Hot Bench - General Discussion

[patty1h]

I was very amused by the plaintiff's snazzy circus ringmaster/boat captain's jacket, plus he looked like the love child of Ringo Starr and Balki Bartakamous.   I'm sure he thought he was looking fly, but he looked ridiculous. 

He was a scammer from the get-go, making money by stacking his friends into the defendant's property, then having the nerve to ask for moving expenses.   Happy to see the judges blew him out of the water.

Edited March 9, 2022 by patty1h
it's ringmaster, not ringleader

[AngelaHunter]

I have a lot of catching up to do, but just watched part of the landscaper suing the annoying, nit-picking old tightwad for money he didn't pay her.

He lives in Utah and wanted to change his yard from grass, etc. to a native plant landscape, with rocks, mulch, etc which makes a lot of sense, so he hired the cheapest person he could find, then is here bitching that the rocks she put down were "dirty" and the mulch wasn't the right colour. P says he chose both. He brings with him a sack of dirty rocks and wrongly-coloured mulch to demonstrate.

I didn't finish this but the last I heard was JDiM yelling at him, "You were texting her about MULCH at 2a.m!!"

"I was up", he said. Can't wait for the rest of this.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, patty1h said:

I was very amused by the plaintiff's snazzy circus ringmaster/boat captain's jacket, plus he looked like the love child of Ringo Starr and Balki Bartakamous.   I'm sure he thought he was looking fly, but he looked ridiculous. 

He was a scammer from the get-go, making money by stacking his friends into the defendant's property, then having the nerve to ask for moving expenses.   Happy to see the judges blew him out of the water.

Just saw this. 😆Silly little entitled, petty, scamming Sgt.Pepper wannbe-looking A-hole deserved a bigger spanking than he got.

I bet his daddy gave him all that security money, and plotted to make a killing from the def. So we have come to a generation that can't change a lightbulb and wants compensation if they are burned  out or if blinds have dust on them? If Daddy owns all these properties why doesn't the Ringmaster live in one of them?

If Def wants to be a landlord, I suggest she do a little reasearch on the subject.

Welcome to Clown World.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Balki Bartakamous.

I had to look that up. 😄 I saw more a mini-Howard Stern.

[Carolina Girl]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I have a lot of catching up to do, but just watched part of the landscaper suing the annoying, nit-picking old tightwad for money he didn't pay her.

He lives in Utah and wanted to change his yard from grass, etc. to a native plant landscape, with rocks, mulch, etc which makes a lot of sense, so he hired the cheapest person he could find, then is here bitching that the rocks she put down were "dirty" and the mulch wasn't the right colour. P says he chose both. He brings with him a sack of dirty rocks and wrongly-coloured mulch to demonstrate.

I didn't finish this but the last I heard was JDiM yelling at him, "You were texting her about MULCH at 2a.m!!"

"I was up", he said. Can't wait for the rest of this.

I think that he made all the choices for the landscaping and when  it didn’t look the way he expected it to, he wanted a do-over.  

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I think that he made all the choices for the landscaping and when  it didn’t look the way he expected it to, he wanted a do-over.  

Sometimes that happens when you go the cheapest route.

[DoctorK]

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

bitching that the rocks she put down were "dirty"

To me, this was the only part of his idiocy that has a grain of truth to it. If the stones come with a significant amount of dirt, it can bring in all kind of seeds (including weeds, poison ivy, or other nuisances) and insect life that can be very damaging to a lawn. I was on a project where the general contractor brought in truckloads of "soil" for filling in lawn areas and the dirt was really "dirty", including broken chunks of concrete, broken bricks, some broken glass, and all kinds of half sprouted unidentified plants. It all looked fine with a layer of fresh green sod put down, but I suspect that it didn't look so good after a year or two. Not defending the litigant, he was unreasonable in his expectations for a cheap landscaping job.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

If the stones come with a significant amount of dirt, it can bring in all kind of seeds (including weeds, poison ivy, or other nuisances) and insect life that can be very damaging to a lawn.

