All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Florinaldo]

I think JJ awarded the full price because she thought the defendant was being a dickhead about the whole thing. Also she said he had a counterclaim of harassment; I guess that ticked her off too.

I thought that the defendant was extremely reasonable in offering a reimbursement for the depreciated value of that night-rag. Once JJ put herself in the plaintiff's shoes and started riffing on she would have been after him night and day to get her precious comforter back, it became obvious that she would rule in favour of the litigant she identified with.

[teebax]

Ticket To Ride - Dumb car case, zero gavel.

 

Slumlady Barbie vs. Domestic Violence Blondie - The plaintiff rented an uninhabitable building to Domestic Violence Blondie for a couple of years and collected rent, and is hustling JJ for her to removate the dump because of cig burns on the carpet that the defendant alleges were made by a burglar, LOL. One gavel.

 

Daddy Died So We Need Two Cars Now - Sad people having a sad battle over some old lemon with a tow truck addiction.  Barely one gavel.

 

Peter Draper, Master Hoarder - Or should I have titled this one Salon Slander?  The plaintiff  (who picked up refuse salon chairs for free to bring to his 5-building rural hoard) probably reeked of rat piss and roach feces, don't let the suit fool you.  JJ probably saved on his dinner when he dumpster dived instead. Two gavels.

It looks like I can skip JJ today. None of these cases seem remotely intriguing.

[Trini]

I saw the preview but didn't watch the case and I was screaming in my head: Finally! An example of what I want my hair to look like if my dream would come true! Y'all can laugh all you want, everyone does when I tell them this. If I had curly hair I would be rocking and knocking stuff down when I walked through a room. I know it was a wig. I would totally wear a wig if it weren't so dang hot and humid around here.

 

I was really impressed with her length! My hair is a similar texture, but maybe 3-4 inches shorter.

 

Crazy Dog Lady must think that putting your fingers in an electric socket is proper hairstyling protocol before appearing on TV. Again JJ showed

That's just the way it grows.

 

With the comforter case, I think JJ was really upset that the cleaners took so long to resolve the case. But anyway, can't the cleaners sue (or something?) the person who got the comforter by mistake?

[SandyToes]

I loved the dog lady's hair yesterday. (And yes, teebax, it DID fill up the entire TV screen!) As a dishwater blond WASP, there's not much cool stuff I can do.  Crazy wild hair, but she pulled it off. The teeth were a bit distracting, though.   And the poor puppy -- yikes.

 

As for the comforter, the plaintiff had offered an "on sale" replacement value, but the cleaner declined. And even if it is a year old, if it matches the curtains, the bedskirt, the pillow shams, (or in my case, the window seat cover), then she's going to have to pay for a brand new one. No problems with her getting the full amount.

 

As for today's recaps, looks like a good day to clean out the gutters.

[AZChristian]

 

With the comforter case, I think JJ was really upset that the cleaners took so long to resolve the case. But anyway, can't the cleaners sue (or something?) the person who got the comforter by mistake?

 

I'm not sure if they know who it was.  They kept waiting for someone to return the comforter when they realized it wasn't theirs.  Apparently, they liked it and kept it.

[augmentedfourth]

As for the comforter, the plaintiff had offered an "on sale" replacement value, but the cleaner declined. And even if it is a year old, if it matches the curtains, the bedskirt, the pillow shams, (or in my case, the window seat cover), then she's going to have to pay for a brand new one. No problems with her getting the full amount.

Yep, I was totally fine with that ruling. Call me a snob, but there's a big difference between a $30 comforter and a $300 comforter, and to me, that's one of those things where I don't think she should be expected to go out and get a used one for whatever someone claims is the depreciated value. It didn't hurt that the dry cleaner acted like an ass. Mr. Fourth only halfway pays attention to JJ when I watch, and he even said "Didn't the dry cleaners have any records or way to figure out who actually had the comforter?" It sounded like the guy was just stringing the plaintiff along and had no real intentions of helping her out (even though it was completely his responsibility), and I probably would have been calling a lot and showing up to voice my complaints, too.

