Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

The car crash case, where the "young (SSM)" got out of the car she borrowed or swapped with P, to put or take something in or from the trunk or the back seat or something like that,  but didn't bother to put the car in park and it rolled into another car, so she says: Yeeeah, P had insurance on his car but 'didn't pay the bill'. I guess that means he had none?

Neither of them would know the truth if it jumped up and slapped them in the face. Only interesting part was Papa Mike, informing them he read their texxas, but was totally unable to decipher the meaning so asked them for some translation.

JDiM was completely against ordering lying D to pay lying P anything, but the other two overruled her. I have no idea why.

[AngelaHunter]

I wasn't going to watch today but the blub amused me so much I just had to.

 

Quote

"A woman tries to provide curb appeal for kids on their way to school but instead trips on a root and sues for emotional distress." 😆

We know how much school kids admire landscaping. Anyway, P (in an odd-looking purple mushroom cap wig) hired D to beautify the property for the kids passing by and agrees to pay some 1400$ or so(I forget already). He says he'll start at 9:00.a.m but she informs him he better get there at 6 a.m.(!) since this is St. Louis and it gets hot there. I guess she thought he didn't know that. She tells the judges she watches Judge Judy so knew to write up a contract. She wanted the job done by a certain date and says that after the first day D never returned. HE says (all together now) his grammy died so he couldn't come back when he said he would but he did return and P fired him. However he did do work, but when P inspected it, she tripped on a root he left exposed and hurt herself.

She decided not to go to the emergency room, since this is St. Louis and she knows the ER is usually full of  gunshot cases, so she merely prayed about her injury and put some Vaseline on it. I guess that worked. A true martyr, but she wants 1K for her emotional distress. JDiM doesn't want to give her anything, but they end up awarding her some money back. I forget how much, but no bonanza for her distress.

Then we had the horrid little witch being sued for a car she says she bought from Ps for 500$. I guess she was expecting show room perfection and drove it 13 hrs to LA, where the poor thing finally expired and got left on a public street, coincidentally just around the corner from her destination. It got tickets which were sent to P because the hag never registered it in her name due to it being unable to pass inspection/smog test. Ps want what they paid for the tickets. D declares they sold her a "lemon" but actually she bought the heap from her niece, who had bought it from Ps and nobody registered it.

Just the usual, "I should be exempt from the As-Is law" but in deliberations, Papa Mike feels sorry for the little old lady and opines that if you buy an ancient beater for 500$, don't bother checking it out and it conks out in a few weeks or a month, maybe you shouldn't have to pay for it, or for any expenses incurred? The other two straighten him PDQ out on that issue, after which he's forced to agree. Hag has to pay for the tickets.

[patty1h]

I see that the new season hasn't generated much discussion here - the cases have been pretty standard since S8 started last week.   Today's was a little angering... neighbors of over 25 years suing each other over aggressive bees, dead chickens and a dead dog.   This is a two-parter, which concludes tomorrow.   There was a lot of testimony, but I'm going to give the main facts.   

Starting off, plaintiff looks to be in his mid-late 50, and defendant looks mid-60's.  Plaintiff starts off with saying he and neighbor never had a good relationship because of perceived racism when P (who is Hispanic) moved into the neighborhood. Suit alleges his neighbor has beehives and besides the regular bees he's had for years, he now has some strain that goes after people with intent - P was stung over 15 times one day.  Plaintiff also complains that neighbor has chickens that get loose, come on his property and his 2 dogs have killed a few.  P says his neighbor killed one of his dogs in revenge - they caught him on their security camera taking the dog out of view, then the dog never came home.

Defendant says P's dog(s) came onto his property and killed some chickens and he had the right to defend his livestock, and he clubbed P's dog to death, buried it and never said a word to his neighbor because of their longstanding ill will.  Judges figure out that D is also out of compliance on the types of bees he's keeping and the setup of his chicken coops, due to local ordinances.  D feigns ignorance of the law.  You can see that D has no remorse and doesn't feel bad about slaying his neighbors pet.   He mumbles some excuse for not having the courtesy to tell his neighbor about their missing dog.

The testimony shows that both parties have faults and the judges may have to go strictly by the law to conclude this one.  Curious to see how this pans out tomorrow.

Edited September 20, 2021 by patty1h

[Guest]

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

I see that the new season hasn't generated much discussion here - the cases have been pretty standard since S8 started last week.   Today's was a little angering... neighbors of over 25 years suing each other over aggressive bees, dead chickens and a dead dog.   This is a two-parter, which concludes tomorrow.   There was a lot of testimony, but I'm going to give the main facts.   

Starting off, plaintiff looks to be in his mid-late 50, and defendant looks mid-60's.  Plaintiff starts off with saying he and neighbor never had a good relationship because of perceived racism when P (who is Hispanic) moved into the neighborhood. Suit alleges his neighbor has beehives and besides the regular bees he's had for years, he now has some strain that goes after people with intent - P was stung over 15 times one day.  Plaintiff also complains that neighbor has chickens that get loose, come on his property and his 2 dogs have killed a few.  P says his neighbor killed one of his dogs in revenge - they caught him on their security camera taking the dog out of view, then the dog never came home.

