Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Florinaldo]

On 1/28/2020 at 5:45 PM, AlleC17 said:

She had all sort of fake crying histrionics, and stated the dog was euthanized the same week her father passed away.

She was utterly repellent, not only with the fake tears but also with the exaggerated mental confusion and her trying to pass as a victim. That being said, I found the plaintiffs bringing both of their dogs to court to be rather ostentatious; this is not show and tell. The one that got bitten would have been more than enough.

[Florinaldo]

The two feuding neighbours in yesterday's case are the perfect examples of why some people should not be allowed access to big machinery, guns and dangerous tools. They were obviously taking a perverse pleasure in fueling this conflict (there's no good for honking one's truck horn a 2:30 AM, despite the lame justification provided), with a contribution from the defendant's son. I would not be surprised if the plaintiff's silent hard-faced wife also played a role in the situation, for example urging her husband to "assert his manhood".

[Guest]

I was scheduled for work later in the day today (job interview...shhhhh!!!) and am not sure if today's episode was a repeat but what a doozy.  There was even a disclaimer at the beginning due to the "sexual nature and language" offending viewers.  Really?  I'm more offended by skanky behavior and getups the contestants wear.

Skeevy, old tooth challenged man and young girl-with-child-but-not-living-with-her in old man's apartment are spotlighting today's cast..  Lotsa sexual play, touching, inappropriate suggestions...you know the drill.  She owes him for rent and he wants it.

I did laugh when Judges A and D concluded that the plaintiff should get his rent.  Surprise, surprise Judge C saw the defendant as a "poor young girl" who was taken advantaged of by the old guy.  Note:  this "poor young girl" jumped on old man's bed and straddled him while flashing her pompoms. 

Plaintiff did get his money which I suppose was the right judgment but maybe it's me but if I was going to "rent a room" and was greeted at the door by this guy....I'd sooner pitch a tent in the woods, live in my car or find a secluded spot under a I-95 bridge and sleep a lot sounder than in his apartment.  But hey, that's just me.

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by PsychoKlown

[patty1h]

12 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I did laugh when Judges A and D concluded that the plaintiff should get his rent.  Surprise, surprise Judge C saw the defendant as a "poor young girl" who was taken advantaged of by the old guy.  Note:  this "poor young girl" jumped on old man's bed and straddled him while flashing her pompoms. 

I felt the same way - Corriero has a kind heart but he has blinders if he doesn't realize that this isn't some virginal, naive woman fighting off a lecher.   She has a child, a husband and her male boss paying for things for her.  She let this dude pay for her phone and repaid him with favors, if I heard right.  No one put a gun to her head, but I feel sad for her if she feels all she can offer men is her sexuality in order to get a roof over her head or keep her phone in service.

[Florinaldo]

17 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Surprise, surprise Judge C saw the defendant as a "poor young girl" who was taken advantaged of by the old guy. 

He said "she is a child". Once again the mushy side of his legal brains kicked in. She is an adult, who made adult choices. No matter how repellent both litigants may have been, the morality of their conduct was not the issue: the legal obligations were and the other two judges saw that more clearly than JC.

[SRTouch]

Grrrrr, once again Judge C coming in from left field with jonsense ruling.... talking about today's Day care case. P in case runs day care, says she has signed contract - at home on her desk. Then adds she hired a lawyer to go after D for not paying his bills - but has no proof of an attorney and no copies of a single bill. (Though she tries to tell Judge A she presented bills to court, but nooooo nary a bill in stack she presents.) What IS in her stack,of papers are receipts where D made payments. Somehow, Judge C equates proof that D made some payments to D must owe P more money. He can't come up with any idea of how much D owes, but by gosh and golly, fact that he made some payments MUST mean he owes something. Soooo, other two Judges vote to dismiss case as daycare owner has no proof, but Judge Mikey dissents because maybe he owes something - no idea how much, but something.

First case, D in running for most obnoxious non-defense. P has signed contract which states D is to pay $300 upfront before work begins. P hired to produce a commercial for D's business. P begins work before being paid startup money, and in fact submits several drafts which D sends back for revisions. P makes the requested changes. Today in court D denies there was a contract, then denies signing contract - judge A says signature on contract consistent with signature on court papers - when presented with texts where contract is discussed D says maybe his minority business partner signed his name..... no surprise, judges disgusted with D and award P everything he asked for - even suggesting they might have awarded positive damages if P had asked 

[AZChristian]

In today's case, P&D were both in on a deal whereby P would allow adult D to claim her on his income taxes so that the additional refund he got could be used to help pay for a car loan she owed him.  (You can't make this stuff up.)

IMHO, as soon as they brought up this fact in the testimony, all THREE judges should have screamed out "Doctrine of Unclean Hands" and walked off the bench.

[AZChristian]

In today's second case, the "sainted single mother" defense somehow didn't get her out of having to pay for damage that her car door did to the plaintiff's car.