But that was the point. He was getting rid of his entire lawn, having it completely dug up (and he bitched that the excavation was 3 1/2" only and not 4" so maybe he was out there at 2 a.m. with a yardstick) and removed and wanted rocks and stones only for a no-care natural desert-type landscape. For stones only a quick watering or some rain will take care of any dirt. I've ordered gravel, flagstones and big rocks and they never arrive from the stoneyard in immaculate condition. I hose them off.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I was on a project where the general contractor brought in truckloads of "soil" for filling in lawn areas and the dirt was really "dirty", including broken chunks of concrete, broken bricks, some broken glass, and all kinds of half sprouted unidentified plants

Yes, that's a different story. Contractors often do this on new home builds  - fill in property with construction trash from elsewhere and as you say, put  a clean but thin layer of soil on top of it. Dig down into any new property and you are likely to find construction debris in the soil. This was the case for our first home. I got some surprises when planting trees and perennials.

[DoctorK]

I sort of enjpyed today's case of "Mr. Plummer the Plumber" vs. the terminally confused plaintiff. My only worthwhile observation is that Corriero remains a blithering idiot.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I sort of enjpyed today's case of "Mr. Plummer the Plumber" vs. the terminally confused plaintiff. My only worthwhile observation is that Corriero remains a blithering idiot.

My DVR called this, "Plummer, oh, my plumber!"

I really feel the other two are getting fed up with Papa Mike and seemed very impatient with his nonsense during the deliberations. I think he really enjoys just being contrary.

It was just the usual case of a grown, mature woman, whipping out the Kleenex and shedding crocodile tears because she was just a confused little girl and the plumber didn't want to talk to her. Gimme a break. "He was impatient with me!" sob sob.

There is no plumber who will -  as JDiM pointed out to Papa who felt sorry for the confused Def and felt maybe the big bad Plummer/plumber took advantage of her - go and pick out YOUR furnishings and fixtures. He plumbs, period. He's not a designer, and what if she didn't like what he picked?

Def seemed to think Plummer (what an awesome name) should treat her like a daughter, take care of her, hold her hand and be available around the clock to talk to her. When he's not, she maliciously reports him to the BBB. I noticed her husband didn't bother showing up to support his tearful little lady.

[Carolina Girl]

“If I cry they’ll feel sorry for me.  And forget I’m an idiot and Papa Mike will stick up for my poor ignorant ass.”

So much for “I am woman hear me roar……”

[AZChristian]

My DVR picked up a rare Saturday episode.  Must have been making up for the basketball stuff in the regular HB time frame.

As presented:

Sainted Single Mother Of 3 bought a Lexus from the defendant for about half the KBB value.  She didn't know it was such a great deal, but the (absent) Baby Daddy told her it was a good deal.  She took about $7,500 in cash ("I always pay cash for my cars") to a parking lot to meet up with defendant to pay for the car.

Three months later, she goes outside and the car is gone.  She calls the police to report it stolen, and then finds out that it was repossessed because of a title loan lien which the defendant's (absent) wife took out.  He said he told the SSMO3's BD that there was a $3,700 lien on the car, and the deal included having the new owner pay off the lien, explaining why it such a great deal in the first place.  Unfortunately, the SSMO3 said the BD never said anything about this.

She paid off the title loan to get the car back, and now wants the defendant to reimburse her the $3,700.

Defendant says since he told the BD about the loan, it's not his fault that the BD did not pass the word along to the SSMO3.  Even with the $3,700, she got a great deal on the car.  He even started laughing when they asked for proof.  

Among questions asked (surprisingly by Judge Corriero), "When you went to register the car, did they not tell you there was a lien?"  (Good question, since the car was not repossessed until three months after the sale.)

SSMO3 (who always pays cash for her cars) did not have the money to pay for the registration at the time the deal was done.

Nobody had any documentation to support their side of the story.

What probably really happened:

Defendant probably IS the BD, and they cooked up this scam to try to get the judges to award $3,700.  Judges dismissed the case entirely, because no one had any proof of one word that came out of their mouths.