Defendant says P's dog(s) came onto his property and killed some chickens and he had the right to defend his livestock, and he clubbed P's dog to death, buried it and never said a word to his neighbor because of their longstanding ill will.  Judges figure out that D is also out of compliance on the types of bees he's keeping and the setup of his chicken coops, due to local ordinances.  D feigns ignorance of the law.  You can see that D has no remorse and doesn't feel bad about slaying his neighbors pet.   He mumbles some excuse for not having the courtesy to tell his neighbor about their missing dog.

The testimony shows that both parties have faults and the judges may have to go strictly by the law to conclude this one.  Curious to see how this pans out tomorrow.

I have a suspicion that tomorrow is going to be disturbing.  

Choking a dog?  It’s too bad that the dog was smallish and didn’t have the teeth to get in a few ripped muscles.  And hiding while the plaintiffs were calling for their dog?  What a coward bastard.  

Not sure I’m going to tune in.  Not sure I can handle it.

[SassyCat]

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

I see that the new season hasn't generated much discussion here - the cases have been pretty standard since S8 started last week.   Today's was a little angering... neighbors of over 25 years suing each other over aggressive bees, dead chickens and a dead dog.   This is a two-parter, which concludes tomorrow.   There was a lot of testimony, but I'm going to give the main facts.   

Starting off, plaintiff looks to be in his mid-late 50, and defendant looks mid-60's.  Plaintiff starts off with saying he and neighbor never had a good relationship because of perceived racism when P (who is Hispanic) moved into the neighborhood. Suit alleges his neighbor has beehives and besides the regular bees he's had for years, he now has some strain that goes after people with intent - P was stung over 15 times one day.  Plaintiff also complains that neighbor has chickens that get loose, come on his property and his 2 dogs have killed a few.  P says his neighbor killed one of his dogs in revenge - they caught him on their security camera taking the dog out of view, then the dog never came home.

Defendant says P's dog(s) came onto his property and killed some chickens and he had the right to defend his livestock, and he clubbed P's dog to death, buried it and never said a word to his neighbor because of their longstanding ill will.  Judges figure out that D is also out of compliance on the types of bees he's keeping and the setup of his chicken coops, due to local ordinances.  D feigns ignorance of the law.  You can see that D has no remorse and doesn't feel bad about slaying his neighbors pet.   He mumbles some excuse for not having the courtesy to tell his neighbor about their missing dog.

The testimony shows that both parties have faults and the judges may have to go strictly by the law to conclude this one.  Curious to see how this pans out tomorrow.

I was watching this today and must have blinked and missed the part where it informs that it is a two-parter to be continued tomorrow. I thought I missed the verdict or the show was cut short and not going to show the end, so i came and looked here. I am glad you posted what you did or I would still be in the dark. What an awful man the defendant is. To barehandedly kill that little dog and hide the fact. I hope he gets the full monty of punishment he has coming for him. Too bad it can only be $5000 that I feel pretty sure the Plaintiff will win.

Also, He sure had ALOT of beehives. Someone with that many should surely know the laws surrounding bee keeping in his area. I hope some official watching this show, go after him for that too. 
The wife of the guy was “nice” to give the defendant a bee keepers outfit, probably in hopes it would stop any trouble arising from their illegal bee keeping practices. They must make a pretty good amount of money from all the honey all those hives produce, along with selling bees. A friend of mine had a couple hives and paid $125 or so for a shipment of 10,000 bees when she needed to replace the colony which died over a too cold winter and there were different varietys of bees to choose from. This defendant had zillions of bees if he had that many hives. 

One of her hives could produce around 30 - 40 lbs of honey. Good raw local honey around here can go for 8-10 dollars a pound. The darker the honey is, the better it is considered to be in active health enhancment properties. She would grow buckwheat in her yard also , which produced good dark honey. 
The man will not get away with killing that dog and keeping it secret. The mental cruelty and distress he caused to the plaintiffs, alone, will be worth $5000 compensation. I wish it could be more. 

[patty1h]

Did I hallucinate that the defendant was accused of clubbing the dog (to death) or was that a different incident with the dog(s) being on his property?  I see 2 comments where you mention strangling - did I confuse two stories?

The main issue seems to be where the chickens were killed, and which landowner can prove  what property it happened on.   Also, can you sue for bee stings?  That one seems iffy to me because how is P going to prove it was the new hostile bees as opposed to the honeybees that have been housed next door for decades? 

[AZChristian]

Disclaimer:  I know different states have different laws.

I watched an episode of North Woods Law where a landowner had killed a wild animal out of season because it (or an animal that looked like it) had attacked one of his cows.  The cow survived, but the man shot the wild animal LATER to "prevent" further attacks on his cow.

He was fined because of shooting the wild animal out of season.  Had he been shooting at it at the time it was attacking the cow, he would not have been fined.  But because the animal was not actively attacking his cow at the time it was shot, killing it was illegal.

So . . . back to Hot Bench.  If I understand correctly, the defendant did NOT kill the dog to get it off of his chickens.  The chickens were already dead, and the defendant saw the dog later.  The plaintiffs have a video of the guy taking the dog behind his shed, and the plaintiff's daughter said she heard the dog yelping (but didn't know what was happening at the time).  It would seem to me that the defendant could (and should) be arrested for criminal cruelty to animals.

I feel sorry for the plaintiffs for having to put up with such a horrible neighbor for 25 years.

[Carolina Girl]

Anybody know where this piece of garbage lives?

