finally got her the boot was her yippy little dog bit 5 people! She was warned 4 times, was asked to use a muzzle when the dog was out, was asked to keep it on a leash at all times, but she felt that everyone should just put up with it. The lot owner had enough and kicked her out, we found out that this is the 3rd park she's been asked to leave. There's always a pattern with these folks.

[Hellohappylife]

I’m only 25, I have my own Apartment so I pretty much know nothing about anything related to HOA from yesterday’s case.

What’s the deal with it? Maybe I heard the details from that case wrong, so you buy you’re own house but yet you have all of these rules you have to follow? You need permission for things like painting your house, fencing,sheds,landscaping etc etc 

Is that how it goes? Why would you buy a house only to have no freedom on what you can & can’t do? 

[Brattinella]

6 minutes ago, Hellohappylife said:

I’m only 25, I have my own Apartment so I pretty much know nothing about anything related to HOA from yesterday’s case.

What’s the deal with it? Maybe I heard the details from that case wrong, so you buy you’re own house but yet you have all of these rules you have to follow? You need permission for things like painting your house, fencing,sheds,landscaping etc etc 

Is that how it goes? Why would you buy a house only to have no freedom on what you can & can’t do? 

I never had the misfortune to be under an HOA, but my uncle was.  At some point in his long-suffering association with them, he painted his entire house electric blue.  I LOVED it.  I don't think it lasted long, but it was a big fat FU to the HOA. :)

[SRTouch]

34 minutes ago, Hellohappylife said:

I’m only 25, I have my own Apartment so I pretty much know nothing about anything related to HOA from yesterday’s case.

What’s the deal with it? Maybe I heard the details from that case wrong, so you buy you’re own house but yet you have all of these rules you have to follow? You need permission for things like painting your house, fencing,sheds,landscaping etc etc 

Is that how it goes? Why would you buy a house only to have no freedom on what you can & can’t do? 

Yeah, sort of like buying in a historical district and needing permission before doing any renovations. 

On the plus side, a well run HOA can maintain common areas (pool, rec center, tennis courts or just the median, sidewalks, streets, etc). The negative is when you get some power hungry a$$ (or a cabal of a$$holes) who wants to regulate everything up the gazoo and starts slipping a bunch of rules into the bylaws at meetings only a handful attend. Course, we seldom hear about the well run communities, but horror stories about the bad ones abound. Also, sometimes the membership fees can significantly impact monthly budgets - to the point where a buyer can afford mortgage and upkeep until the HOA fee is added.

2 horror HOA stories: 1) back in the day before everyone started driving SUVs and pickups, while visiting my sister she was notified it was a violation for me to park my Ford Ranger in her driveway at night. 2) a friend in Houston spent a couple thousand putting up a wooden privacy fence around her backyard and then was told to tear it down because it was too tall (her hubby lowered the top cross pieces and took a circular saw to it to bring it into compliance).

Edited December 5, 2018 by SRTouch

[Silver Raven]

So hitting your boyfriend because he's cheating on you is now a defense?

[CrazyInAlabama]

I see today's defendant shopped at "The House of Giant Cheap Earrings" on her way to court.

Yes, I Attacked Him; Yes, I Choked Her! (Two stupid women fighting over the father of their one child each, and possible father of another in Vegas)   Cut to the chase: yes apparently he was cheating on me so I hit him is acceptable behavior by the plaintiff.   Plaintiff woman, and defendant woman both have restraining orders on each other, and have dueling facebook postings about each other, and defendant woman is ticked that plaintiff filed for support order within two months of the birth of plaintiff baby.       JJ says if there is a violation of either restraining order that she will forward a copy of the tape to the judge, and I'm assuming that means the entire unedited tape I hope.      I don't think anyone got anything from the Judge, just knocked up by that loser defendant.     

8k Designer Sneaker Fight-Woman gives man 8k, and he claims 5500 (I think), and she would resell them for a $1k each, for 16 pair of shoes.    She was mailed an empty box by the defendant sneaker seller.     Defendant girlfriend is blamed by defendant man for sending the empty box.   Defendant claims the shoes were shipped by Fedex in two boxes, and contained all of the shoes, but one box only weighted eight pounds.     Plaintiff mom witness says she received one box, not two, and the box contained a ream of paper, and FedEx weighted it as 8 lbs with the stuffing.  Plaintiff has the printout of the defendant's criminal record, I loved it when JJ read his rap sheet, and says he's a long term criminal.    Defendant says the crimes were his dad, but the mug shots say they're him, and girlfriend gets the boot with defendant.      Plaintiff gets $5k.

Sister Mustang Feud-Plaintiff Mom suing defendant daughter for non-payment for Kia Optima loan down payment.   Funny thing is they all rode to court together.  Plaintiff other daughter witness drives a Mustang, but has no license (could have guessed that), and JJ is not amused, and would anyone be shocked if there's no insurance either?