I cracked up when she said, "I told her that I just didn't have any money for extras like paying for her damaged car."  Honey, a big bag of Hershey bars at Sam's Club qualifies as "extras."  Paying a legal responsibility needs to come before your spending for false eyelashes and getting your nails done.  Oh - and car insurance is also VERY important!!!!

[Florinaldo]

15 hours ago, AZChristian said:

In today's second case, the "sainted single mother" defense somehow didn't get her out of having to pay for damage that her car door did to the plaintiff's car.

And Acker called her out on the use of the SSM defense. Which means she had to scramble to find other excuses, all absolutely unconvincing of course.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Florinaldo

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

In today's second case, the "sainted single mother" defense somehow didn't get her out of having to pay for damage that her car door did to the plaintiff's car.

I cracked up when she said, "I told her that I just didn't have any money for extras like paying for her damaged car."  Honey, a big bag of Hershey bars at Sam's Club qualifies as "extras."  Paying a legal responsibility needs to come before your spending for false eyelashes and getting your nails done.  Oh - and car insurance is also VERY important!!!!

P sounded very willing to accept payments  and D just ignored her 

[Carolina Girl]

In the case yesterday regarding the car, did anyone catch a "this smells to high heaven" vibe from the two litigants?  She lives in her car, but ponied up hundreds of dollars to detail it; needed her trunk fixed; he paid for her lunch and dinner, with the added bonus of dinner theater when the plaintiff snotted to Judge Acker, right on cue, getting herself booted from the courtroom.  

The real problem with their having to solicit cases (in addition to combing through small claims filings in California) is that frankly, you get cases like this one, which make NO sense whatsoever.  There's no way this woman filed this in small claims.  

[Chalby]

16 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

The real problem with their having to solicit cases (in addition to combing through small claims filings in California) is that frankly, you get cases like this one, which make NO sense whatsoever.  There's no way this woman filed this in small claims.  

Good post.

I find myself becoming so irate watching cases being presented that are petty and/or involve less than $400. I realize that $175 (or whatever) is a lot of money to some people, but it is NOT enough to justify clogging up our courts. There are so many cases that are filed out of anger, buyer's remorse, and/or revenge.

People need to be accountable for their behaviour - especially jerks who can't see that their dogs are... DOGS! Say what, they behaved in an animalistic manner? My dog doesn't think like that. Or those plaintiffs who feel they can return a used car they bought for $900 because the car has mechanical issues. What do they expect from a used car that is advertised so cheap? Do your research. And finally, stop entertaining cases where a couple want the courts to decide what they should pay $$ for the time when they were together and spent money. GO HOME!

Whew, I needed to get that off my chest.

[Chalby]

On 11/19/2019 at 2:24 PM, AngelaHunter said:

That was excellent. Let him take a good look at his handiwork. Maybe he was secretly proud of it. "I would never damage my car. I LOVE that car." 

These men (who beat women) are such cowards in everyday life. Sure, they're 'tough guys' behind closed doors while terrorizing their family, BUT they are the first to turn tail and run when faced with an equally sized male. These cowards also the first ones crying after receiving a smack in the head from any man who steps in to stop the behaviour.

[AZChristian]

In yesterday's case involving the two unleashed dogs attacking the woman with her leashed dog on her property . . . 

She definitely was due reimbursement for her medical bills and bills for the vet RELATED TO THE ATTACK.

I was really surprised that the judges gave her everything she asked for from the vet bill.  A heartworm treatment and a fecal test had nothing to do with the attack.  I think that while she was at the vet for the injuries, they looked at the dog's records and said, "You're behind on routine tests, treatments, shots.  We should do those while you're here so you don't have to pay for another office visit."

The defendant tried to point out that that was part of their reluctance to pay the whole bill, but all three judges dropped the ball on this one, IMO.

[Carolina Girl]

Yesterday's case regarding that cantankerous jerk and his scooter really got my Irish up, especially regarding Judge Acker.  The woman was SEATED on a damn bench, Acker - in what universe is she required to get up to make room for this nasty old coot who acts like he's in a perpetual bad mood.  She even snotted when the plaintiff told her she was on the phone.  "OH! You were on your PHOOOONE!" as if she had some gall talking on her device and not paying attention and be on the alert for assholes who probably lose their Social Security check at the Blackjack table and then aggressively ride their scooter through a crowd.

And frankly, the video showed that the defendant dirtbag not only didn't give plaintiff any time to move, he didn't give ANYONE time to move.  From where I sat, he wasn't paying any attention to the position of anyone.  He didn't stop, he swerved first into the woman standing by the pillar and then ran completely over the plaintiffs' feet.

He was a dick from start to finish.  And lied through his teeth.  "I tapped her on the shoulder a couple times and asked her to move."  Dude, you never took your damn hands out of your lap and didn't have time to either ask the plaintiff to move or to allow her to do so.

[Florinaldo]

Acker called that wheelchair-bound menace a "precious gem" or something similar. I wonder what she was on that day. He was a lying, selfish and carelees jerk. I would call him a worthless debris of coal.

At least she joined the verdict to award plaintiff the maximum amount.

