Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

Papa does it again. Nasty old lady is suing def for his share of the cost to redo an easement road in their private development. According to her, his share is approx 2500$ and he hasn't paid a cent. Def says he never uses the easement since the old lady and her son have always prevented him from doing so. He had people working on his property and parking their vehicles on the easement road and old lady's Sonny Boy came out and chased them away. Def always uses his driveway that goes directly to the main road rather than listen to the old dragon bitching. P says the homeowners had a meeting to decide to pay for repaving the easement and D says he was never even invited to this meeting. P shows the judges an article that discusses who pays for upkeep of the private road but JDiM reads the last clause that states that in case of someone who seldom or never uses it, payment will be proportionate. Def never used it, so logically his  payment is zero.

When coming to a verdict, JDiM and JA are in agreement that he owes nothing, but Papa, who feels for the poor little old lady,  wastes all kinds of time by ignoring the last clause and saying D did use the easement maybe once a year so he needs to pay the nasty old lady. More time is wasted as the other two try to get it into his head that since D never uses it and couldn't have caused the damage he owes nothing, BUT, Papa Mike thinks that if D might use it in the future, he should pay now. I could see the other two doing mental eyerolls as they disabuse him of this nutty notion. Yeah, if he decides to start using it every day, after 25 years of not doing so, THEN he can pay his share the next time the road needs redoing.

The old lady is the kind I'm sure everyone knows - she sits in her window all day, checking to see if anyone is parking somewhere she doesn't like, or planting the wrong kind of flowers, or painting a fence in a prohibited colour so she can charge out there and squawk.

[Florinaldo]

From her attitude and general demeanor, I think it was clear that this plaintiff was the self-designated Monarch of the Easement, arbitrarily deciding who is allowed to do what and when.

Each time she contradicted an answer or statement from the defendant, I felt she was lying.

The episode of her flinging snails at him and his construction workers sounded very plausible, despite her denials. It's the kind of bizarre detail I do not think he would have had the necessary imagination to invent.

As for Corriero, his argument in her favour was barely half-hearted. He said in the end that he was going through it as a sort of devil's advocate (junior grade if you ask me), just to make sure it had been explored and justifiably dismissed.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

The episode of her flinging snails at him and his construction workers sounded very plausible

I have no doubt at all she did that, as she sits there adamantly denying it and trying to look feeble. I bet she's out there every day vengefully hunting down and smashing snails. As you say, it's not something anyone would make up. He'd be more likely to say she was flinging pebbles if he were lying.

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

He said in the end that he was going through it as a sort of devil's advocate

That's fine, but he needs to make sense while doing it. Since when do courts order people to pay now for something they may possibly do in the future? He made himself sound ridiculous. He reminded me of an ex-friend who lived to be contrary. She would argue that the sky is not blue.

[Carolina Girl]

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

From her attitude and general demeanor, I think it was clear that this plaintiff was the self-designated Monarch of the Easement, arbitrarily deciding who is allowed to do what and when.

She reminded me of that old bat on "Parking Wars" that verbally assaulted the parking officer for rightfully ticketing double parkers, yelling him to "get off my street" and calling the cops on him, only to be told by the cops that he was doing his job.  I have absolutely NO trouble believing that she conducted herself in the manner that the defendant described.  And I think she sent "Sonny Boy" out there to deal with the construction workers, who would have probably told HER to get stuffed.  And she's the same type of tyrannical bitch that runs homeowners' associations.

I also have no trouble believing that SHE was the one responsible for inviting people to the meeting at her house and deliberately left the defendant off the list.  She probably read that civil code statute in advance4 and figured it wouldn't matter if he agreed to or not and didn't want her atrocious behavior brought up in front of others.  Also, I don't recall that she advised him what the bill WOULD be in advance, only what his share was AFTER the remediation had been done.