 

Snooooore on most of the other cases. Except I did chuckle a little when the rottweiler puppy defendant tried to claim he didn't sign the agreement and JJ pointed out to him that she just compared the signature on the notebook paper to the one on his answer for the show. You could actually see the wheels trying to turn in his head and come up with a way to get around that, and fail miserably.

[27bored]

In the dry cleaner case, Crazy Comforter Lady got the full value of the lost comforter from a listing taken on some Web site, with no proof of what she paid for the wayward one and no account of the fact that it was one year old (and probably extensively "used" considering how tenacious the plaintiff was about it). JJ's story about how she would have kept after the dry cleaner even worse than the lady did indicates she once again identified with the obsessed plaintiff and that is why she ruled in her favour.

 

That lady looked like Elizabeth Warren. I didn't have a problem with her getting the full value of the comforter. She'd initially asked him to pay for an online deal that was about half as much as she wound up getting, but the owner was being a douche and couldn't see he wasn't really holding any cards in the situation since they had given the comforter away. Plus, and I could be very wrong about this, but I've always thought depreciated value applied to either damaged automobiles or electronics  -- stuff that could be bought and sold and resold for a substantial amount of money. With something like a comforter, especially one that's missing, you can't really do anything but replace it.

[AngelaHunter]

Ticket To Ride

 

I was initially sympathetic to the plaintiff, despite her "Medusa" hair, but that changed even though both litigants annoyed with their serious inability to STFU and listen. Again, I found it interesting to see how many people on this show talk about going to prison as though it's just a normal part of life, just like the fact that mature people never have any credit or bank accounts, ever.

 

Sad people having a sad battle over some old lemon with a tow truck addiction.

 

Crissa is a home healthcare worker, of course. These cases are the ones that make me so smug and happy about my own life. Crissa's husband needs to learn how to close his mouth. Having it hanging open all time makes you look moronic, dude.

 

The plaintiff  (who picked up refuse salon chairs for free to bring to his 5-building rural hoard) probably reeked of rat piss and roach feces

 

They very well may have, but the silly poseur of a def. saw them, liked them and bought them. If only he had paid for them, everyone would be happy. People (like the saddle maker) really should look up the definition of "slander" before they start flapping their gums and making themselves look ridiculous.

 

Stupid salon owner who got embezzaled - the chairs were the same but different and they didn't work, blah blah...it's pathetic when anyone tries to justify being a scam artist. At least preaching plaintiff seems to have learned a lesson about trusting total strangers. At his age it's better late than never.

[mustbekarma]

The rottweiler case was annoying. I didn't care who won. Why in the fuck do you draw up a bill of sale on a piece of paper you tore out of your child's notebook? The fuck? "Do you have a copy of the ad you posted"? No, I tried to get it off Craigslist but they had taken it down. "Do you have proof you paid for the dog"? Well see, what had happened was, my sister-in-law's baby cousin Tracy got us the dog for protection, so he paid for it, then I paid him back. Yeah, right. And she was not well-spoken.

 

And why was the dude trying to buy a rottweiler when he has a baby daughter? I bet she was crying because the dog was scary. Little girls don't want scary ass crazy looking dogs. They want Clifford, not damn Cujo.

Or she wanted Good Dog, Carl.

[teebax]

That lady looked like Elizabeth Warren. I didn't have a problem with her getting the full value of the comforter. She'd initially asked him to pay for an online deal that was about half as much as she wound up getting, but the owner was being a douche and couldn't see he wasn't really holding any cards in the situation since they had given the comforter away. Plus, and I could be very wrong about this, but I've always thought depreciated value applied to either damaged automobiles or electronics  -- stuff that could be bought and sold and resold for a substantial amount of money. With something like a comforter, especially one that's missing, you can't really do anything but replace it.