Result:

Nobody's going to Disneyland on the judges' dime.

[AngelaHunter]

I agreed with Papa today in the contractor case!

P, looking like he was melting, gave Def contractor 14,000$ on a 30K job when all D had done so far was drive to P's house twice (2hr trip or 4hr trip each way. I thought it was two trips but the judges said it was 16 hrs driving), take measurements and do a little pencil sketch of the work to be done in converting a garage into a studio apartment.

P is expecting the work to start and D tells him his truck broke down (are there any contractors whose trucks don't break down on the regular?) so he doesn't come back. Another week passes and no show. P starts to think this guy is never coming back and decides he wants his 14K returned. D offers him 9K and keeps the 5K as pay for what he already did - drive back and forth and do the drawing. P says he accepted the 9K because he thought it might be that or nothing.

The judges are privy to more texts than we saw, so maybe that's why DiM and JA decide D earned the whole 5K, but Papa says he doesn't feel the D earned 5K as per quantum meruit. Personally, if D wanted to drive all those hours for a job and it costs 100$ to fill his gas tank, that was his prerogative and not sure why P had to pay for that. Anyway Papa wanted to give the P back at least 2500$ but the other two voted him down. Zippo for P.

[AngelaHunter]

I have to wonder what teachers are being paid? I watched the P today, who has been a teacher for 25 years, yet has to rent a crummy room in the "picayune, persnickity" Ms. Levy's home for 1,000$ a month.
 

Ms. Levy is a landlord who doesn't bother giving or keeping receipts for security and rent paid. I get it - that big extra income needs to be reported at tax time and I guess she preferred to deal in cash and not do that. She admits that P was an ideal tenant who was never a problem.

Anyway, when teacher P moves out, Ms Levy keeps all his sec. deposit (2k according to him and 995$ according to her) because there are grease marks on the wall from his cooking, since Ms. Levy was too cheap to put tiles on the wall where the hotplate is.

She wants him to pay for 6 lightbulbs and she also charges him 18$ because the super-cheap shower curtain wasn't immaculate, the paint needed redoing after over 2 years, and the floor was scratched. She wants him to pay for a brand-new hotplate even though the one she gave him "looked like it's from 1960" according to JDiM)The windowsill had dust on it! All of this is worth 2K she says. Maybe it was only 995$ but since she wouldn't dream of giving or keeping receipts, so who knows? She's also charging him because she couldn't move someone else in the very day after the P vacated.

P admits maybe the scratches on the floor were his doing, but the judges are kind of outraged at the nickel-and-diming Ms Levy so they subtract 200$ for the floor and return the balance to the P.

I hope Ms Levy's next tenant is of the variety we often see on these shows, where multiple police visits are necessary and property is destroyed beyond repair. Cheapskate!

[AngelaHunter]

I guess I'll just blab on and on here!

Papa Mike is showing flashes of Perry Mason these days.

Old couple suing mechanic Hernandez for the 2K, impound fees on the 27-year old truck they gave him to fix the engine and replace the seats, plus more.

Mr. Hernandez says he doesn't know them,  never saw them before, never took in their truck and has no idea what they are talking about or why he is here. P says they went to him before for repairs and Def called him "Grandfather" so they trusted him.

Proof they paid this stranger 2K in cash and left their truck there? He never gave them a receipt and I guess they were unable to ask for one. Proof they ordered and paid for a new t***** and sent it directly to the shop? They don't have that. Proof they had to rent a car to the tune of 1500$? They dont't have that either or even know the make of car they rented or where they rented it. They throw away all bills and receipts because he has diabetes.

Oddly enough, the heap was towed from the street near Def's mechanic shop. Ps say it's because D dumped it on the street, but the police report says it's because it was unregistered.  Def knows nothing about that. He keeps meticulous records of every vehicle that comes in every day. Papa Mike scores a hit when he says "You keep all records of intakes? Show me the log for Jan. 8", when Ps say they took the truck in. Oops, Wouldn't you know it? He just doesn't have that particular one. How unfortunate.