I had a neighbor that did that.  He wanted his entire fence replaced and went to each neighbor that adjoined the property (four of us) and gave us the estimate and told us what OUR share was going to be.  I read the estimate over and asked him why he was included gate construction and hardware on MY estimate, since our mutual fence had no gate.  I asked him who would be doing the construction and he said his father-in-law.  I told him he needed to provide two more estimates and I'd be willing to pay my share of the LOWEST estimate.   Oh, and he attempted to include tree removal as well.  I called my handyman and asked what he'd charge me to replace the 20' strip of fence between my property and the clod's.  He said $700.00 total.  I then brought the asshole a check for $350 and told him to take me to court if he wanted any more than that.  As it turns out, I was the ONLY neighbor that paid him anything (because the fence did need repair and I was happy to pay the fair price).  The neighbors on either side of him told him if he wanted a new fence he could pay for it himself.  

[patty1h]

Pandemic Brings Out the Worst in People -  JoAnn Gonzalez rented out bedrooms in her mobile home, against the trailer parks rules, and didn't get along with her roommate Teresa Swan.   After two weeks, Gonzalez was kicking out Swan but refused to refund her for the rent she'd already paid.  Then the nasty texts started flying.   Looking at these two middle-aged women, you wouldn't believe the venom and nastiness seen in their texts back and forth - Swan looked like a meek librarian or ex-nun (and she was wearing a crucifix necklace) and Gonzalez looked like... a lunch lady?   But man, those biddies could text-snipe at each other, about obesity, being undesirable, smelling like cigarette smoke, smelling like booze, trying to trap stray cats(!), not cleaning the spider webs out of the corners, treating your roommate like a cleaning lady, etc.  

The judges had a little sympathy for Gonzalez, who is on SSI/disability and was renting for the extra income, etc. during the pandemic.  However, Gonzalez made herself unlikable because she didn't want to see that she was breaking the parks regulations and trying to make it look like Swan was her live-in helper instead of a paying tenant to circumvent the rules.  She was full of excuses why she shouldn't have to pay back the money she received on her illegal rental but the judges soon gave her the facts.   

In the post-case interview, these two women were still slinging mud at each other, talking about karma and the drama in the house... all for less than $300 in returned rent.

Edited March 31, 2021 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

Pandemic Brings Out the Worst in People

I'm sure the sneaky, lying def was renting out rooms in her mobile home long before the pandemic. She seems to feel that because she's on SSI that she needn't follow the rules others have to follow. "I want the extra money" is not an excuse. The mobile home park has the rule against renting rooms for a reason. They need to know who is living there, and that these tenants aren't convicted felons since that would create a huge liability for them. Def doesn't bother with such formalities as a crimnal check before moving just anyone in and is entitled, so needn't pay heed to the rules she knows very well and chose to ignore.

So no one needs repay anything owed if the person they owe it to is annoying or sends nasty texts? Def is a "poor me" mealy-mouthed scammer who has probably done this more than once. She knows how to work the system by calling her tenant her "aide" or housekeeper who she wanted to clean her place for the princely sum of 50$ a month off the rent but she didn't even do that. She "was going to do it"someday but well, she didn't. All her tenants are there to do work for her for pennies, and keep their mouths shut about it. I found her despicable.

She's just lucky that none of them have done nothing worse to her than complain and she said that some guy she has living there is "a problem". Good. If I invited a bunch of strangers to bunk in my house I hardly think I'd be shocked that everything wasn't sunshine and lollipops.

[Carolina Girl]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

So no one needs repay anything owed if the person they owe it to is annoying or sends nasty texts? Def is a "poor me" mealy-mouthed scammer who has probably done this more than once.

Also I'm willing to bet that NO tenant ever performed the "light housekeeping" bullshit to her satisfaction, either, so they never got that discount.  

[Guest]

Nine children.  Nine.  9.  Nine children.

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Nine children.  Nine.  9.  Nine children.

 

Is this a preview of today's ep? I already don't like it.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Is this a preview of today's ep? I already don't like it.

Brace yourself, the defendant is even worse than this may sound. Sainted Single Mother of NINE!