My issue with JJ is always consistency. If that's how she consistently ruled, I'd be fine with it. But with JJ, her mood seems to matter more than anything else. You don't have to dislike a litigant for them to be correct, but JJ sometimes can't separate the two. The woman got full value because she was calm, articulate, and prepared. If she were our typical litigant, JJ would have shouted at her and called her a hustla for asking for $300 for a year-old blanket, awarded her about a buck-fifty and thrown her out on her tuckus.

[BubblingKettle]

one of the repeat episodes last night was a woman suing her sister. They got into a fight (next door neighbors broke up the fight) and defendant sister keyed plaintiff sister's car. While defendant sister was testifying (some stuff about Mom favoring plaintiff more than her, etc.), plaintiff and the witness were snickering like school girls at everything she said. JJ asked the witness who she was. Witness admits she is their mother. JJ asks why she thinks the other daughter's testimony is funny and why is she laughing. Mother says she doesn't think it was funny and is smiling while she says it. I sincerely hoped this family was scamming JJ because otherwise, it was one of the more dysfunctional families ever (and that's saying alot!)

That was on my reruns yesterday also.  Yes, that family was a mess, and there was so much anger between the sisters....I think I remember them being very sore about the mom playing "favorites."  

 

JJ put that mother on Front Street so sternly that the mother's eyes started to water.  At that point, I was cheering JJ on for showing someone in that family what a consequence looks like (even if it was just a scolding for laughing inappropriately in court).  

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

Peter Draper, Master Hoarder - Or should I have titled this one Salon Slander?

Oh no. . . you have to watch that case. The defendant looked like a tweaked out skinny Jack Nicholson-as-Jack-Torrance. . . or possibly Satan (it was the hairline combined with the vertical lines on either side of his forehead that looks like horns under the skin). His witness looked like David Crosby without all the years on drugs/alcohol. And the Captain aka the plaintiff reminded me of Charles Durning (and I kept wondering what a captain was doing living in the middle of Nevada - yes, I know there's Lake Mead but surely not a decent body of water out in the middle of the desert). It cracked me up that the guy was picking pedicure chairs off the sidewalk and hauling them back to his house to make some kind of resort (perhaps a low rent Bunny Ranch near Carson City?) out of his property. And didn't the defendant say something about losing his money to extortion? I was wondering who extorted Devil Man. 

 

.. . . think I need to stop wondering so much. . . . 

[Florinaldo]

That's just the way it grows.

It still needs some special effort to get it the way she had it. First by letting it grow uncut for a very long time to reach that length. And then styling it that way, doing nothing to control the unruly volume. As a curly-haired person, I know there are effective ways to tame hair, and she obviously chose not to use any.

 

Although I still prefer my electric socket hypothesis.   ;-)

[AngelaHunter]

It cracked me up that the guy was picking pedicure chairs off the sidewalk and hauling them back to his house to make some kind of resort (perhaps a low rent Bunny Ranch near Carson City?) out of his property

 

He was rambling so on that part that I was having trouble following him. That would be a pretty kinky resort, and didn't he mention it could be a place for a commune, or was it a cult?

[Rick Kitchen]

I kept wondering what a captain was doing living in the middle of Nevada - yes, I know there's Lake Mead but surely not a decent body of water out in the middle of the desert . . . 

 

Lake Tahoe.

[designing1]

 

He was rambling so on that part that I was having trouble following him. That would be a pretty kinky resort, and didn't he mention it could be a place for a commune, or was it a cult?

 

I think at one point he said "artists' colony", and really, what self-respecting artists' colony doesn't have rescued-from-the-trash pedicure chairs?

[AngelaHunter]

So today's episodes have confirmed my theory that the people in the gallery are litigants on the show.

 

This would make for a good  "Twilight Zone" episode.

[Puffaroo]

I can't believe it. I SAW GOOGLY EYES!!! I thought it was an urban legend. She was sitting about two rows back, behind the plaintiff in the foster dog case from yesterday. 