 

[badhaggis]

48 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

Anybody know where this piece of garbage lives?

 

Anyone want to carpool once we find out? Piece of garbage indeed.

[Carolina Girl]

9 hours ago, badhaggis said:

Anyone want to carpool once we find out? Piece of garbage indeed.

I’m in.  If we ever get his address, we should forward it to the local animal rights group.  I think he DID strangle the dog, by the way.   That’s why he disposed of it.   He’s a heartless psychopath.  I’m thinking once this airs, he’s going to be either finished in his town or investigated by the district attorney.  He stated that since the TRO hearing he’s mud around town.  

[patty1h]

"Promise Me Not"

Another case of doing a good deed and it blowing up in your face.  Michael Luna borrowed $2K from his mothers best friend, Suzi Perrera, then stiffed her for 2+ years.  He was losing his truck and it would impact his contracting business, so he was desperate when he went to the plaintiff.  He hasn't paid back a dime but Suzi gets invited to a baby shower and kids parties with lots of food and decorations, and she decided it's time for a lawsuit.  It came out that he couldn't get money from family members anymore, so that's why he put the bite on his mothers good friend. 

Luna was such an arrogant prick when the judges asked him about his actions - how he ignored the person who helped him out but managing to hold these celebrations.  Instead of being humble, the creep wants to talk about priorities, and he HAD to do things for his children and try to mince words and say the loan was not business, but personal and he didn't appreciate them discussing his personal life (those parties).  It also came out that Luna's mother is also angry at Suzi for taking her son to court.  The whole family seems like entitled a-holes.  I hope Suzi takes her judgement and drops that "friend" ASAP.

[DoctorK]

10 hours ago, patty1h said:

Luna was such an arrogant prick when the judges asked him about his actions - how he ignored the person who helped him out but managing to hold these celebrations. 

Yeah, one of the more despicable, entitled pieces of crap we see on these shows.

Also, once again Corriero shows that he will crap on the law when he his big bleeding heart sympathizes with a litigant who bought a car for below blue book, on a contract that say "AS IS" multiple times and has problems after completing the sale and the seller actually offers to pay a percentage of the required repairs (which he had no obligation to do), but the foolish plaintiff turns that down and wants more. Dumb ass. In the hallterview, the plaintiffs still insist that they are owed money in spite of losing the case beyond a shadow of a doubt. Corriero is worthless as a judge who follows the law, any time his pathetic bleeding heart takes over, he ignores the actual law.

Edited September 30, 2021 by DoctorK

[Carolina Girl]

Anyone else here think that Luna’s family has been stiffed by this arrogant prick in the past and that’s why Mom’s best friend was his last chance?  And apparently his mom thinks the plaintiff should just have written off the worthless sack of shit she gave birth to lime the rest of them did.   Note to plaintiff - You’re a nice lady.  You’re well rid of this bitch as a friend. 
 

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/30/2021 at 8:51 AM, Carolina Girl said:

Anyone else here think that Luna’s family has been stiffed by this arrogant prick in the past and that’s why Mom’s best friend was his last chance?

This was outrageous. Of course that arrogant POS, who is so poor and homeless, etc but who has never missed a meal, tapped out everyone else to subsidize his lazy ass. He has priorities so P can just whistle for the money owed her. That his mommy is now pissed at her friend for wanting the money she loaned the dear boy is kind of disgusting. Never loan money unless you are okay with never being paid back or  with being turned into a villain for requesting repayment.

I hope P won't be such an easy mark in the future for great big useless boys like this.

On 9/29/2021 at 9:21 PM, DoctorK said:

Corriero is worthless as a judge who follows the law, any time his pathetic bleeding heart takes over, he ignores the actual law.

That's for sure. It's infuriating.

[DoctorK]

Wow, the dim bulb marketing woman on today with the beater car drove me nuts. She really turned on the histrionic overacting and the magic tears instead of showing evidence, talked over the judges, and generally acted the complete fool. Following the time line of all of the repairs, it seems obvious to me that the car was not in good shape from the beginning, the first problem she took into the shop was a failing water pump (which normally gives lots of warning by starting to leak around the pump bearing; I don’t think the plaintiff would notice that coolant leak under the car, or if she did she would ignore it), but I suspect that she wasn’t doing any preventive maintenance for years. I think the odds are pretty good that she had ignored the engine overheating for a while before she took it in in the first place, the mechanic replaced the failing water pump, but the engine may already have had a blown head gasket and cracked head from constant overheating, and the new water pump may have masked the worst symptoms of the problems for a little while, but if that was the case, the overheating would return which I believe she would continue driving with until the car died. An example that a little knowledge can be dangerous.

[Carolina Girl]

18 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Wow, the dim bulb marketing woman on today with the beater car drove me nuts. She really turned on the histrionic overacting and the magic tears instead of showing evidence, talked over the judges, and generally acted the complete fool. Following the time line of all of the repairs, it seems obvious to me that the car was not in good shape from the beginning, the first problem she took into the shop was a failing water pump (which normally gives lots of warning by starting to leak around the pump bearing; I don’t think the plaintiff would notice that coolant leak under the car, or if she did she would ignore it), but I suspect that she wasn’t doing any preventive maintenance for years. I think the odds are pretty good that she had ignored the engine overheating for a while before she took it in in the first place, the mechanic replaced the failing water pump, but the engine may already have had a blown head gasket and cracked head from constant overheating, and the new water pump may have masked the worst symptoms of the problems for a little while, but if that was the case, the overheating would return which I believe she would continue driving with until the car died. An example that a little knowledge can be dangerous.