[AngelaHunter]

32 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Brace yourself, the defendant is even worse than this may sound. Sainted Single Mother of NINE!

Haven't watched it yet - needed to make an urgent trip to buy bagels and cream cheese - but I'm assuming this SSM has a lucrative career than enables her to support this gaggle of children and an ex-husband who pays a hefty amount of child support? J/K. 😏

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Haven't watched it yet - needed to make an urgent trip to buy bagels and cream cheese - but I'm assuming this SSM has a lucrative career than enables her to support this gaggle of children and an ex-husband who pays a hefty amount of child support? J/K. 😏

Also brace yourself for the reveal that she borrowed cash off her aunt - and surprise, surprise says “it wasn’t a loan” and Auntie “got a lot of money”.   Yes, she got money...for cancer treatments.

Nine kids and she’s stealing from a woman who’s sick.

And we think Harvey is scum...there might be a new contender.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Also brace yourself for the reveal that she borrowed cash off her aunt - and surprise, surprise says “it wasn’t a loan” and Auntie “got a lot of money”.   Yes, she got money...for cancer treatments.

That's the usual mentality of litigants. If they think someone has a "whole lot of money", is a rich landlord or drives a BMW it means they should give money to deadbeats if they "know my situation." Birth control is so much cheaper than raising 9 kids - well, for litigants who actually pay for and do raise their own kids and we don't see that very often. Someone has to take care of my kids! I just squirt them out from my clown car uterus every time I spread for some MIA loser !

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

And we think Harvey is scum...there might be a new contender.

At least Levin supports himself and isn't hitting up Byrd. That his income is derived from BEING scum is a whole other thing, but yeah, he's a strain of virulent pond scum and proud of it.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm assuming this SSM has a lucrative career than enables her to support this gaggle of children and an ex-husband who pays a hefty amount of child support?

Surely you jest, and I will stop calling you Shirley from now on. (for anyone who missed, this is a shout out to Leslie Nielsen in Airplane)

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Also brace yourself for the reveal that she borrowed cash off her aunt

Okay, I just tried this. I did get through JA banging her gavel to try and make this massive breeder beast STFU, stop sassing her and blabbing on, as though P thought this was some street brawl, and as I tried to imagine the caliber of sperm donor(s) who wanted to hit that over and over.  I managed to even get as far as hearing JDiM inform her that squatting and squirting out NINE kids is no defense for not repaying a loan.  When we found out she's in patient care(!!) and this "wasn't never no loan" I had enough.

That you got through this is a testament to perseverance. I salute you.

Patient care. She cares for patients. I went and took some more vitamins.

Her aunt still loves her.

[Guest]

On 4/3/2021 at 5:28 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Her aunt still loves her.

Something, ain’t it. 

I would be willing to bet handsomely that Auntie will be subjected to another call, another sob story (who the hell knows, maybe even another great niece/nephew) and will loan her fertile niece more money from her recent tax refund.  However, in this transaction Auntie will insist that niece pay her back as soon as niece gets her tax refund.  Fertile Myrtle verbally conversates that she will indeed, pay her Auntie back when she gets extra money. (Wink, wink...we court show viewers know what this little catchphrase means).  Too bad Auntie doesn’t use the old toilet paper/crayon receipt maneuver or Harvey’s famous “time is of the essence” trick.  

And what’s that saying, lather, rinse and repeat?

[AZChristian]

13 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Fertile Myrtle verbally conversates that she will indeed, pay her Auntie back when she gets extra money. (Wink, wink...we court show viewers know what this little catchphrase means).  

Judge Mathis (whose show is no longer on) used to say, "Do you know what it means when someone promises to pay you back with their tax refund?  YOU AIN'T GETTING PAID!!!!"

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Judge Mathis (whose show is no longer on) used to say, "Do you know what it means when someone promises to pay you back with their tax refund?  YOU AIN'T GETTING PAID!!!!"

Absolutely.  

But the phrase “when I have it” is a loophole unto itself.  How many judges side with the idea “they don’t have it now”.  Awful.