 

It's starting to look like the camera operator manipulates the angle when she's amongst the spectators, mostly hiding her behind other people.  We might have someone from the show reading here.  ;)

[Puffaroo]

I thought that the defendant was extremely reasonable in offering a reimbursement for the depreciated value of that night-rag. Once JJ put herself in the plaintiff's shoes and started riffing on she would have been after him night and day to get her precious comforter back, it became obvious that she would rule in favour of the litigant she identified with.

 

I put myself in the plaintiff's shoes and thought about what my reaction would be.  I would be okay with waiting two or three days to see if someone brought the comforter back.  Then I put myself in the defendant's shoes, and once the customer said sure, we can wait a few days, I would have added that if the comforter weren't returned, I'd be glad to provide reimbursement.  But the defendant didn't do that.  He was a butthead, and he paid for it.

 

Also just wanted to add that a year-old comforter very likely didn't have much (if any) wear and tear.  I know mine doesn't.

[Milz]

I thought that the defendant was extremely reasonable in offering a reimbursement for the depreciated value of that night-rag. Once JJ put herself in the plaintiff's shoes and started riffing on she would have been after him night and day to get her precious comforter back, it became obvious that she would rule in favour of the litigant she identified with.

 

IIRC, the plaintiff showed JJ an ad with the comforter on sale for $130 and said she showed it to dickhead, who told her to wait "a couple of days" for the comforter to return. So, dickhead screwed himself because if he paid her $130 so she could replace the comforter, she would have gone home, ordered a new comforter and not bothered to sue him for being a dickhead about the whole thing. 

 

As I wrote before, when I drop things off at the cleaners, my name, telephone number and the ticket number are on the cleaner's stub. My stub only has the ticket number. Dickhead's business probably isn't meticulous enough to document those things. If it had been, he would have been able to call the customer who mistakenly got the comforter.

 

Telling the plaintiff to wait a couple of days is reasonable, imo, because that "couple of days" gives dickhead time to track down the comforter-----IF dickhead had the documentation to begin with. But he didn't and relied on the customer returning the comforter and he told the plaintiff to wait a "couple of days" more. Dickhead strategy of keeping his fingers crossed and hoping for the best is just bad business. Then dickhead had the nerve to file a counterclaim of harassment.

 

Also, I can totally see the customer not returning the comforter in a "couple of days" and a "couple of days" after that. That person probably had the comforter cleaned and stored it away without removing it from the bag. 

[Florinaldo]

Also just wanted to add that a year-old comforter very likely didn't have much (if any) wear and tear.  I know mine doesn't.

Considering how desperately attached Crazy Comforter Lady was to hers, I am sure it got all kinds of "usage".

 

The fact that she and JJ are exactly the kind of dickishly pushy customers one would have to deal with is one surefire reason why I have never been tempted to open a business in the service industry.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Florinaldo

[Toaster Strudel]

What can I say?  It's NOT ratings sweeps.

 

Truck Bail Out - Your semi-vagrant dad sells his truck to bail out your loser boyfriend that steals from cars and gets chased by police.  What do you do when you pop out the baby your criminal lover has fathered?  Of course you stop paying him back.  One gavel.

 

Ring Rounding Error - "Six hundred and some change" turns out to be $698.00.  One gavel.

 

Dealmaker Make Me A Deal - This dude works at an electronic store and gives his buddies super deep discounts in exchange for cash.  Creative criminal at work!  I don't know why JJ let the plaintiff wax poetic for so long about how he's trying to get himself on the right track  - if we wanted to listen to that kind of maudlin drivel, we'd be watching Dr Phil's special on enablers.  One gavel.

 

Pawned - Doofus Dana Carvey lookalike plaintiff with pipe holes in his ears found someone to marry him?  She came to her senses and pawned the ring that he is still paying for.  You know JJ will set her straight.  One gavel.