He's obviously of the type who barrel down sidewalks with not a bit of concern for other people, under the delusion that their handicap gives them ownership of the planet. There used to be one who was a rolling terror on the pedestrian Sparks Street in Ottawa; my strategy to deal with him was to raise my briefcase some distance further in front of me as I saw him approaching. He wisely chose to go around me instead of expecting me to give way, as other pedestrians did (for fear of their safety).

[Guest]

On 2/13/2020 at 10:14 AM, Carolina Girl said:

He was a dick from start to finish.  And lied through his teeth.  "I tapped her on the shoulder a couple times and asked her to move."  Dude, you never took your damn hands out of your lap and didn't have time to either ask the plaintiff to move or to allow her to do so.

 

On 2/13/2020 at 10:57 AM, Florinaldo said:

Acker called that wheelchair-bound menace a "precious gem" or something similar. I wonder what she was on that day. He was a lying, selfish and carelees jerk. I would call him a worthless debris of coal.

I completely agree with Carolina Girl and Florinado so I won't repeat what they said but I would like to add one other thing about Judge Acker...let me preface this by saying she's my favorite judge on this show with Judge DiMango coming in a very close second and Judge Bleeding Heart so far back in the pack he is but a memory.

Anyway, was anyone else stunned/surprised when Judge Acker referred to the Plaintiff's feet as "potatoes"?  Sure they were swollen but wouldn't the word "puffy" suffice?  Potatoes!!  

Still thinking this one through.  And for what it's worth - the old guy wasn't anywhere near a precious gem.  Disgusting, entitled old goat who thinks the world should bow at his motor scooter because he a senior citizen. 

Maybe instead of the shuttle he should pair up with the other People's Court contestant who got in an accident at the Hard Rock Casino.  The other old goat could talk scooter-boy's ears off about the injustice of the "old lady" who dared to continue through the intersection (when she had the right of way) and scooter-boy could grouse about how a lady stuck both of her feet in the way of his scooter.  

Since it's Valentine's Day I will say it....a match made in heaven.

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

On 2/14/2020 at 4:34 PM, PsychoKlown said:

 Disgusting, entitled old goat who thinks the world should bow at his motor scooter because he a senior citizen. 

Horrid, nasty, rude, cantankerous old bugger. I missed the "precious gem" part, but maybe JA is another one, like Judge Milian, who thinks anyone who has managed by sheer luck to get to a certain age is automatically deserving of deference, kindness and respect, no matter how unworthy, hateful and dishonest he/she might be. Wrong. I hope the next person he crashes into overturns his damned chair.

[AZChristian]

45 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Horrid, nasty, rude, cantankerous old bugger. I missed the "precious gem" part, but maybe JA is another one, like Judge Milian, who thinks anyone who has managed by sheer luck to get to a certain age is automatically deserving of deference, kindness and respect, no matter how unworthy, hateful and dishonest he/she might be. Wrong. I hope the next person he crashes into overturns his damned chair.

She said that before he refused to even apologize to the lady whose toe he broke.  I think that changed her mind about him.

I had to use a scooter for a while before my knee replacement.  I experienced the "other" side of that situation.  People who looked at the scooter and figured, "They're slow . . . I can beat them to (wherever we were both headed)."  When we were at the British Museum in London, MORE THAN ONCE people would move in front of me while I was seated, looking at an exhibit!!!  

But this guy was just rude and hostile.  He was plowing past everyone to get to the front of the line.  Considering that they were loading those in wheelchairs first, the driver would likely have directed everyone to move so that he could get past them.  But he wasn't WAITING for anybody or anything.

[patty1h]

While watching the case with Lanita Joseph, the amateur filmmaker, all I could focus on were her big fake teeth.  Those veneers were entirely too big and white.

[Florinaldo]

Plaintiff in today's bad hair cut case said that losing 3 or 4 inches of hair was the most evil thing that was ever done to him, and also that he was "embracing" his hair length before being shorn. He is obviously in need of urgent head care, but not outside of it.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

On 2/24/2020 at 10:15 PM, Florinaldo said:

He is obviously in need of urgent head care, but not outside of it.

I tried to watch this but lasted only 5 minutes. The clipping of his ratty pigtails is a life-altering event? Weaves aren't good enough for him?

[DoctorK]

Please tell me that I didn't really watch an actual grown up woman breaking out in tears over her deceased grandmother's stereo including an eight track player? That was odd enough, but when she pointed out one component in a picture she referred to it as the radio dial - if she had ever really had a close involvement with this stereo wouldn't she have called it the tuner or tuner/amp? Also did she bring up a pair of "beer lamps or signs" that were next to stereo? This whole case smelled wrong to me, but  maybe I am just hard hearted and insensitive.

Edited March 11, 2020 by DoctorK
to be honest, the "maybe" was sort of misleading

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

but  maybe I am just hard hearted and insensitive.

I'm sure you're not, even though I haven't seen this case yet.