And on a side note I sure would like to know what it’s like to get a tax refund check.  Every year we owe federal taxes.

I guess that’s the privilege of living in Massachusetts.  Don’t get me started.

 

[Taeolas]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Judge Mathis (whose show is no longer on) used to say, "Do you know what it means when someone promises to pay you back with their tax refund?  YOU AIN'T GETTING PAID!!!!"

 

Actually his show is still going on, including through the pandemic. And yes, he still laughs whenever a litigant says they expected to be paid from the tax refund; it's one of his tropes, like JMM's on TPC's "Time for a little rough justice". 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

And on a side note I sure would like to know what it’s like to get a tax refund check.  Every year we owe federal taxes.

I got a whoppin' big refund, but I'm still not paying you back. You know my situtation.

[AZChristian]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

And on a side note I sure would like to know what it’s like to get a tax refund check.  Every year we owe federal taxes.

We live in Arizona and during the "empty nest" times when we were "DINKs" (Double Income, No Kids), we paid through the nose for federal taxes as well.

Now that we're retired and sold our house, we're into the 1040 with standard deduction and refunds every year.  Such a welcome change in April.

[AngelaHunter]

Today we got "I'm a SINGLE MOTHER" muddled dingbat who wanted some old car from OfferUp or whatever. Her Howdy Doody boyfriend is a mechanic. They went together to look at the car, which was being sold way under book value (Def is another dingbat who apparently had about 7600$ into the this electric car and sold it for 2600$ because he finally realized too late he didn't know anything about electric cars) examined it, test drove it, and Howdy looked under the hood - P claims the seatbelts were cut, but the seats were very nice -  but apparently his mechanic skills aren't that great, since the beater died.

It's an as-is sale, but P thinks that being a Single Mother overrides any of that law stuff, plus the D stated in his ad that it was "an everyday car!" so that should mean she can drive it EVERY DAY, AND she  TOLD the Def she was a SINGLE MOTHER!  Yes, exceptions and special consideration should be made for your bad judgement. I couldn't be bothered finishing this nonsense and think maybe the Single Mother should sue her goofy boyfriend, since he's the expert and told her to buy the thing.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

the this electric car

That confused me. If it was an electric car why was there discussion of it having a "throttle body" problem? Electric cars don't have a throttle body, did I miss something?

 

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

That confused me. If it was an electric car why was there discussion of it having a "throttle body" problem? Electric cars don't have a throttle body, did I miss something?

It was probably a hybrid - electric and gas.  We had a Vue (NOT a hybrid), and it ran wonderfully for years.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

It was probably a hybrid - electric and gas.  We had a Vue (NOT a hybrid), and it ran wonderfully for years.

Did they have such cars in 2008? I have no idea.

I figured I'd watch the rest of this debacle. The seatbelts were cut and in a photo JDiM says it looks like there is blood on them, maybe from an accident in which the passengers had to be cut out of them but who knows? Surprisingly, JDiM is most on board with this SSM thing - "She bought the car to transport her CHILDREN and she couldn't with no seat belts". Let mechanic Anthony chauffeur them around?

She also wants to know why Def was willing to take a 4300$ loss on this sale. His answer is stellar: "The car devalues in appreciate after you buy it." He denies any knowledge of cut seat belts and put a seat cover in the rear to hide the fact. He says the seat belts were fine for the 8 months he had the car, so the Ps must have cut them after they bought it.

This all causes quite an argument as they make a decision. JDiM is all for giving the Ps all their money back because Def hid this defect. Papa Mike agrees at first, saying even if it's "as is" it has to fit to drive and this car isn't. JA is totally against returning the money since the Ps had every opportunity to check everything in the car and didn't. She said they can buy new seat belts. Papa Mike then agrees with her, so the Ps get nothing. Papa Mike sternly admonishes the D, saying if he lied then karma will get him. D seems unfazed by that even though he's a liar.

I guess proclamations of single motherhood get you only so far.