P husband goes on a rant, calling def a thief, a crook, a liar. Since Ps had not one tiny iota of proof their case is dismissed. I think D is a crook who took P money and had no intention of fixing the beater.

Edited March 28, 2022 by AngelaHunter

[Carolina Girl]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

IPapa Mike is showing flashes of Perry Mason these days.

......

 Papa Mike scores a hit when he says "You keep all records of intakes? Show me the log for Jan. 8", when Ps say they took the truck in. Oops, Wouldn't you know it? He just doesn't have that particular one. How unfortunate.

 

I'm not holding that against the defendant too much.  These people were less than rational and would have immediately claimed that he never wrote it down anyway.  And as Judge Acker pointed out - it's the plaintiffs who had the burden of proof.  If they were making the whole thing up, defendant would know they didn't have a shred of proof.

What I'm wondering is what was really going on here.   I mean the truck is parked - what - a couple  blocks away?  Defendant has a lot across the the street for cars he's working on (no doubt to avoid cars being booted or towed by the authorities, as happened to the plaintiffs).   At one point, I was mentally speculating that they had actually dropped it off at a different mechanic's shop and were just confused when they were trying to figure out who was responsible.  It was pointed out there were no calls, no texts - nothing.  And frankly I had trouble following the plaintiffs' narrative.

 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

I was mentally speculating that they had actually dropped it off at a different mechanic's shop and were just confused when they were trying to figure out who was responsible. 

Interesting, that hadn't occurred to me. It would explain why the plaintiff was so angry (convinced that the defendant was deliberately lying) and the defendant not knowing anything about the truck (since he really never had anything to do with it). I would rather think this than that either or both litigants were flat out lying.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

What I'm wondering is what was really going on here. 

Who could know, since none of the 3 litigants had one scrap of proof. I just found it suspicious when def made a point of what meticulous daily records he keeps of all cars but strangely didn't have or didn't bring the one for that day.

I've been enjoying the cases on this show, but sadly today we're back to the usual: Pathetic desperate woman meets hulking slobby def on some dating site and gives him 1K to buy a car after he pleads with her - "plzzzz!". They were just buddies he says and the money was a buddy gift. The 1K came from her college fund. He gets the car sideswiped so can't go to work anymore, then crashes it down some 60ft hillside or something. He was injured but has no proof.

His "just friends" defense falls apart as the judges read the disgusting text of him inquiring if he should come over for some _____, 🤢 but he has to keep himself free. Don't you know how many women crave the attentions of an overstuffed, ugly, unemployed loser who lives with his nana?

Papa admonishes him for not "acting like a man". 🤣 Really, Papa? Him? Not happening.

The judges give P her money back and hope she learned not to give her savings to some fugly creep she picked up online. Somehow I doubt she learned anything at all.

[Guest]

Wouldn’t you think that someone before the court show is taped would tip off the contestants that they need to bring any and all proof of posed allegations?

Nah. Me neither 

[Carolina Girl]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Wouldn’t you think that someone before the court show is taped would tip off the contestants that they need to bring any and all proof of posed allegations?

Nah. Me neither 

I remember there was one litigant in a case that was so well-prepared the judge couldn't believe it.  Asked for a document, there it was.  Also I seem to recall she was extremely articulate in presenting her side of the case.  

I had a friend go to Small Claims and asked me what he should bring.  I said EVERYTHING.  Put every scrap of paper relating to this case in a binder in chronological order, with a tab and an index and be sure to print out any and all of your text messages and tab the most relevant.  

Apparently the biggest cause of lost and damaged cell phones is a summons to appear in court.  

[Carolina Girl]

I hate to break the news to these three judges, but in California, our insurance code has the minimum insurance liability law.  Which means that the plaintiff could legally have carried insurance that only paid out to someone that HE hit with his car.  He was not required to carry comprehensive or collusion.  So that comment that if he'd had insurance it would have paid out the remainder of the claim is pure horse manure.  If he had minimum liability, no it wouldn't.  