I did enoy the scammer plaintiff attempting to rip off the def couple. She says she gave them 50k in cash, to buy their business which is some kind of store. They say she gave them not a dime. She never thought of asking for a reciept when she handed over what must have been a suitcase filled with cash and of course there's no purchase agreement. Everyone operates on the honour system. She wants her money back but is willing to settle for 5k, the limit in small claims, and forget the other 45K. She's a homeless grifter who moves into the store to live and gets ejected by the housing authorities. This caused defs to lose their security deposit on the place and they're countersuing for their 3K. Plaintiff is such an amoral crook and con artist that she inspires even Papa Mike to get really incensed, saying she needs to be arrested. JDiM joins in that by telling her she should get used to standing with her hands behind her back. Of course, the scammer is not fazed by this in the least because she's a scumbag parasite with no conscience whatsoever. Defs are awarded their 3K, plus 2K for the fraud and scam. Plaintiff doesn't give a damn, because this is the way she lives her life. On to the next mark!

Edited March 12, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Please tell me that I didn't really watch an actual grown up woman breaking out in tears over her deceased grandmother's stereo including an eight track player?

Wasn’t  that case a kick in the head?  Crying over 8 track tapes. I believe I have some up in the attic. Wonder if she prefers Pablo Cruise, Andy Gibb or Gordon Lightfoot.

 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm sure you're not, even though I haven't seen this case yet.

I did enoy the scammer plaintiff attempting to rip off the def couple. She says she gave them 50k in cash, to buy their business which is some kind of store. They say she gave them not a dime. She never thought of asking for a reciept when she handed over what must have been a suitcase filled with cash and of course there's no purchase agreement. Everyone operates on the honour system. She wants her money back but is willing to settle for 5k, the limit in small claims, and forget the other 45K. She's a homeless grifter who moves into the store to live and gets ejected by the housing authorities. This caused defs to lose their security deposit on the place and they're countersuing for their 3K. Plaintiff is such an amoral crook and con artist that she inspires even Papa Mike to get really incensed, saying she needs to be arrested. JDiM joins in that by telling her she should get used to standing with her hands behind her back. Of course, the scammer is not fazed by this in the least because she's a scumbag parasite with no conscience whatsoever. Defs are awarded their 3K, plus 2K for the fraud and scam. Plaintiff doesn't give a damn, because this is the way she lives her life. On to the next mark!

Little Miss Scammer has quite a mean streak in her.  My my...defendant “stole” her husbands brother.  I believe it was you Angela who said that sometimes the hallterviews are more interesting than the actual cases.   In this case I think it was equal in interest 

And for Judge Bleeding Heart to even suggest police should be called indicates what a gravy sucking pig she really is because I don’t ever recall him getting that bent out of shape. 
 

Now that’s what I call must see tv. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

37 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

My my...defendant “stole” her husbands brother.

What? I didn't watch the hallterview. I saw the brazen plaintiff yakking and didn't want to hear another word from that psycho. Some grown man got stolen? Rolled up in a rug and kidnapped? Was he in indentured servitude? I could go back and watch but... I won't.

40 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

And for Judge Bleeding Heart to even suggest police should be called indicates what a gravy sucking pig she really is because I don’t ever recall him getting that bent out of shape. 

You're much less profane than am I.😊 But very true we seldom see Papa get so riled. The only other time I recall was when a young punk/thug gave him the middle finger.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

What? I didn't watch the hallterview. I saw the brazen plaintiff yakking and didn't want to hear another word from that psycho. Some grown man got stolen? Rolled up in a rug and kidnapped? Was he in indentured servitude? I could go back and watch but... I won't.

You're much less profane than am I.😊 But very true we seldom see Papa get so riled. The only other time I recall was when a young punk/thug gave him the middle finger.

Yes. Apparently scammer was spewing out all sorts of gossip (of course nothing having to do with her scamming) about defendant. From what I gathered the female defendant was married to someone else while having an affair with the man who is now her husband (and co-defendant). The real gossip is that her current husband and ex husband are brothers. 
 

I missed the “finger” episode.  Officer Sonja should have used her plastic gun on him. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I missed the “finger” episode.  Officer Sonja should have used her plastic gun on him. 

I wouldn't be surprised if someone has used a real gun on him by now.

Loved "Lothario" Barnett, short-armed, inarticulate, dumb felon who has something (well-hidden, at least to my eyes) the ladies find so irresistable one was willing to crash her car into his in order to eliminate the def. who is the rival for his much sought-after affections. Def. borrowed 1900$ from him. He wrote out some sort of illiterate contract to pay him back, but she says he told her to forget it after she agreed not to call the cops on the other car-ramming paramour. Mr. Barnett has good reason not to want no cops involved with him. The judges decided to ignore the IOU, since he continued his wooing of def after the incident and never asked for the money again. Mr. Barnett tried to explain, but his limited vocabulary left him at a loss for words.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Loved "Lothario" Barnett, short-armed, inarticulate, dumb felon who has something (well-hidden, at least to my eyes) the ladies find so irresistable one was willing to crash her car into his in order to eliminate the def. who is the rival for his much sought-after affections. 

Oh him. 

I saw a short clip how women were wrassling in the UK for toilet paper.  One package left and two substantially-sized women were beating the hell out of each other to take home the coveted prize of the bundle.  Double ply.