[AZChristian]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Did they have such cars in 2008? I have no idea.

Yes . . . I didn't know it myself until I googled it yesterday while looking for info on this case.

IMO, the "didn't look under the seat covers" defense doesn't hold water any better than "I'm just a silly female who doesn't understand car stuff."  This one took a mechanic with her (useless as he seems to have been).  Mechanics care about the engine.  It was up to her to spend time checking out everything else.  I understand her frustration, but - as Judge Acker said - seatbelts can be replaced.  If you bought a car "as-is," and you later find out you didn't LIKE something that was "as-is," it's on you to fix it.  She made a bad deal.  

I still think the whole story from the defendant was shady, but he didn't prevent the plaintiff from doing a full inspection.  Had he said, "Don't take those seat covers are, the seatbelts are there and operational," it would have been a different case.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She also wants to know why Def was willing to take a 4300$ loss on this sale. His answer is stellar: "The car devalues in appreciate after you buy it."

That car is one rat bastard.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I still think the whole story from the defendant was shady, but he didn't prevent the plaintiff from doing a full inspection.

VERY shady, but if you are buying a 13-year old car you better check that everything works, especially something as important as seat belts. She got the car for about half its retail value, so let her replace the belts.

[Guest]

So today’s case involves more of the same.

Able-bodied 38 year old, dripping in tattoos (even a facial tattoo), has kids and a girlfriend, received money from his hard working Auntie.  Somehow, someway they are in court because Auntie is misremembering correctly because he viewed the money as a “gift” perhaps because he’s such a prize for a nephew.  

Auntie’s story is that the money she loaned him was always given because of “emergency circumstances” and she did not want his babies to suffer.  

Ungrateful nephew is acting foolish and refuses to admit it was a loan.   Our three judges were not fooled and Auntie gets back her money.

*It seems to me that all these deadbeat seed spreaders use the children as a carrot or an excuse for cash.  I recommend that all these good hearted Aunties hold their money.  Let the deadbeat seed spreaders figure out the problem without your bank account.  Think about it, if you were to die tomorrow these prized nephews/nieces would have to figure it out.  I suggest you give them a running start. 

[AngelaHunter]

I just watched most of one case. It seems Tinder, FB, dating sites, etc,  are the new career choice for deadbeats and scammers. Thus, we get Ms. Grogg cruising Tinder for a romance. She finds Mr. Seigl. They find out they go to the same church, so it's a love match. Mr. Seigl seemed pretty irresistible to Ms. Grogg (both of them are well past middle -age) so they hook up. It seems Mr. Siegl was actually looking for an ATM and not true love because in a matter of weeks he asks her to transfer 1000$ into his account so he can pay his mortgage. He's no one's idea of a Don Juan, and more closely resembles a tortoise with an oversized carapace, and that he knows women will pay for his company is very depressing, but Ms. Grogg is so enamoured she sends the money. He says he'll pay her back when he gets his tax refund...no, his settlement - no, still wrong -  his commission from his job! Right. Hey, he paid for dinner once at some restaurant, probably the kind that requires a tray.

Next they go Sam's Club, where Mr. Siegl wants a 50" Smart TV. He picks it out but oh, no - when they get to the cash, he suddenly realizes there's something else he urgently needs to check and takes off, leaving his smitten ladylove to pay the tab. She does so. Now he says these were gifts from Ms. Grogg. I couldn't take any more so stopped here.

[AngelaHunter]

Oh,  yesterday we had one of the most despicable litigants ever, in the form of the pink-haired scamming witch, Ms. Diaz. She lives in a trailer park and the P is a handyman. Seems the park is built on unstable ground which causes the trailers to go out of level. P levels the witch's trailer for her for free as a favour. She then decides to hire him to do a bunch of work, including re-doing of her bathroom, installing a skylight and other things. She pays him a deposit and he starts the work. He does a substantial amount and needs another payment. She refuses to give it to him, saying she's not happy with the work. She states he came to her place, didn't even knock, but busted in uninvited and started yelling at her. He disrespected her! The judges want to know if he was yelling about money she owes him? "I guess maybe he was," the hag says. They ask P how that went. He says he knocked and D's daughter let him in. When asked if that's what actually happened, horrid Def allows that yeah, maybe her daughter did let him in. *shrug*. Just a little white lie, right?