 

Nasty Friends - What's up with that, you can't attend a birthday party your friend is hosting, so you pay $50 in Western Union fees to send her $350?  What the coconut!  Then she wanted it back because she needed it?  I have no idea.  These two got nasty in the hallterview, so 1.5 gavel.

[SandyToes]

Well, Toaster, dear, it looks I'll be washing windows today. Thanks for clearing my day for me.  :-/

Although, I may try and catch that last halterview. I could take a break then.

 

Gang, we may have to take up a collection for Toaster Strudel to have a spa day or something. There's gotta be a payoff to keep the recaps coming with all the one gavelers. 

[califred]

My station just restarted the truck episode 15 minutes in, so what happened?

[AngelaHunter]

Truck Bail Out - Your semi-vagrant dad sells his truck to bail out your loser boyfriend that steals from cars and gets chased by police.

 

In the Urban Dictionary, under "Epic Fail" will be a group photo of the Ramos/Esperano gangs. Daddy is a bum who lives with HIS mummy and daddy(who probably got sick of him sponging), until his nutty, desperate daughter (21 but looking 35) invites him to camp out in her one bedroom apartment with her and her idiotic, stupid thief/jailbird loser, dull eyed imbecilic boyfriend, with whom she thought it was a capital idea to have a baby. Esperano, have you figured out that running from the police may not be the best course of action, you fucking overfed loser?

 

This dude works at an electronic store and gives his buddies super deep discounts in exchange for cash.  Creative criminal at work!

 

Considering he has the lowest forehead I've ever seen on a human being, it's hardly surprising he got caught stealing from the very people who kindly hired him and paid him a salary. Most shocking moment? Finding out some ridiculous woman somewhere wanted to have THREE kids with this cretin.

 

I had to stop there and take a break from this "All Losers, All the Time" day.

[momtoall]

What can I say?  It's NOT ratings sweeps.

 

 

"All Losers, All the Time" day.

 

Big Bang Theory rerun it will be for me. Thanks for the heads up ...

Edited February 20, 2015 by momtoall

[AngelaHunter]

Big Bang Theory rerun it will be for me.

 

A wise decision. I had to keep stopping to watch segments of the Canadian "Dragon's Den" to remind myself that there is a world where not everyone is a repulsive piece of shit.

 

In my ideal world, there would be way fewer moronic, parasitic breeders who can't exist without being arrested,  drive (an uninsured) car without crashing it, ball-less creeps who owe a zillion dollars in child support, or brutal women beating the crap out of each other over a worthless scumbag on JJ and more shady contract deals and shyster lawyers. I'll even take crazy bitches whose dream car is a '98 Cavalier that doesn't run over any more of the Esperano ilk!

[augmentedfourth]

Considering how desperately attached Crazy Comforter Lady was to hers, I am sure it got all kinds of "usage".

 

The fact that she and JJ are exactly the kind of dickishly pushy customers one would have to deal with is one surefire reason why I have never been tempted to open a business in the service industry.

I fail to see why calling someone out for failing to provide a service they paid for and not having the proper business documentation to keep track of transactions makes them "dickishly pushy". As others have mentioned, some people don't mind treating themselves to nice bed linens. For me, I only use my comforter about four months out of the year and there's always at least a sheet between it and my body, so even if it were a year old, it could have very well been in good condition. But hey, I guess if the woman had dropped her dog off at the groomer and the groomer accidentally gave her dog away to someone else and didn't bother trying to track it down, the woman shouldn't be dickishly pushy and sue, because she can just go get another dog for free at the shelter, right?

 

I had the TV on for all of today's cases...and can barely remember anything about them. Yaaaaaawn. Some of the one-gavel ratings were generous. I miss sweeps week.

[Rick Kitchen]

In the case where the cousin was suing her cousin for money she had loaned him (this was the defendant who can't keep a job because of his criminal record): Doesn't JJ usually say that it can't be considered a debt if the defendant has no expectations of being able to pay it back?  Why didn't that apply in this case?