Philosophically I see "Lothario" Barnett as the 12-roll bundle.  Two women fighting to take him home - not necessarily because they need him now, but perhaps for future use.  Maybe they're thinking  with this coronavirus men may soon be scarce.  You'd have to admit that in the world of toilet paper - this guy would be the last bundle on the shelf.  And for what it's worth...the defendant was actually cute.  Well spoken too.  I don't understand.

I've also noticed that my posts make a lot more sense with a gin and tonic than decaf coffee.  

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, PsychoKlown said:

Two women fighting to take him home - not necessarily because they need him now, but perhaps for future use.

Of what use could Barnett be? He's no Don Juan, not one for flowery romantic declarations, and he's no sugar daddy either, but on the other hand when you see the type of woman who feels he's worth a near-death experience and maybe even more the desperation becomes kind of understandable.

4 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I've also noticed that my posts make a lot more sense with a gin and tonic than decaf coffee.

I wish I could say the same but I always have to fix my posts which get kind of garbled after a few glasses of wine. 😧

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Of what use could Barnett be?

According to my Nana "every pot has a lid".

Maybe the women going after him just spent a couple of decades in prison.   Or lost a bet.

I just know that there are plenty of women out there who will take in/take out anyone just to say they have a man in their life.

Sad, when you think about it.  

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

According to my Nana "every pot has a lid".

My mother used to say, "For every Adam, there's an Eve."  You're right - so many women will take on anything - drunks, abusers, ex-cons, and druggies -  in order to not be alone. Hey, women wanted to marry Ted Bundy while he was in prison.

Barnett is just a petty little run-of-the-mill loser, of a type we see all too often on these shows. That pathetic women will fight for his hand  - and the hands of the ton of other losers we see -  gives him no reason to change or to think he's not a prime catch. I can't really blame him. He's treated like a trashy rock star with his own gaggle of groupies. The psychology of all of it eludes me, but you get what you pay for and these women are not victims.

 

[SRTouch]

Another strong contender for most dysfunctional family in like - forever. Granny breaks her leg after a fall and calls on daughter and adult grand daughter for help while she's in rehab. Granny had 2 dogs, a pit and a little 8yo pug/service dog. Grand daughter insists granny called her up on day she broke her leg (either while she's still on the floor or while waiting for surgery), asking that grand daughter rehome her dogs. Granny says no, she knew she needed to rehome the pit because it had never been lease trained, but she would NEVER agree to rehome get Baby, the 8yo pug. While Granny is stuck in rehab, daughter tries to pressure her into signing over granny's vehicle - took the truck but returned it when police got involved - daughter went through her stuff, stealing all kinds of stuff, including paper towrls, toilet paper and even her bed. Granny seeking thousands in stolen property and for the loss of her dogs. Dear daughter and grand daughter, OTOH, are asking for 5 grand for...... well, granny was a druggy and a lousy mom back in the day. Grand daughter put both dogs on CL and gave away granny's pups.Judges have hard time getting these motor mouths to STFU, and grand daughter gets booted, brought back in, and should have been booted a second time...... granny gets $500 and daughter gets zip

Edited April 6, 2020 by SRTouch

[Carolina Girl]

On 4/6/2020 at 2:40 PM, SRTouch said:

Another strong contender for most dysfunctional family in like - forever. Granny breaks her leg after a fall and calls on daughter and adult grand daughter for help while she's in rehab. Granny had 2 dogs, a pit and a little 8yo pug/service dog. Grand daughter insists granny called her up on day she broke her leg (either while she's still on the floor or while waiting for surgery), asking that grand daughter rehome her dogs. Granny says no, she knew she needed to rehome the pit because it had never been lease trained, but she would NEVER agree to rehome get Baby, the 8yo pug. While Granny is stuck in rehab, daughter tries to pressure her into signing over granny's vehicle - took the truck but returned it when police got involved - daughter went through her stuff, stealing all kinds of stuff, including paper towrls, toilet paper and even her bed. Granny seeking thousands in stolen property and for the loss of her dogs. Dear daughter and grand daughter, OTOH, are asking for 5 grand for...... well, granny was a druggy and a lousy mom back in the day. Grand daughter put both dogs on CL and gave away granny's pups.Judges have hard time getting these motor mouths to STFU, and grand daughter gets booted, brought back in, and should have been booted a second time...... granny gets $500 and daughter gets zip

Daughter's comment "she always wanted me to have it."  I would have assumed that meant AFTER she had gone on to her reward - I seriously doubt she told her to go help herself to anything in the house she wanted while she was laid up.  Granny was no saint, but that daughter and her spawn would NOT shut up even after being repeatedly told by the judges to do so.  And she SO appropriated that truck.   

[AZChristian]

Today's defendant was a piece of work in more ways than one.