She really wanted to play "poor Virginia victim."  No proof of ANY of the claims she was making.  "I'm being attacked!"  Yeah, no.  

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/5/2021 at 11:51 AM, Carolina Girl said:

She really wanted to play "poor Virginia victim."  No proof of ANY of the claims she was making.  "I'm being attacked!"  Yeah, no.  

Having a judge ask questions is her idea of "being attacked", poor little thing. I believe JDiM said, when the victim started squirting tears, "You're going to cry over a CAR?" Def seemed quite credible to me and I don't blame him for his "I can't believe I'm being sued for this nonsense" attitude.

[Carolina Girl]

Oh my God....the defendants in the repeat case yesterday.

Bitch-slappable defendant landlady and her needs a knee-to-the-nuts husband.  My GOD -  watching Judge Acker's long fuse get lit every time that eye-rolling turd opened her mouth.  She and her husband accuse the plaintiff tenant of being in "cahoots" with their con-man of a property manager.  And you can't tell me that they didn't get that effing full-year's rent paid from the con man.  Those two jerks would have been down there on the fifth day of the second month asking where the hell the payment was.  If anyone was in cahoots with the con-man "Tony", it was the defendants, trying to claim they didn't get the deposit either.

I hope everyone that knows these two clowns stops taking their calls and pretending they don't know them in public.   

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

  If anyone was in cahoots with the con-man "Tony", it was the defendants, trying to claim they didn't get the deposit either.

I don't think they were. I think they are so stupid that Tony the Scammer saw easy pickings and instant profit and he was right. They had the gall to say that P should sue Tony and not them, even though Tony was their agent. I also believed that Tony told P (who was merely naive) that it would cost him 250$ - which would go directly into Tony's pocket -  to be present at the walk-through.

When one of the judges speculated on why someone would pay rent a year in advance to the tune of 24K (I'm sure Tony skimmed some of that too) I love how meathead D hubby piped up with "Bad credit!" This from these two dumbo blobs who are too idiotic to not get scammed by the person they hired.

[patty1h]

"Once Upon a Dime in Hollywood" - this case was a fairly standard "loan vs investment" scenario.  Plaintiff Atkinson says he loaned his filmmaker friend $5K to make a movie, but defendant Marc Joshua says it was an investment in his company.   There's some back and forth chatter about unsigned agreements, empty promises to repay and writing checks that bounce.   It comes out that Joshua has apparently scammed many other people, to the extent where a Facebook page was created for other victims to tell about their experiences with this guy.  The defendant has an answer for everything, even when the plaintiff brings out a witness - another man who lost over $116K to Joshua.  Witness says Joshua cleaned out the business bank account, created for a different movie, to pay for numerous personal expenses, like $24K for a house.  

While the judges tried to decide if Joshua was a scammer or a bad businessman, I was wracking my brain because Marc Joshua looked so familiar  I swear I've seen him on another court show.  FYI:  If you were wondering, Joshua lost the case.

Edited October 18, 2021 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, patty1h said:

"Once Upon a Dime in Hollywood"

I  started that one and it looks good so saved for later. More shady contract cases, please.

For laughs I watched the middleaged P suing D, who sold him a car that had long since passed the 1/4 century mark, for 1600$. P suffered such emotional distress over the fact that D took off the fancy rims and put on the factory rims before turning it over to P that he wants 3,000$ compensation for this act of treachery. He only bought the car because of the upscale 400$ rims! It's all about the rims, folks. He also freely admits that yes - he signs blank pieces of paper for the recipient to fill in as he likes. Doesn't everyone?

He also wants back the 1600$ he paid for the car, even though he's still driving it, wants to keep it, and is happy with it.  Why don't I deserve a free car?

Since he had every opportunity to examine the car to see if the beloved rims were on it at time of purchase he gets zippo, of course.

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, patty1h said:

I was wracking my brain because Marc Joshua looked so familiar  I swear I've seen him on another court show.

I think it may be because he looks like a million other featureless, blobby neckbeards of a type way too common these days.

I enjoyed this case, especially JDiM rattling off the myriad of excuses of the D, including the old scammy standard that his grammy got sick, and saying she couldn't stand to read another word. 

Yes, I'm sure anyone would accept the D's, "Here's a rubber check. Don't try to cash it. It's merely to show my good intentions (and get you off my back)."

That FB picture was hilarious.

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think it may be because he looks like a million other featureless, blobby neckbeards of a type way too common these days.

I enjoyed this case, especially JDiM rattling off the myriad of excuses of the D, including the old scammy standard that his grammy got sick, and saying she couldn't stand to read another word. 

Yes, I'm sure anyone would accept the D's, "Here's a rubber check. Don't try to cash it. It's merely to show my good intentions (and get you off my back)."

That FB picture was hilarious.

And I completely agree with Judge Acker's assessment of this scummy dirtbag.  Papa Joe, who is a worthless waste of space, didn't even bother to notice that the later agreement superseded the one the plaintiff may or may not have signed.