She then tells P she has no time for him, he's not legal, and if he keeps asking for money she will have him deported. This is a young man with a nice family who works very hard for his money. The judges are beyond disgusted that the vile Ms. Diaz was was willing to ruin someone's life over a tile job, who did nothing but lie and when called on her vicious lies, just shrugs and says, "Okay. Maybe it was that way" and who has no proof anything P did was wrong, even though she claims there was. 5K for plaintiff. Too bad it wasn't more, but at least hateful D was shown up for what a nasty, lying, hateful witch she is for no monetary reward.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

He's no one's idea of a Don Juan, and more closely resembles a tortoise with an oversized carapace, and that he knows women will pay for his company is very depressing, but Ms. Grogg is so enamoured she sends the money. He says he'll pay her back when he gets his tax refund...no, his settlement - no, still wrong -  his commission from his job! Right.

Speaking of his turtle look did you notice that the shirt he was wearing was about two sizes too big.  His pencil-neck was swimming in the collar.  

Quote

Hey, he paid for dinner once at some restaurant, probably the kind that requires a tray.

Steak sandwiches.  She mentioned steak sandwiches twice which probably means he never paid for anything but did pay for those or they were so memorable they immediately came to her mind while under the pressure of court.  I suspect the former.

18 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh,  yesterday we had one of the most despicable litigants ever, in the form of the pink-haired scamming witch, Ms. Diaz. She lives in a trailer park and the P is a handyman.

When this beast first appeared on my tv I actually got up from my desk and walked over to the screen because I honestly thought it was reporter Andrea Mitchell wearing pink hair with an exact colors-match scarf.  What a horrible person.  If she has cash to pay for that atrocity done to her hair - she has cash to pay the man.   Getting that color put on your hair is not cheap.  The colorist has to strip all color then start from scratch.  Wonder if the beast wears red?

I also think that before she reached her car she called ICE.  She probably has the number on speed dial.  I hope the man and his family are not targeted.  He was so kind to her.  I’d rather have him and his family as neighbors (documented or no) than that ungrateful beast.  

Edited April 8, 2021 by PsychoKlown

[Florinaldo]

59 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

What a horrible person.  If she has cash to pay for that atrocity done to her hair - she has cash to pay the man.

Loathsome cheapskate that she is, she probably agreed to pay her hairdresser for only a fraction of the usual cost of that job, which it why the hair dye was diluted to almost homeopathic concentrations, resulting in that washed-out pinkish horror.

She then probably tried to have the salon owner and all of the staff deported.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Loathsome cheapskate that she is, she probably agreed to pay her hairdresser for only a fraction of the usual cost of that job, which it why the hair dye was diluted to almost homeopathic concentrations, resulting in that washed-out pinkish horror.

She then probably tried to have the salon owner and all of the staff deported.

So true.  I suspect Pinky Tuscadero has a list for just that purpose. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Speaking of his turtle look did you notice that the shirt he was wearing was about two sizes too big.  His pencil-neck was swimming in the collar.  

That's exactly why this came to mind (and I mean no insult to upstanding tortoises):

 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

That's exactly why this came to mind (and I mean no insult to upstanding tortoises):

 

I really laughed a good fifteen seconds over this photo.   I wish I was creative...I’d draw a collar on this guy and also include glasses with two inch thick glass.  And of course I’d include a paper plate with a big ol’ steak sandwich in front of him.  (I’m still chucking over her clear recollection of steak sandwiches.  And her mentioning it twice)

I am now watching the episode of the yahoo burning leaves (excuse me, not leaves, garbage)  in his yard and taking down the neighbors trees to the tune of fourteen.  Pretty open and shut case but the defendants teeth are mesmerizing.