[SandyToes]

 

Doesn't JJ usually say that it can't be considered a debt if the defendant has no expectations of being able to pay it back?  Why didn't that apply in this case?

See, here is where I start to get confused.  Maybe y'all can teach me again.  Doesn't the show pay the judgements?  There was a case this week (obviously a one gavel, since I recall zero details), where the defendant lost and was furious at having to pay up.  Why? Why do some seem so outraged at having to cough up money, when they don't actually have to?  (Or do they?!)  Some are just angry at losing, money or not, and I get that.

 

And then there are those times, like the one above, where JJ has asked the plaintiff why they expected to be paid back, when the def. clearly has no means to pay/repay. Isn't that why plaintiffs go on the show? To get SOME money? So if the def is too poor to repay, the debt/loan/rent/"gift" just is declared a bed debt, too bad - so sad, and the case gets dismissed? 

 

This is what happens when the cases are too icky to care about. I'm forced into thinking about the mechanics of the show itself. Ack.

(But - hey - my windows look damn fine!)

[Quof]

JJ makes an exception to the "you had no expectation of being repaid" rule when the money is loaned to pay bail, fines, restitution or back child support.   Even if the lender was stupid, she won't allow the rogue to escape their punishment. 

[Florinaldo]

See, here is where I start to get confused.  Maybe y'all can teach me again.  Doesn't the show pay the judgements?  There was a case this week (obviously a one gavel, since I recall zero details), where the defendant lost and was furious at having to pay up.  Why? Why do some seem so outraged at having to cough up money, when they don't actually have to?  (Or do they?!)  Some are just angry at losing, money or not, and I get that.

Many of the litigants behave as if they think themselves to be so completely in the right and standing up for absolute morality and truth, that they can not stand the idea of a ruling going against them for all the world to see.

 

It may even make them forget that they are getting a benefit by not having to shell out the cash themselves, hence their outrage after the decision.

[AngelaHunter]

where the defendant lost and was furious at having to pay up.  Why?

 

It also takes away from the portion the shows pays them, which is why JJ sometimes awards a litigant the whole 5K, even if that amount was not sought. When the other party has done something particularly heinous, she makes sure they get not one penny for their troubles.

[27bored]

In regards to the comforter, the cleaners might give a shirt, a pair of pants or a dress to the wrong customer, but a comforter, I don't think so. I'm thinking that the wifey liked the comforter and took it home.

 

I think so too. I bet she was two seconds away from saying, "but it doesn't even sleep that well!" Because you're right: how in the hell do you accidentally give someone their wrong comforter and nobody realizes a mistake. Blue jeans are a dime a dozen, but a big ass comforter? "Oh, I know you were hear to pick up a pair dockers...HERE'S THIS COMFORTER OOPSIES". Child, bye. They took that shit home.

[AngelaHunter]

Nasty Friends

 

I'm surprised JJ didn't turn to stone from that murderous Basilisk stare she got from the defendant after she had the chutzpah to ask her for the truth. Gee! That's some scary shit.

 

The World of Western Union and Craigslist is one I hope to never enter, not after seeing the kind of people who live there.

[DebbieW]

I'm a few days behind so I haven't seen the Dry Cleaner case, but going by what I've been reading here it sounds like it wasn't the money but the principle of the thing.  MM always says that's what most civil claims boil down to.

 

If the dry cleaner lost my property through his own carelessness, you'd better believe I'd expect him to bend over backwards to make it right.  I don't know how the plaintiff acted at any time during the whole issue, but if you've been negligent in providing the service or caring for my property, you need to bend over and take my attitude. If you act like a dick, things will get really ugly really fast.

 

And any customer who doesn't say "Hey, this isn't mine.  I never brought in a comforter." and takes it home with them anyway isn't going to return it.  It's gone. 

Edited February 21, 2015 by DebbieW

[27bored]

I'm surprised JJ didn't turn to stone from that murderous Basilisk stare she got from the defendant after she had the chutzpah to ask her for the truth. Gee! That's some scary shit.