And all this took place in 2019 (October, I think?) and this blubber butt is somehow trying to implicate COVID?  NO ONE was talking about COVID at that time.  

And I also agree with Acker that he was absolutely right to bring in that witness to say that this guy is nothing more than a con-man, paying personal bills with money meant to finance film production.  What, Corierro?  You think that that was "in the past" like this scammer has seen the error of his ways?   I'd personally like to know how many times he was sued and had to declare bankruptcy to try to make himself judgment proof.  

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/19/2021 at 12:03 PM, Carolina Girl said:

  You think that that was "in the past" like this scammer has seen the error of his ways? 

It will never happen. I recently found a show on late at night called "American Greed", detailing cases of con artists and scammers like the one we just saw here, but on a much, much bigger scale. Like Joshua, they had zero regrets, remorse, or even a twinge of conscience as they fleeced and scammed not only strangers, but everyone they knew including the people who trusted them most - their own families. 

IMO, they're a bunch of sociopaths who will never stop until they are behind bars. I bet "Joshua" is out there, still scamming. I'm surprised Corriero doesn't seem to know this, that someone devoid of conscience sees no error in his ways, just in his methods, and will do better in the next scam.

 

[Carolina Girl]

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

It will never happen. I recently found a show on late at night called "American Greed", detailing cases of con artists and scammers like the one we just saw here, but on a much, much bigger scale. Like Joshua, they had zero regrets, remorse, or even a twinge of conscience as they fleeced and scammed not only strangers, but everyone they knew including the people who trusted them most - their own families. 

IMO, they're a bunch of sociopaths who will never stop until they are behind bars. I bet "Joshua" is out there, still scamming. I'm surprised Corriero doesn't seem to know this, that someone devoid of conscience sees no error in his ways, just in his methods, and will do better in the next scam.

 

American Greed is one of my FAVORITES.  If you have Peacock, you can watch old seasons.    Too bad Josh probably hasn't stiffed people on a grand enough scale to qualify for a segment.  For DVR or VCR purposes - American Greed's new episodes usually air on Monday nights at I think 10 PM Eastern on CNBC.  

[AngelaHunter]

20 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

For DVR or VCR purposes - American Greed's new episodes usually air on Monday nights at I think 10 PM Eastern on CNBC.

I get it on some new channel - I think it's called "Mystery" but not sure  - my antenna gave me. I see there are full eps on YT as well. It really is fascinating.

The P's witness in the above case gathered up 170K from friends and relatives to give to the little conman D. One rule I learned in my career in the financial industry and to which I have always adhered (other than never put all your eggs in one basket) is to never EVER give anyone else control of your money. Even if the person seems legit - stockbroker, FA, etc - your money does not mean to them what it means to you. Just don't do it, no matter what they promise.

[Carolina Girl]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I get it on some new channel - I think it's called "Mystery" but not sure  - my antenna gave me. I see there are full eps on YT as well. It really is fascinating.

The P's witness in the above case gathered up 170K from friends and relatives to give to the little conman D. One rule I learned in my career in the financial industry and to which I have always adhered (other than never put all your eggs in one basket) is to never EVER give anyone else control of your money. Even if the person seems legit - stockbroker, FA, etc - your money does not mean to them what it means to you. Just don't do it, no matter what they promise.

Arthur Hailey's book from the 70's, "The Moneychangers" (which is a great read if you can find it) had a line I particularly loved and stood out over the years.  A banker guy is asking a financial consultant if there was one piece of advice he gave his clients on handling money.

He replied.  "Absolutely.  Take care of it yourself."

[AngelaHunter]

58 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

Arthur Hailey's book from the 70's, "The Moneychangers" (which is a great read if you can find it

I found a site where you can d/l books legally and for free. I just checked and that one is available. Added to my queue. Thanks!

https://b-ok.cc/book/4597927/e5bcad

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

He replied.  "Absolutely.  Take care of it yourself."

If you don't know how, learn. It's easy to see people like the P's witness, who is a mature, intelligent person as complete victims, but not so. Two things only run the financial world - greed and fear. There is a whole army of opportunistic scammers waiting to take advantage of the naive and the willfully ignorant. 

The P is very lucky court shows exist or he would not have gotten a single penny back, ever.

[AZChristian]

So . . . Papa Joe doesn't know about intersections where the northbound traffic may not be able to go, but all of the southbound traffic can?  Was he not watching the camera to see that the first car in the southbound turn lane got the green light the same time as the straight southbound lanes?  So, it's a good thing that all of the northbound traffic still had a red light.

I'm thinking the defendant's problem was not with ADHD . . . it looked more like PCP.

 

[AngelaHunter]

Just watched most of the brother vs brother assault case. These two big grown men in their 30s still bunk with poor Momma, who still has to break up their squabbles as she's probably done for the last 30 years.

The most interesting part was seeing what alcoholism does to a person. JDiM asks their ages and P turns out to be older than drunken Def, who beat the crap out of P. She, and we, are shocked at that. This was a stark visual for one of the reasons why being a drunk is not good.

Def says he's a bartender,(!) but doesn't drink on the job. Okay. He just gets blotto on his two days off every week. On one of those nights, after 6 gin and tonics, he comes home to Mom's place and savagely attacks P, who is sacked out on the couch, and stomps on his head. The reason for this attack? Well, Def isn't sure but he thinks his brother might have said something like, "There he is." Justification for a violent assault for sure.