He has jack o’lantern teeth.  Not just spaces and bits of teeth but spaces and bits of teeth in positions that normal teeth do not occupy.  He has a  snuggle tooth front and center.  How does that happen?  

Another episode, another set of questions to ponder over the weekend. 

[Carolina Girl]

On 4/6/2021 at 5:54 PM, AZChristian said:

It was probably a hybrid - electric and gas.  We had a Vue (NOT a hybrid), and it ran wonderfully for years.

I did too.  Same year as the defendant's - and yes, his car had to be a HYBRID, not electric - no electric VUEs.  

I only had ONE problem with the VUE in the 10 years I had it - I had to replace motor for the windshield wipers.  Got top dollar when I traded it in as well.  

[Carolina Girl]

Wednesday's episode of the pink-haired t**t defendant who essentially wanted free materials and labor from her neighbor and then threatened him with members of her goon squad and also to turn him over to the INS made me want to punch her in her lying resting bitch face.  Yeah, right, you effing harpy - he threatened you because he came to your house demanding payment for the work he did for you and the money he laid out for the crappy tile you selected.  

For once all the judges were in complete agreement regarding this despicable woman.  In fact, I think Judge DiMango especially wanted to come off the bench and clock her.  

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

also to turn him over to the INS made me want to punch her in her lying resting bitch face.

Who wants to bet she did report him? She was going to do it merely because she didn't want to pay him and now he's taken her to court to be shamed and "disrespected". She was probably on the phone before she even left the studio.

[Carolina Girl]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Who wants to bet she did report him? She was going to do it merely because she didn't want to pay him and now he's taken her to court to be shamed and "disrespected". She was probably on the phone before she even left the studio.

I don't doubt it either.  And I agree with Judge DiMango - I'm sure the man and his family are here legally - you don't plaster your face on national television and mention the INS threats if you have fear of being deported.  I'm also willing to bet he and his family are very well liked in the neighborhood and that the despicable skank isn't.  I also doubt that narcissic asshole has the intelligence to feel shame.  

[AZChristian]

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Who wants to bet she did report him? She was going to do it merely because she didn't want to pay him and now he's taken her to court to be shamed and "disrespected". She was probably on the phone before she even left the studio.

Would love to see her reaction when she found out that the handyman neighbor IS here legally.  As @Carolina Girl said, he's not likely to have taken her even to a local court if he were here illegally.  And he SURE wouldn't have agreed to be on Hot Bench, with even more potential of being in trouble if he were here illegally.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

 I also doubt that narcissic asshole has the intelligence to feel shame.  

She seemed to be tearing up at the end. Maybe the reaming she got here did stir up some atrophied, vestigial feeling of shame? It should have. Nah, probably not.

I seldom feel sorry for litigants, but I did feel bad for the plaintiff when he said that while he was distraught over the non-payment and disgraceful treatment he got from the witch his wife told him not to worry and that he does good work. I would hire him!

[AZChristian]

10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

She seemed to be tearing up at the end. Maybe the reaming she got here did stir up some atrophied, vestigial feeling of shame? It should have. Nah, probably not.

I suspect she was crying for herself - not her behavior, but the exposure of it to the world.  Hopefully, fear of exposure will keep her from treating anyone else like that.

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/8/2021 at 1:30 PM, PsychoKlown said:

Able-bodied 38 year old, dripping in tattoos (even a facial tattoo), has kids and a girlfriend, received money from his hard working Auntie.

I watched some of this and couldn't continue because it was making me ill. Even my DVR seemed pissed off since it gave me this summary:

Quote

"A grown man complains that it was a "hassle" to borrow thousands of dollars from his aunt after he got out of prison."

Such a hassle. People should just give him money without all this trouble. You just know that this no-neck felon covered in ugly, muddy tats sat with his baby momma in their nest gloating over how much they could get from Auntie to pay all their bills. I guess this slimeball studied law while in the slammer since he declares that if he didn't sign "nothing" after the first loan, the other ones don't count.  And she forced him to sign for the first one - coercion? - so that shouldn't count either! Despicable, waste of space creep. Auntie, don't you have something more worthwhile on which to spend your money than this con artist/hustler/liar/jailbird/loser-for-life?