And paying a claim has NOTHING to do with the insurance status of the injured party.  I think the reason he only got $1,900 from the lying defendant's insurance company was because they believed that bullshit story of the defendant's and assessed him 50% of the liability because he hit the debris left by the defendant.   But knowing he was uninsured, they knew that the plaintiff did not have an insurance company that was going to hound them to make good on all the damages.  

The judges got it wrong.  I get it - he should have had insurance, and no one dislikes uninsured drivers more than I - but his insurance status had NOTHING to do with or any relevance to this accident.  DiMango can't make up tort law to appease her sensibilities.  The fact that Papa Mike got it right for once was interesting.  

[AZChristian]

25 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

I hate to break the news to these three judges, but in California, our insurance code has the minimum insurance liability law.  Which means that the plaintiff could legally have carried insurance that only paid out to someone that HE hit with his car.  He was not required to carry comprehensive or collusion.  So that comment that if he'd had insurance it would have paid out the remainder of the claim is pure horse manure.  If he had minimum liability, no it wouldn't.  

And paying a claim has NOTHING to do with the insurance status of the injured party.  I think the reason he only got $1,900 from the lying defendant's insurance company was because they believed that bullshit story of the defendant's and assessed him 50% of the liability because he hit the debris left by the defendant.   But knowing he was uninsured, they knew that the plaintiff did not have an insurance company that was going to hound them to make good on all the damages.  

The judges got it wrong.  I get it - he should have had insurance, and no one dislikes uninsured drivers more than I - but his insurance status had NOTHING to do with or any relevance to this accident.  DiMango can't make up tort law to appease her sensibilities.  The fact that Papa Mike got it right for once was interesting.  

If I'm not mistaken, uninsured motorists in California cannot sue for pain and suffering resulting from an accident, even if they are not at fault.  (If I recall correctly, part of the reason defendant was asking for $5,000 was to include pain and suffering.)  But they can be reimbursed for vehicle repairs.  I think one issue here was that the defendant's insurance found the plaintiff and defendant at 50/50 responsibility, so they reimbursed the plaintiff for half of the claim (auto repair) amount.  

Plaintiff was an idiot for having no insurance; defendant was a jerk.  IMO, plaintiff was not entitled to any more money.  If he had insurance, his company could have worked with the defendant's insurance company and he may have been happier with the outcome.  If you want to dance the dance of driving without insurance, you may have to pay the piper the charges for your choice.  Whatever he saved by not having insurance was probably a lot less than what he's going to have to spend to fix his car.  And if he really did have pain and suffering, it's all on him.

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

If I'm not mistaken, uninsured motorists in California cannot sue for pain and suffering resulting from an accident, even if they are not at fault.  (If I recall correctly, part of the reason defendant was asking for $5,000 was to include pain and suffering.)  But they can be reimbursed for vehicle repairs.  I think one issue here was that the defendant's insurance found the plaintiff and defendant at 50/50 responsibility, so they reimbursed the plaintiff for half of the claim (auto repair) amount.  

Plaintiff was an idiot for having no insurance; defendant was a jerk.  IMO, plaintiff was not entitled to any more money.  If he had insurance, his company could have worked with the defendant's insurance company and he may have been happier with the outcome.  If you want to dance the dance of driving without insurance, you may have to pay the piper the charges for your choice.  Whatever he saved by not having insurance was probably a lot less than what he's going to have to spend to fix his car.  And if he really did have pain and suffering, it's all on him.

I had forgotten that element - the pain and suffering.  And you are correct - uninsured motorists cannot collect pain and suffering.  Thanks for correcting!

My real issue with the judges was their claim that had he had insurance it would have covered all his damages.  This is simply not always the case.  If he had the minimum liability, which is perfectly legal, NONE of his damages or injuries would have been covered by his insurance company.  Also, since in that case the insurance company would not have been on the hook to pay anything to him, I doubt they would have made any effort at all to push the other company.  

I'm like Kathy Bates in "Fried Green Tomatoes" - "I'm older and have more insurance."  I have a 100,000/300,000 occurrence aggregate, comprehensive, collision, uninsured motorist and a $1,000,000 umbrella policy.  I drive in California - people like the defendant are EVERYWHERE.  