Papa Mike starts quoting the bible, mumbling about Cane and Abel, the tough place he himself grew up, and blah blah, and someone (maybe JA) wants to know if P loves his brother. He rightfully responds that, well, after being attacked and having his brother's heel stomping his face and breaking his nose, sending him to the ER, he's not really feelin' the brotherly love. Yeah, if my brother did that to me, turn the other cheek I would not. He might stomp that one too.

I couldn't take any more of the judges' sermons, counselling,and trying to get D to admit he has an alcohol problem (he would not as he thinks getting piss drunk is just "Having a good time") so I quit there.

[AngelaHunter]

I never saw today's videographer case.

Two plaintiffs come up with an original idea - to make a reality show following people around as they go on a first date. We never saw anything like that before. Unique, it is.

Anyway, they hire the Tweetybird-looking defendant to film this first episode of "Love Em or Leave Em and he never finishes editing the footage, leaves a green screen in and generally messes up. He says he never got to the class in his school on how to add audio, so there's no sound either.

He was unable to finish the work since he got into a fistfight with his brother - a normal thing to happen or so his demeanor says - and it was so bad neighbours called the cops. But oh, no! His wife, who was probably screeching and in the middle of the fisticuffs, had an unknown warrant so gets arrested. Def had to go bail her out of jail. This is all part of everyday life, so why don't plaintiffs understand and give him more time to do the work?

They're suing him for a whole bunch of money for the 6 dates they paid for, plus lost ticket sales, and advertising or something. The judges award them some money but I forget how much. Maybe next time they'll hire someone who is professional and not so lacking in self-control he'll engage in public brawls (or only in beginner's class in videography) instead of doing his work.

People - do your homework and make sure you have no outstanding warrants before you decide to engage in a physical altercation with your family in your front yard. Please!

[DoctorK]

I enjoyed today's new case, the plaintiff trying to get his money back for replacing two engines in his boat. The judges went through everything, especially the six page estimate prepared by the defendant and even better, an email from the plaintiff acknowledging that what he was getting were short blocks engines (I knew what that meant, but the judges had it explained to them by the defendant clearly in simple terms, backed up with a set of small models of engines which I loved). The plaintiff was smarmy and dishonest, he based his entire case on not being told that the engines he was buying were short blocks, however the judges saw from the evidence that he was clearly informed of this and even acknowledged this in his mail. To top it off, the idiot plaintiff claimed he was being cheated on the engine prices because the engines the defendant was providing (rebuilt short blocks) for something like $3000 each were also being sold by the defendant for $1700 - but these were used non rebuilt engines. Even Corriero couldn't find any redeeming features in the plaintiff and all three judges slapped him down in a very satisfying way.

Edited January 14, 2022 by DoctorK

[Back Atcha]

On 1/14/2022 at 3:53 PM, DoctorK said:

The plaintiff was smarmy and dishonest,

AND...we all read/heard between the lines.  He was having buyers' remorse after someone told him that "everyone" was switching to electric boats!

[AngelaHunter]

OMG, the screaming, BSC bitch from hell suing her goofy-looking loverboy, Mr. McAdoo, for money she laid out for him for some super-special, rare, limited edition sneakers he really wanted. He has no credit or money and was on hard times, but he needed these shoes, even though he has a baby momma and a kid to support. Neither of them can even control themselves here.

She stole his phone and hoodie from the beach to hold hostage until he paid for the sneakers, which coincidentally she gave him on Valentine's Day but weren't a gift. He came over to her "crib" and pushed her on the floor so although she gave him his phone back, she kept the hoodie and gave it to one of his sufer homies.  Then she created an IG profile with his picture called, "I Hit Women". She also emailed the baby momma and does all manner of nutty, bunny-boiler stuff. I guess she thought McAdoo was worth it.

This woman spoke very well and seemed educated, yet she rutted with this broke-ass clown and never thought about using birth control so "found out" she was three week's pregnant. Gee, I guess she thought that meant this man of her dreams would finally be all hers. Wrong. That sort of thing - "trapping" a man by getting knocked up - went out of favour in the early 1960's. Get a clue, you lunatic. Mr. McAdoo can't give all his lovin' to just one woman!

We got to Sir Galahad - Papa Mike - kindly inquiring of this vicious maniac, "You felt taken advantage of, didn't you?"

And... I'm out.

[patty1h]

Quote

OMG, the screaming, BSC bitch from hell suing her goofy-looking loverboy, Mr. McAdoo

The female judges tried to give her lessons on knowing when to cut your losses - have some dignity and eat the $ spent on some sneakers, but she was too juvenile to understand.  I knew it was a wrap when she lied about not creating that stupid revenge web page... she was unteachable. 

I hope all the men in America see this episode and know to stay away from her because she is a loon!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

I hope all the men in America see this episode and know to stay away from her because she is a loon!

She may be a loon, but to the FB meatmarket crowd of grifters that won't matter. She's willing to spend money to keep even a loser like McAdoo and the FB Lotharios don't care how crazy a woman is. After all, it's just a temporary wallet. Take the money (or the sneakers/flat screen/etc)) and run. And use a condom, you idiots! This woman does NOT need a helpless infant at her mercy.