 

The World of Western Union and Craigslist is one I hope to never enter, not after seeing the kind of people who live there.

 

Probably because she didn't really send the money through Western Union. As for Craigslist, don't knock it till you try it. I'm on there under "Pets". My ad says "COME GET THIS PUSSY". And...I'm not...really selling a pet. But hell it's their fault because took down the Adult section and I can't go to "Strictly Platonic" because a) ew, and b) this is about business and exchanging cash for services rendered so I need not for people to get all judgy and judgmental.

 

I don't know how the plaintiff acted at any time during the whole issue, but if you've been negligent in providing the service or caring for my property, you need to bend over and take my attitude.

 

I agree and everything, but I mainly quoted this to say I like "bend over and take my attitude". Next time I have sexy time I gonna say that and then start singing "Do Not Disturb" by Teyana Taylor and while touching myself. To the beat.

[Florinaldo]

It also takes away from the portion the shows pays them, which is why JJ sometimes awards a litigant the whole 5K, even if that amount was not sought. When the other party has done something particularly heinous, she makes sure they get not one penny for their troubles.

A few weeks ago, an article was linked to which gave a different explanation of the show's mechanics. A former litigant explained that each party gets an honorarium of 500 $ plus travel and lodging expenses, and then whatever award they get. I was puzzled because this contradicts the version we had been told before, the one you describe. I still am not sure which one applies.

[Puffaroo]

Oh hell! In the same episode different case, while JJ is explaining that the defendant is going to get the ring and then pay off the balance who do I see between the plaintiff and the defendant? Googly eyes! She has made it to the front row for this case. 

 

She's everywhere!  She's everywhere!  ;)

[Jamoche]

A few weeks ago, an article was linked to which gave a different explanation of the show's mechanics. A former litigant explained that each party gets an honorarium of 500 $ plus travel and lodging expenses, and then whatever award they get. I was puzzled because this contradicts the version we had been told before, the one you describe. I still am not sure which one applies.

What I've heard is that People's Court was the one that divided a fixed amount between the parties, not JJ.

[AngelaHunter]

Wouldn't Western Union need identification of the person it was sent to, even if you are the one sending it?

 

Nope, which is why WU is the preferred vehicle of Nigerian scammers.

[lovesnark]

Western Union requires the person picking up the money to show ID and they have to have the number that was given to the transaction. If you send someone money and they don't pick it up, you can get it back with proper ID. What nasty friend did was refuse to give other friend the number so she couldn't get the money nasty friend wired. Nasty friend went and canceled the transaction and Western Union has a paper trail of the whole thing so there is no way she could have gotten away with trying to pull a scam claiming she paid back anything.  My theory is she mistakenly believed JJ had no clue how Western Union works and she thought having the document showing she sent money would be enough to cover her hateful ass. I was rather happy to find out JJ is familiar with how the whole thing works and knew what she was trying to pull.

[Blue Plastic]

I've watched so many "back log" JJ episodes on my DVR that I don't know if I'm coming or going anymore.  They all sort of run together!,

 

Anyway, that guy who didn't finish paying for the used salon chairs looked like he should be a character in that Dick Tracy movie from years ago.

 

I don't know the legalities of it, but IMVHO the dry cleaner guy lost the comforter so he can't now try to "name his price" to replace it.  He's not bargaining to buy something from a willing seller.  He promised to clean her comforter but lost it instead, and now he's trying to TELL her how much he thinks it's worth because it's used.  Well yeah, it's used, but she wasn't trying to sell it to him.  She was just trying to get it cleaned.  Now she'll have to go buy another one new.  But like I said, I don't know the legalities of it and something tells me JJ can kind of do her own thing.  I would love to know what's legally correct because often what I think should be correct isn't necessarily so.