Plaintiff sister originally owned the Mustang that unlicensed plaintiff sister is driving.   Unlicensed sister has had a learner's permit for two years, and claims she only drives with her Mom-anyone belief that pile of horse manure?     So my guess is since the mother / unlicensed daughter have been using the plaintiff's Mustang for two years, and never paid a penny, that plaintiff Mom is SOL.      My guess is the car is still in plaintiff's name, and that needs to get changed before her dim witted sister runs over someone 'practicing' driving.   Defendant refused to give the Mustang back to the plaintiff, because she needed it.      Mother plaintiff is letting unlicensed daughter's dad drive the car (plaintiff and defendant's daughter have different fathers, and apparently he's father of more than one kid with plaintiff).    JJ's solution to getting the $4k down payment back is to sell the Mustang (is it even in Mom's name to sell?)   

Edited December 6, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I see today's defendant shopped at "The House of Giant Cheap Earrings" on her way to court.

Yes, I Attacked Him; Yes, I Choked Her! (Two stupid women fighting over the father of their one child each, and possible father of another in Vegas)   Cut to the chase: yes apparently he was cheating on me so I hit him is acceptable behavior by the plaintiff.   Plaintiff woman, and defendant woman both have restraining orders on each other, and have dueling facebook postings about each other, and defendant woman is ticked that plaintiff filed for support order within two months of the birth of plaintiff baby.       JJ says if there is a violation of either restraining order that she will forward a copy of the tape to the judge, and I'm assuming that means the entire unedited tape I hope.      I don't think anyone got anything from the Judge, just knocked up by that loser defendant. 

I couldn't stand this case the first time I watched it. Few cases cause me to press FF on my DVR remote faster than two fool women fighting over their barely employed, scoundrel baby daddy and the Facebook jihad that ensues.  "We're done.  Goodbye!"

 

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

8k Designer Sneaker Fight-Woman gives man 8k, and he claims 5500 (I think), and she would resell them for a $1k each, for 16 pair of shoes.    She was mailed an empty box by the defendant sneaker seller.     Defendant girlfriend is blamed by defendant man for sending the empty box.   Defendant claims the shoes were shipped by Fedex in two boxes, and contained all of the shoes, but one box only weighted eight pounds.     Plaintiff mom witness says she received one box, not two, and the box contained a ream of paper, and FedEx weighted it as 8 lbs with the stuffing.  Plaintiff has the printout of the defendant's criminal record, I loved it when JJ read his rap sheet, and says he's a long term criminal.    Defendant says the crimes were his dad, but the mug shots say they're him, and girlfriend gets the boot with defendant.      Plaintiff gets $5k.

I don't understand why the plaintiff didn't simply file a dispute with the issuer of the credit card she used for payment.  I'm also not convinced these shoes weren't stolen in transit, but let the shifty defendant and his staunch girlfriend deal with FedEx and any insurance claim.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Byrd is the Word

[CrazyInAlabama]

Did the sneaky sneaker seller actually prove the girlfriend mailed two packages?    And either way there is no way that the two packages contained enough weight to equal 14 or so pair of sneakers, that must weigh over 28 pounds, since they're at least two pounds per pair.     My biggest clue that the defendant girl friend was full of it, was that the weight of the one package that arrived with the ream of paper, and paper stuffing weighed exactly what the package shipping tag said it should when it was weighed by the FedEx people when the plaintiff took the box to them.       I don't think the shoes were mailed, and the defendant had no proof that the two boxes that were mailed were actually to her address.   I wonder if the reason he had so many criminal complaints about his past behavior is the girlfriend is siphoning sneakers off, instead of mailing them?    The box that was shown wasn't big enough for more than two pair anyway.   

Edited December 6, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[funky-rat]

18 hours ago, Hellohappylife said:

I’m only 25, I have my own Apartment so I pretty much know nothing about anything related to HOA from yesterday’s case.

What’s the deal with it? Maybe I heard the details from that case wrong, so you buy you’re own house but yet you have all of these rules you have to follow? You need permission for things like painting your house, fencing,sheds,landscaping etc etc 

Is that how it goes? Why would you buy a house only to have no freedom on what you can & can’t do? 