[AZChristian]

On today's episode, the plaintiff/landlord had already gotten a court verdict against the defendant/tenant for $3,150 for unpaid rent.

Today, he was suing for $3,150 in punitive damages because of the alleged intentional acts of the tenant to cause damage to his gas pipes, and to keep repairs from being made.

As soon as they laid out the case, with the exact same amount now being asked for punitive damages, I suspected that the two of them had gotten together and cooked up this case so that Hot Bench could pay the plaintiff what he had already been awarded, and defendant would be off the hook.

My question is, if tenant was so badly injured by a piece of falling stucco, why hasn't he filed a MEGA suit against the landlord?  Or maybe he already has.

[AngelaHunter]

The car warranty scammer was a hoot. We've seen this exact scenario before - someone doesn't feel competent or is too busy to get their own car, hires some shady "broker" who finds the car and tells them he can get them a warranty through a third party.  "Just give me 1600$ and I'll send it to the warranty company but make out the check to me." The 500$ commission he was getting from the warranty company wasn't enough, so he decides to keep the whole thing. When car buyer goes 3 years later to get a repair on his car, Honda tells him he has no warranty.

Def tells P he'll pay for the repair out of his pocket (really, the P's own money)then get the warranty activated and they'll cover it (no they won't) so P can pay him back. He was banking that once he paid for P's inexpensive repair P would get lost and forget about the non-warranty.

Def crook has the worst litany of lame excuses in answer to JDiM questions. Well, no  - he has no records of the money he sent for the warranty or proof the policy was ever activated... someone else takes care of that... he doesn't know who in his own company... his proof is packed/stacked away... the company is restructuring... The warranty company is giving him a hard time (even though he never spoke to them)...Yes, he did call them on their 800 number but couldn't wait to speak with anyone because he had some personal problems that precluded phone calls. So no, he did nothing, obviously wagering that P and other buyers from whom he took money wouldn't have need to use the warranty and he could get to keep it all. When you gamble, sometimes you lose.

JA admires crook def  for being so "candid" here even after all the flimsy excuses and lies - as if he had a choice under JDiM's questioning where he had to admit he had no proof he ever sent a dime to the warranty co. and he did nothing to help P - and that "life just got in your way." Yeah, right. It was just a little boo-boo. When life gets hectic it's normal to just steal someone's 1600$.  I hope when I commit a crime I get JA or Papa to hear my case.

Buy your own cars, people. This guy stole all the customer's money and no one would have known had not P needed repairs done. D is lucky he's not in jail.

[Carolina Girl]

If that moron hair stylist in today’s case had “four years” of cosmetology experience she must have been counting her time at beauty school.  I also am older and have thin hair but my stylist NEVER starts cutting my hair in the back without first checking the length I want in the front by saying “is this the length you want?” and showing me with her fingers where she plans to cut. 

[badhaggis]

14 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

If that moron hair stylist in today’s case had “four years” of cosmetology experience she must have been counting her time at beauty school.  I also am older and have thin hair but my stylist NEVER starts cutting my hair in the back without first checking the length I want in the front by saying “is this the length you want?” and showing me with her fingers where she plans to cut. 

That was an awful haircut! I actually gasped when she showed the back. I usually think haircut law suits are useless not this one.

[Carolina Girl]

19 hours ago, badhaggis said:

That was an awful haircut! I actually gasped when she showed the back. I usually think haircut law suits are useless not this one.

Couldn’t agree more.  She looked like she was going to be sick throughout the entire case.  I bet this isn’t the first customer that has complained about her substandard work - just the first one to sue over it.   My guess is she gets the “walk ins” who  then leave  after the cut  and never return.  

[Carolina Girl]

OMG - that fat, ugly lying %^* in the case yesterday, who kept insistin that she "didn't think like a criminal" as she emptied out a man's bank accounts, changed his passwords and locked him out of accessing his own money.

And sorry judges, but the plaintiff was right - how long does it take to go through and click a "Pay" button.  She wasn't running all over the place paying bills - she was doing it from a computer.  And when she discovered OTHER people could see what she was doing, she immediately changed the passwords.  I do my entire bill paying in less than 10 minutes.   $300 for her effing phone bill and $50 for her crap boyfriend's commissary was more than fair payment. 

Listen you ugly POS.  You ARE a criminal.  And it wouldn't surprise me to learn that your equally criminal boyfriend pressured his cellmate to give you the power of attorney.  You were planning this from the get go.

I believe that this embezzler lives in the Sacramento area.  Make a note of the name - Tricia Maher.  Avoid her like the plague.  

[AZChristian]

My payments are set up automatically, so that if I'm out of town (on vacation, not incarcerated), all deposits to the account are made automatically, and all regular bills (utilities, etc.) are paid automatically.

Plaintiff didn't seem to have been incarcerated for long.  Surely it would have been just as easy to set up auto-pay on recurring bills.

[Carolina Girl]

12 hours ago, AZChristian said:

My payments are set up automatically, so that if I'm out of town (on vacation, not incarcerated), all deposits to the account are made automatically, and all regular bills (utilities, etc.) are paid automatically.

Plaintiff didn't seem to have been incarcerated for long.  Surely it would have been just as easy to set up auto-pay on recurring bills.

 

12 hours ago, AZChristian said:

My payments are set up automatically, so that if I'm out of town (on vacation, not incarcerated), all deposits to the account are made automatically, and all regular bills (utilities, etc.) are paid automatically.