 

What did others think about the Crumb Cup couple?  JJ thought they were hustlers.  I didn't get that impression from them but maybe I am naive.  They could be hustlers, but I thought maybe they just didn't realize they needed to keep better logs of everything they were spending the money on for the business.

[AZChristian]

The Crumb Cup couple underestimated their business partner.  He was a lawyer.  Even if they didn't have a lot of stuff in writing that should have been, they agreed that it was an investment.  Investors have the right to see the company's books.  I think the only books this couple had was a checkbook.  They deposited the plaintiff's investment money and any money from sales into the account, and then spent it all on "expenses."

 

Unless there's an agreement up-front that the couple's rent is included in expenses, I don't see how it can be included.  Cost of supplies to produce the product, yep.  But the defendants wanted all of their personal expenses paid and charged to expenses.  They should have been allocated a salary, and paid their rent, etc., out of that.

 

Pretty bad way of doing business, but I do think the Crumb Cup couple was hustling, too.  I'd actually be interested in knowing if there were any other "investors" who were paying in and not getting anything out.

[Blue Plastic]

Oh, I thought they were talking about a rental space for the business.  If they were talking about their personal expenses then yeah, that was way out of line to take that out of the business expenses without some kind of agreement for a personal salary.

[Brattinella]

I understood it was their house rent.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

What nasty friend did was refuse to give other friend the number so she couldn't get the money nasty friend wired. Nasty friend went and canceled the transaction and Western Union has a paper trail of the whole thing so there is no way she could have gotten away with trying to pull a scam claiming she paid back anything.

And in true Estupido fashion. . . the defendant wired the money (probably to show she paid the woman off) and then picked it right back up. . . but it still cost her $50!  So in essence she spent $50 to wire money to . . . . herself. .  

 

Anybody else feeling the need to bang his/her head against the wall in exasperation?

[lovesnark]

And in true Estupido fashion. . . the defendant wired the money (probably to show she paid the woman off) and then picked it right back up. . . but it still cost her $50!  So in essence she spent $50 to wire money to . . . . herself. .  

 

Anybody else feeling the need to bang his/her head against the wall in exasperation?

I don't want to bang my head but it does make me laugh until my side hurts when I spend any time thinking about how stupid the whole failed scam was. I've used Western Union to send  money to my son and every second of the transaction leaves a trail. This dumbass thinking it was worth $50 to attempt to scam her friend cracks me up.

[Blue Plastic]

Hmmm, I thought it was the business rent also. Because I thought it was weird that they could only get a two week rental in the mall. Did I hear that correct? Maybe it was one of those kiosk things that pop up during Christmas. I didn't think they were hustlers until JJ started peeling the layers away. When they were purchasing equipment and computers and keeping that for themselves. 

Now that you mention it, I think there was something about them only being able to pay for 2 weeks, which didn't make sense to me since their whole business objective was to make money selling crumb cakes, and they can't sell crumb cakes without being out there in the public eye.  Something tells me they probably wouldn't be allowed to just sell crumb cakes in the park (or somewhere) for free - they would most likely have to rent a spot and pay for a business license and other fees unless they want to run an internet/mail order business, which would come with its own logistics and challenges I'm sure.

 

So I didn't get why they only did the 2 weeks if they were planning to make this an ongoing business.  Maybe they really were hustlers.

[Trini]

Truck Bail Out - Your semi-vagrant dad sells his truck to bail out your loser boyfriend that steals from cars and gets chased by police.  What do you do when you pop out the baby your criminal lover has fathered?  Of course you stop paying him back.  One gavel.

 

Nasty Friends - What's up with that, you can't attend a birthday party your friend is hosting, so you pay $50 in Western Union fees to send her $350?  What the coconut!  Then she wanted it back because she needed it?  I have no idea.  These two got nasty in the hallterview, so 1.5 gavel.

 

Well, the bail-out case was worth it for JJ talking directly to the camera! That's kinda rare.

 

Nasty friends -- I'd add an extra gavel for the hallterview.