[Guest]

Comments about today’s episode with Plaintiff not pleased with party planner’s decoration for a birthday party.  

Usually these cases are cut and dried but this one seemed really frivolous.  Plaintiff wanted a birthday party theme for her mother that incorporated an Ice Theme and 70’s disco.

Anyway, the two themes did not seem compatible.  On one hand you had this beautiful, elegant setting of shiny white and ice blue table settings, background decorations then on the other hand you have a wall sized poster of Soul Train with blow up balloons spelling out DISCO.

Personally I thought the result was nice but Plaintiff was not pleased.  She also put the defendants stuff out on curb whilst it rained.

Plaintiff did get a bit but I don’t think she should have...she had a great party and she had the gall to destroy party planner’s items.

The other case with the Plaintiffs wanting their money back on a dud car (sold “as is) because they were not in the right frame of mind is interesting in that Judge Mike really went off the rails.  Good old Judge A and Judge DiM had to bring it back to earth.  

I think Judge Mike is in the wrong profession.  He should be a family therapist.  Really.

 

 

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Judge Mike really went off the rails

Definitely, he completely threw out the law to try to rule on his feelings of sympathy for the plaintiff (mostly based on her sob story about things that had nothing to do with the car). How he ever passed the bar exam is a mystery to me unless he has just given up to his feelings since he is no longer a real judge.

[Florinaldo]

8 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Judge Mike really went off the rails.  Good old Judge A and Judge DiM had to bring it back to earth.  

At one point JDiM was looking at him with an expression that seemed to say "Of course dearie, of course. Now drink your nice warm soothing cocoa."

In my case, every attempt by the insufferable plaintiff to inspire more pity for her sequence of woes only generated more contempt for her. She still persisted in saying that the defendant lied to her, but did not demonstrate any instance of untruths (her lackey of a witness repeated the same contemptible allegation after the case). I did not understand her fear of dealing with a dealer instead of a private citizen; anyway, if it really is so overwhelming, she should have simply walked away.

[AZChristian]

11 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

At one point JDiM was looking at him with an expression that seemed to say "Of course dearie, of course. Now drink your nice warm soothing cocoa."

In my case, every attempt by the insufferable plaintiff to inspire more pity for her sequence of woes only generated more contempt for her. She still persisted in saying that the defendant lied to her, but did not demonstrate any instance of untruths (her lackey of a witness repeated the same contemptible allegation after the case). I did not understand her fear of dealing with a dealer instead of a private citizen; anyway, if it really is so overwhelming, she should have simply walked away.

I recall that when she said, "I'll meet you at your house," he responded with something like "The car is at my work."  Not a lie.  He just didn't mention he works at a car dealership.  If I'm flying to another city to meet someone for a business deal, I'm going to Google Maps to see where we're meeting.

At one point, plaintiff's husband/witness said, "She'd been talking to him for several weeks about this car," and plaintiff immediately shushed him.  That would totally kill her "went there the day after her son-in-law committed suicide and she wasn't in her right mind" excuse.  

[Florinaldo]

7 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I recall that when she said, "I'll meet you at your house," he responded with something like "The car is at my work."  Not a lie. 

Exactly. She made an assumption about his place of work; it was a false one, but it did not make it a lie.

Anyway, how many employers have parking spaces available for storing vehicles that are for sale and allow for transactions/showings to happen on their premises? That rather narrowed the field of possibilities, but she was too lazy or in a hurry to ask. Her fault.

I remember her witness slipping up, but I do not recall if any of the judges made a point of it.

[AZChristian]

Just now, Florinaldo said:

I remember her witness slipping up, but I do not recall if any of the judges made a point of it.

I don't think any of them did.  That would have been even more fodder for the dismissal of the case.