• She threatened the plaintiff landlord with a gun if the plaintiff tried to do an inspection before the defendant moved out.  Because in Oklahoma, you have the right to STAND YOUR GROUND.  Hey, Dummy.  It wasn't YOUR ground.  It was HERS.
• Her bank account was frozen by the state of Wisconsin.  That may have been because she pleaded guilty there to using someone else's identity to bilk the state out of welfare money, food stamps, etc.
• She was accused in today's court case of running a puppy mill.  She admitted to having one dog and two cats.  The garage was full of dog cages.  Oh . . . and if you google her, she lists herself as - wait for it - a puppy breeder. 

It's a good thing the case wasn't on Judge Judy, though.  The plaintiff had one of those unfortunate complexions that makes your neck and chest turn bright red when you're under stress.  Judge Judy's unshakable opinion is that it's an indication that you are lying.

Verdict for the plaintiff for the full $5,000.

[Guest]

On 4/24/2020 at 7:34 PM, AZChristian said:

Today's defendant was a piece of work in more ways than one.

• She threatened the plaintiff landlord with a gun if the plaintiff tried to do an inspection before the defendant moved out.  Because in Oklahoma, you have the right to STAND YOUR GROUND.  Hey, Dummy.  It wasn't YOUR ground.  It was HERS.
• Her bank account was frozen by the state of Wisconsin.  That may have been because she pleaded guilty there to using someone else's identity to bilk the state out of welfare money, food stamps, etc.
• She was accused in today's court case of running a puppy mill.  She admitted to having one dog and two cats.  The garage was full of dog cages.  Oh . . . and if you google her, she lists herself as - wait for it - a puppy breeder. 

It's a good thing the case wasn't on Judge Judy, though.  The plaintiff had one of those unfortunate complexions that makes your neck and chest turn bright red when you're under stress.  Judge Judy's unshakable opinion is that it's an indication that you are lying.

Verdict for the plaintiff for the full $5,000.

The defendant had a thick neck, sharp jawline and beady eyes.   

The plaintiff better watch her back.  Defendant has a gun and is itching to use it.

[Florinaldo]

11 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

The plaintiff better watch her back.  Defendant has a gun and is itching to use it.

I am so glad that in Canada we don't have those absurd "stand your ground" statutes, which are a perfect opportunity for abuse by people like her who will stretch them beyond any reasonable limit. Not that we do not have our own gun-toting crazies, as the people in Nova Scotia found out only over a week ago.

In yesterday's dog case, a think there was definite abuse of the animal... by the defendant, for putting the poor little critter in that silly Santa frock. Neither litigant was a good home in my view, and the plaintiff is another specimen of those litigants who do not understand the terms of the arbitration agreement they have signed ("I want to appeal this judgement your honor!" blustered he, but the judges ignored him of course).

 

[DoctorK]

Hope some of you guys got to see the micro-blading "instructor", what a piece of work. I can't really do justice to the whole case but some of the highlights were:

Defendant sold the plaintiff a 25 hour (5 hours a day for 5 days) course in micro blading to meet from Noon to 5 PM on five consecutive days. Turns out that she is running her class in the lobby of a hotel, doesn't show up on time, starts one of the classes at 5 PM, doesn't do the whole five hours, among other things.

Judge Di Mango almost loses it and flat out calls the defendant a flim-flam artist after the defendant held up a fat pretty binder to prove that she wasn't a flim-flam operation.

The defendant repeatedly responded to questions with "Listen!" to the judge (no-one called her out on that) and talked over the judges in a raised voice.

Defendant blamed all of the issues (hotel lobby, late arrivals, short sessions) on something that allegedly happened to her when her husband left her/filed for divorce/evicted her/took away her studio space or something, this was never made clear.

The final touch was as the plaintiff and defendant walked out, the defendant literally shoved her way past the plaintiff who was walking ahead of her.

Not surprisingly, the hallterview confirmed that the defendant was a hustler and not wrapped very tight.

[Carolina Girl]

Piece.  Of.  Work. 

[AZChristian]

Googled her. Aspiring singer.  Dreams of grandeur. 

[Carolina Girl]

11 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Googled her. Aspiring singer.  Dreams of grandeur. 

I'd LOVE to know the details of the other lawsuits that were filed against her.  $10 says it was for the same thing.  Pay in advance, "oh, there's a problem with my regular location" and not doing 25 hours of training.  I think Judge DiMango was right - she's a flim-flam artist.  She only does this "training" when she gets someone on the hook for the course.  

Was she based in Los Angeles?  

 

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

Was she based in Los Angeles?  

Yes.  I believe in confidence and self-promotion, but she takes it to a whole new level. 

Here's a direct quote from her website.  (I especially love the sentence I bolded.)