HOA's can be good or bad, and they vary from place to place.  The case on TV was in a gated community, so I would expect their HOA to be more strict, have more rules, etc.  A friend bought her first house a few years back.  She got pre-approval, but was turned down by the bank on buying a house in a townhome complex (not gated) - the program she was using to get her home purchased through wouldn't allow any purchases anywhere with an HOA (not sure why).  I tried to dissuade her from buying that townhome when she first looked at it.  It didn't look well constructed, and I wouldn't want to be connected to a bunch of other houses.  When I asked her why she was attracted to it, she liked that she had zero ground maintenance.  She also had almost zero ground that would be hers.  Ultimately she bought a freestanding home, and hired a lawncare service.  HOA's can be nice because if everyone is bound to the same rules, then areas have to be clean and well kept, you can't paint homes in outlandish colors that could diminish neighbor's property values, you can't build janky structures, have junk cars sitting around, etc.  They get bad when, like was mentioned above, you get people who start to sneak in things, or they try to skew rules to harass people they may not like, etc.  My cousins moved in to a brand new gated community when their jobs relocated them years ago - this community was part of the deal one of them got, as it included housing considerations.  Their lawn was installed, and the HOA made the company rip the lawn out and re-install it, because it was 1/4" off of the neighbor's lawn.  Also like was mentioned above, I dated a guy who had parents who inherited the family home.  When his dad was growing up, the historical society didn't exist, so he didn't think anything of it.  They moved in to the house, and started to redecorate, remodel, etc (it was a gorgeous old home).  The HS showed up one day and demanded to be let in.  They also demanded cartoon wallpaper get ripped down in a child's room, and other similar things, because it wasn't keeping with the historical nature of the home.  They wanted to paint the outside, but had a limited choice of approved colors (ended up painting it white, and it always looked dirty).  They had to ask permission to do anything.  They finally asked to be removed from the historic register, and was told "no".  When his elderly grandparents were approached by the HS years before, they signed the papers, not truly understanding what they were in for.  They just thought it would be cool to be on the register.  My ex's parents ultimately sold the house to be done with that crap.

15 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I don't understand why the plaintiff didn't simply file a dispute with the issuer of the credit card she used for payment.  I'm also not convinced these shoes weren't stolen in transit, but let the shifty defendant and his staunch girlfriend deal with FedEx and any insurance claim.

I deal with chargebacks at my job.  They do a lengthy investigation before refunding your money.  I recall this case, but don't recall specifics.  P likely paid through some payment service, ala PayPal.  If you're giving money to a private person and not a business, it gets a TON harder to get your money back, because it's harder to say exactly what was expected of the transaction, wheras if you buy something from a store, there is expectation of merchandise in exchange for goods, or similar.  Also, when using Paypal, and you're sending money to someone, a lot of people check the box that says "Sending money to friends/family" to avoid paying fees, and again, good luck on getting your money back, because there's no firmly defined expectations.  Lastly, P probably knew there was some risk to this transaction, and it could be legally questionable, and didn't want to bring attention that fact by involving the authorities.  Because sometimes you need to file a police report when alleging fraud.  I had to do just that when a neighbor stole a catalog from my mailbox eons ago at our first apartment, opened up a credit account in my name, and ordered a bunch of stuff.  When it was delivered, they took the box from the common area at the apartment building, and I got the bills.  We're pretty sure it was the couple who lived under us.  I had a broken leg, and we were living with my parents because I couldn't climb the stairs to the 2nd floor (and still paying rent on the apartment), and they asked my husband if everything was OK one night because they hadn't seen me, and my car wasn't moving much (I couldn't drive), and he told them about what happened.  She didn't work (everyone else in the building did), and had perfect opportunity.  I also always thought the two of them were sketchy.  In order to get the company to wipe the bill out, I had to file a police report, and provide proof to them and the cops that I wasn't living there at the time, and furthermore,  the date the order was placed, I wasn't even in the state.  We had booked a non-refundable vacation before the accident, and I ended up going on vacation in a wheelchair, so we eventually go the bill wiped out, but it took some time for it to happen.  By doing that (making somoene provide proof, file a police report, etc) it keeps people honest.  Filing a police report on something that didn't happen is a crime, and makes it less likely (not impossible) for people to lie about fraud.

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, funky-rat said:

P likely paid through some payment service, ala PayPal. 

IIRC, the quick camera shot of the Plaintiff's document had a lot of "Venmo"(sp?).  How does it contrast/compare to PayPal?  I would think those types of transactions are way tougher to dispute than your regular Visa or AmEx.

[funky-rat]

33 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

IIRC, the quick camera shot of the Plaintiff's document had a lot of "Venmo"(sp?).  How does it contrast/compare to PayPal?  I would think those types of transactions are way tougher to dispute than your regular Visa or AmEx.

Similar.  It's designed to let friends share in the cost of things, transfer money to each other, etc, per their website.

[Byrd is the Word]

Venmo and PayPal are both subsideries of eBay. Both are peer to peer banking platforms. All three of these (Venmo, PayPal and eBay) are, in my experience, much more accommodating to the buyer than the seller. Thankfully, I’ve never had a Venmo dispute but as a seller I have been burned by PayPal and unscrupulous buyers.  I would be hard pressed to do a transaction greater than a couple hundred dollars on either, particularly as the seller.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Byrd is the Word

[Hagosaurus]

On 12/3/2018 at 4:14 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims she was high on Shrooms, and kept saying it was drunk, but isn't that mushrooms? 

She wrote that she was "shermed out" which actually means that she was high on PCP.

[Brattinella]

3 minutes ago, Hagosaurus said:

She wrote that she was "shermed out" which actually means that she was high on PCP.

Oh yeah, I remember that from high school.  They used sherman's to wipe the liquid PCP on.