Plaintiff didn't seem to have been incarcerated for long.  Surely it would have been just as easy to set up auto-pay on recurring bills.

There was someone else doing it for him originally but he apparently went to Florida.  It may be that money came in on a inconsistent basis.  I think the only payment that probably required any outside effort was getting the rent to the landlord.  Which was only done once since she “resigned” after 15 days and spending his money.

I think he originally said that there were something like $11,000 of charges he was able to reverse.  The bitch who doesn’t think like a criminal may not be out of the woods.  Those financial institutions may very well have investigations pending on her and will be pressing charges with the DA when they’re complete.  

[Carolina Girl]

The whiplash scammer in yesterday’s case was one of the WORST liars ever.  He kept tripping up when relating the details (“when I….when my girlfriend….pulled up to the light”) and then couldn’t keep it straight about returning to work.  He never went back to work and then says that he was let after the accident because he was moving too slow.  Girlfriend who was supposedly driving doesn’t come to court (probably because she has a thing about committing perjury and looking like a fool on television.  

Of course slimey family lawyer sends him to a chiropractor (they never send you to an actual MD) to pad the bill.  Defendant’s insurance company, however, knows a scam when they see one and informs slimey lawyer in no uncertain terms that they aren’t paying out any money except for actual car repair and he can pound sand.  So slimey lawyer of course kicks plaintiff and his case to the curb, but lying plaintiff is still on the hook for that padded chiro bill   
 

Judge DiMango didn’t mince words.  She flat out called him a scammer at least 20 times   

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

The whiplash scammer in yesterday’s case was one of the WORST liars ever.

I haven't been watching lately. Seems I've been missing some cases worth seeing.

I did watch Mr. Cao, who checked every YES box on the "Am I a Dumb Scammer?" quiz.

With the P's submissive affect and his stumbling over his lies ("my girlfriend/not girlfriend was driving/I was driving") this case alternated between outrageous and hilarious.

He was in so much pain he never went back to his job, I mean "training course" except he texted the Def, "I'm at work now". Well, no, he wasn't there, he was driving to the coffee shop to inform his boss he wouldn't be coming back because of this terrible pain. Apparently this boss has no means of communication at the coffee shop.

Oh, wait. That's not right. He did go to his job/training course to be a barista, but his boss noticed how painfully slow his movements were as he poured coffee and served sandwiches and sacked him. There. How's that, judges?

This was just classic! The minor tap on the bumper that caused only a few scratches created such agony for P that his scamming former girlfriend got him hooked up with a sleazy lawyer who of course told him to go to a chiropractor for his crippling pain where he racks up 1400$ in adjustments. Everyone on the planet knows about this scam, but P was sure the judges never heard it before.

Sadly, Cao, his girlfriend, the lawyer, and the chiro form a perfect square of "Fail" as none of them got a penny. The biggest loser was the chiropractor who will never get his money. Oh, well.

The only one who deserved money was the Def, not only for  the aggravation of being dragged here for no reason, but for P insinuating he hit and tried to run. 

How many times did JDiM say "scam" and "scammer"? Too bad they let Papa Mike give the verdict. Naturally he was way too kind while explaining to P why he gets nothing, merely saying the evidence didn't support P's claims. I wanted to hear one final "Scammer!" from JDiM.

I wonder who is supporting P since he is now too disabled to pour coffee?

[AngelaHunter]

On 3/1/2022 at 1:38 PM, badhaggis said:

I usually think haircut law suits are useless not this one.

Me too, but I watched this one. It looks like this "stylist", standing here with a dumb expression and eyes swimming in tears uses a weed whacker as the tool of her trade.

[Carolina Girl]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I haven't been watching lately. Seems I've been missing some cases worth seeing.

They really have been getting some good first-runs lately.  

[AngelaHunter]

On 3/3/2022 at 2:29 PM, Carolina Girl said:

OMG - that fat, ugly lying %^* in the case yesterday, who kept insistin that she "didn't think like a criminal" as she emptied out a man's bank accounts, changed his passwords and locked him out of accessing his own money.

Just saw this and it boggled my mind that anyone with functioning brain cells, in this case a nerdy-looking momma's boy, would give a total stranger a POA on recommendation from another criminal  jailbird. Well, P was in jail, I mean - 'incarcerated' - so he's obviously not the brightest.

That burly, big, smirking beast was despicable. I bet the so-called 'fiance' just uses her as a sucker to get money for his commissary "lol". I hope he dumps her when he gets sprung from the slammer but water always finds its own level. Ugh.

Before having sympathy for the P I wanted to know what he did to end up in jail. Since he doesn't look like a criminal mastermind, I couldn't help thinking it might be some nasty sex thing. We only got his last name, Merrill, I couldn't look him up.

[Carolina Girl]

In yesterday's case, I would have given the landlady every penny she asked for.  The piece of shit tenant was completely running a scam from the get-go, especially since he was not to use the detached building for anything other than storage but rented it out as an AirBnB.  Since he wasn't paying for that building as a residence but used it as such - that landlady should have been able to recapture the security as additional rent for the six months.

I'll wager that this is not that clown's first rodeo pulling shit like this.  The novice landlady said his "family" was involved in real estate or somesuch.  My bet is that they are all shady turds.