"Born and raised in Southern California, it was only natural for Melissa to gravitate towards the arts. Born into a family of artists; mother a cosmetologist/salon owner, father, a fine artist/technical illustrator, and sister, master makeup instructor/medical aesthetician. The arts, and beauty industry was waiting for Melissa to accept her calling. However, she would soon find herself on center stage performing theatrical productions written by August Wilson. Her passion for music lead her right to Dr. Dre where she was featured on a track and her vocals were booming out of radio waves world wide. After becoming a mother, she set aside her musical aspirations to pursue a career where the influences she grew up with could be utilized. This is when she found and fell in love with the art of Microblading, permanent makeup, and Scalp Pigmentation for Hairline Restoration. Due to Melissa’s background in the entertainment industry, Melissa has an unending list of celebrity friends like Claudia Jordan, Lamar Odom, and Eric Dickerson who are now her clients at Worth It Salon & Spa. She cares deeply about her clients and giving them VIP quality treatments, products, services, and attention. Worth It Salon & Spa can accommodate celebrity clients and anyone else with 24-hour scheduling availability."

 

[Carolina Girl]

Checked her BBB complaints - yesterday's litigant's was up there - and there are two others for the same thing.  

She calls the complaints a "witch hunt" by former students.  She's a delusional twit.  I wonder why the plaintiff's friend recommended her??

[AngelaHunter]

Haven't seen the case you all are talking about (but will now!) but did watch the couple suing def. for breaching their contract to buy her house for 520K(approx)

Def claims she was her right to cancel her contract with them and sell to a buyer offering more if they failed to provide proof to her they could drop the contingency to sell their house before buying hers and they want the deposit back. They hand up the documents they sent her. Papa Mike hit the nail on the head and said to def. "You cancelled the contract because you weren't able to understand the documents they sent you." Def says, "Okay" with a little shrug, as though it's just a minor detail and not what the whole case rests upon.  She says she Googled to try and figure out what she was looking at and apparently still couldn't get it. "It's not "okay"", Judge C tells her. She still cannot or refuses to understand that what she did was very wrong. She Googled! How could it be wrong??

[Carolina Girl]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Haven't seen the case you all are talking about (but will now!) but did watch the couple suing def. for breaching their contract to buy her house for 520K(approx)

Def claims she was her right to cancel her contract with them and sell to a buyer offering more if they failed to provide proof to her they could drop the contingency to sell their house before buying hers and they want the deposit back. They hand up the documents they sent her. Papa Mike hit the nail on the head and said to def. "You cancelled the contract because you weren't able to understand the documents they sent you." Def says, "Okay" with a little shrug, as though it's just a minor detail and not what the whole case rests upon.  She says she Googled to try and figure out what she was looking at and apparently still couldn't get it. "It's not "okay"", Judge C tells her. She still cannot or refuses to understand that what she did was very wrong. She Googled! How could it be wrong??

She was a real piece of work.  She "Googled" 401K plans and this is what they told her.  Uh, Toots - every 401K has different standards for loans and withdrawals.  In terms of house buying, you apparently didn't know that many 401K plans allow you to get a LOAN to finance the purchase of a home - some plans will allow up to half the vested amount in your account.  The reason for doing this is that it does not show up on a credit report as a liability.  This would negate the payment of taxes and penalties, and you pay the interest back to yourself.  

Oh, and a rollover IRA and a 401K are NOT the same thing.  YOU administer a rollover IRA; your EMPLOYER administers a 401K.  Chances are she Googled rollover IRA and learned that it's a vehicle for people to house their 401K funds from a previous employer and keep the tax breaks that a 401K provides.  

She was a fucking MORON.  

[SRTouch]

5 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

She was a real piece of work.  She "Googled" 401K plans and this is what they told her.

The Internet is NOT the ultimate resource she apparently thinks it is. Just because Google says so, does not make it so. Then to compound the error, she holds to what she THINKS she read online despite being told it ain't so by 3 people with actual law degrees....... 

Quote

She was a fucking MORON.  

not only a moron, but a thoughtless moron who cherry picked phrases from her online DIY real estate contract (for a freaking half million dollar property) and when told her understanding of law was wrong answers "OKAY, but......" and continues to argue. But then she wasn't the only one who acted stupidly in this deal. Plaintiffs have enough money to pay for the house without selling their old house first - but apparently not enough to insist on running this DIY contract by a lawyer. And what about the realtor? The realtor was the 'professional' who should have been guiding the sale, but sounds like he was asleep at the wheel.

An alternate theory is that D is just a greedy b*tch who knew exactly what she was doing and, as Judge DiM said, was willing to screw Ps over for the extra money other buyer was willing to pay. Then when P didn't just slink off to lick  their wounds and took her to court, she comes up with this nonsense as a last ditch defense.  When I heard she waited until Friday as banks were closing to notify P that she was using her discretion to void their contract unless they came up with alternate financing - pretty much an impossibility at 3 pm on a Friday afternoon ........ well, yeah, I think she's a greedy b*tch

Edited May 13, 2020 by SRTouch

[Carolina Girl]

Oh man....that defendant in the case yesterday.  I don't know where to begin.  "If I were abusive like she says, she wouldn't have stayed with me."  DiMango shut that asshole up QUICK!  Hell, I've never seen a defendant piss off all three of the judges to the extent this walking turd did.

Is letting witness friend crash on the couch rent free and then brings the dude to court to "testify" for him in the case of her being arrested for domestic violence (this is after SHE called the police and it looks like the turd got a lip wound before they could get there).  Oh, and the magnanimous dick "dropped" the charges because "she's my girlfriend."  Judges saw through that bullshit because they didn't even ask freeloading friend to testify about the incident (and I wouldn't have believed him anyway).

Judge Corriero did us proud today.  Dude said he had NEVER been this certain of his verdict the minute they got into chambers.  Gave plaintiff the full $5,000 and I'm hoping everyone who saw this louse on TV and knows his drops him immediately.  

 

[Florinaldo]

In the yesterday's clingy pushy roommate case, I got the feeling that the plaintiff might have been motivated to sue because of frustration at having a crush on her colleague in whose home she moved, which could not be reciprocated because he is gay. Perhaps she also had a desire to become his female BFF (what used to be called a "fag hag"). She certainly had not problem trying to get rid of potential obstacles like his husband and even his cats, suggesting he get rid of them (because of her allergies).

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

In the yesterday's clingy pushy roommate case, I got the feeling that the plaintiff might have been motivated to sue because of frustration at having a crush on her colleague in whose home she moved, which could not be reciprocated because he is gay. Perhaps she also had a desire to become his female BFF (what used to be called a "fag hag"). She certainly had not problem trying to get rid of potential obstacles like his husband and even his cats, suggesting he get rid of them (because of her allergies).

Oh my, she was something, wasn't she? First, as JA and JDiM both point out, how could anyone claim that a condition for moving in was that D would not reconcile with his partner..... not saying D may not SAY abuser partner was gone for good, but for P to actually accept as guaranteed fact? Nah, as JDiM  said, that's a revolving door seen way to often in abuse cases to accept.... clincher for me was her request that he rehome his pets when she moved in. WTF Lady!?! Anyone, guest or roommate, who moves in with me is told that this is my critters' home - if you don't like cats, birds and/or rats, don't bother to unpack (no longer have birds, Sunny the cocktail died years ago 😢) Even Judge Mike couldn't find anything good to say about her.

[SRTouch]

Today's new case is another long time tenant being sued by landlord. Yesterday we had a 13 year tenant being sued on TPC. Today we see a tenant being sued after 16 years (and landlord admits she has done NO maintenance in 10 years). So, we start out by saying that after 16 years, during which Landlord admits no maintenance was done, P is going to really have to come up with something. Oh, and it sounds like when Tenant moved out the landlord did not provide the itemized list of damages. We're missing some of the back story here as it seems things were bad enough at the end that P hired a lawyer to start eviction proceedings and the housing court let Tenant stay an extra 2 months because her partner was hospitalized (and we learn in hallterview died)...... has nothing to do with merits of case, but Judge D explains that reason name on case and the lease are not the name defendant is going by in court because she's a long-time Transgender who was male 16 years ago but has been iving as a female for years - like I said, doesn't effect case any, but I find it troubling when P knows so little about her tenant that today is first time they're meeting........ ok, over the years tenant did a few things which landlord says had to be undone when she moved out, but come on, sounds like she's nickel and dime-ing and still coming out ahead........ 1 thing tenant can't get away from, her rent was $1500 a month and she only paid $600 the last 2 months she was there - landlord did keep deposit, but it was so long ago they don't agree how much was paid....... ok, soon as Judge Mike starts he brings it back to the 'no itemized list of damages'......... kinds of rubs me wrong when I hear P refer to the D as 'him,' though she does correct herself and say 'her', then P does it again in hallterview without the correction - it shouldn't be that hard, lady, the defendant is obviously dressed as a woman so use the appropriate pronouns (even if she does remind me of Mrs Doubtfire - complete with Robin Williams manly arms/hands)....... another issue D raises, she had an arrangement with P's handyman to keep some of her expensive tools...... dang sounds like she had regular woodhop in garage........ and property in exchange for handyman helping her move and cleanup afterward she was out (handyman agrees she left the tools) - now P is including some of that work as damages in her complaint..... just so happens, P brought the handyman as a witness, so Judge A calls him up and he denies accepting the property on landlord's behalf, but agrees he accepted for himself as payment from tenant for his work - and the next thing we hear is that she left her fridge and gave handyman the freezer full of food - Judge A gets a little miffed as she tries to ask about the fridge and P interrupts saying she doesn't want it, but her ad on zillow pictures the fridge - again, tenant being honest says fridge isn't worth much, but P IS using it as marketing get tool in ad to sell the property........ ah ha, that's probably why they started feuding, tenant's long time partner in hospital and landlord in big hurry for her to leave so she can remodel and put place on market....... sort of question whether or not handyman got paid for the clean up twice, but he does say he accepted the property in payment for cleanup (and tenant clearly appreciates his help) - if he did get paid twice for same work P'beef should be with him not the tenant.........  ok, a quick deliberation - no damages, tenant admitted from outset that she owed rent which totaled $3600. Problem is, they disagree on deposit amount, and whether or not any of the deposit should go towards damages. Everybody agreed D already paid $600, judges saw no damages and accept D's testimony that deposit was 2 grand - P awarded 1 grand rent, nothing in damages

Edited May 21, 2020 by SRTouch