I'll give the plaintiff SOME credit though - at least he was contrite and wasn't trying to tell the judges that he was on his way to get insurance when the accident happened.

But that defendant was a complete slimeball.  

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I remember there was one litigant in a case that was so well-prepared the judge couldn't believe it.

That rings a bell! I just tried to find it but got distracted by thinking how much I adore the cheap, cheesy sets for these court shows, where nothing has changed in 25 years - at least on TPC and JJ -  and everything in them is fake. It's part of the charm. I doubt I would enjoy it as much if they shelled out a few dollars to make them look like actual courtrooms with, y'know, real books and stuff.

It must have caused much anguish for the producers when they had to pay to make this show's super-long COVID bench.

Haven't seen the uninsured driver case you all are discussing, but I just watched one that once again confirms my observation that no one we see fights over cars less than 15 years old.

Plaintiff Mezquita is willing to spend thousands to try and resuscitate his daughter's broken-down 16-year-old Pontiac Grand Prix. and is suing Def mechanic for 5K for not making it perfect. Average value of this car: 1200$. P's wife drove it! She was scared! She had to call her husband!

I'm no mechanic for sure, but I can't help thinking that even if you fix something on this old POS, something else could break the next day. Can someone keep suing the mechanic for everything that goes wrong with an ancient beater until the day it's towed off to Car Heaven? I don't know.

I also liked how P was affronted and indignant that Def has no license, something that bothered him not at all when he thought he was getting a bargain.  P only did all this sleuthing re: lack of license, after he was not pleased with the repairs.

P wants the cost of a rental car. JDiM asks for proof. Well, he rented the car from a friend. Yeah, sure. He has an affadavit from the friend! I can picture P and his friend making up this bill. JDiM tells him nicely to shove it.

He wants lost wages since he had to take time off work to deal with the beater's issues. Don't think so. He's sounding like a scammer here.

Anyway, the judges decide that all of the def's work was worthless and give the P back the 1490$ he paid.

[Carolina Girl]

Indeed - I'm always amazed that when it comes to the term "classic car", many of the plaintiffs in these cases and I are not using the same dictionary.....

[Welshman in Ca]

19 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Indeed - I'm always amazed that when it comes to the term "classic car", many of the plaintiffs in these cases and I are not using the same dictionary.....

Agreed but I don't think the judges take it into account if the car really is a classic.  There's a fine line between a piece of junk & a classic car sometimes but the last place I would be if I thought I had a real classic car is some tv judge show.

Judges are like insurance companies in regard to cars & the actual worth to the person, they don't care.

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/2/2022 at 12:55 PM, Welshman in Ca said:

Judges are like insurance companies in regard to cars & the actual worth to the person, they don't care.

Even if they do care, they can't give judgments based on someone's sentimental attachment to an unlisted item of unknown value.

We've seen litigants call all manner of junk "antiques" and wanting big money, or saying they put so much work and cash into a 1994 Ford Tempo their dear departed Daddy left to them it must be worth a fortune. Not everything is a valuable classic or antique just because it's old. So many factors go into establishing value - age, condition, rarity, desirability, etc. They are worth only what someone is willing to pay and there's no way of knowing that until it's sold.

Just my 00.02.

[Carolina Girl]

Holy cow.....the fucking deranged puppy buying on payments plaintiff in yesterday's case.  

I think just about everything that came out of her mouth was a lie.  And of course Papa Mike tries to get the dog breeder to "make some allowance" for the deranged goblin saying bullshit like there was no clear repayment schedule when every document CLEARLY stated when she was supposed to pay and how much.  I LOVED it when Papa Mike said something about "wanting to pursue" a path (i.e. leniency for the numbnut) when the case was tossed to Judge Acker and her immediate response was "I'm not going down that path with you."

Among the bullshit I don't believe (other than her ADMITTED lie about being in an accident and losing her spleen):

1.  Her contract was based on receiving AKC papers (clearly was not).

2.  Plaintiff "cussed her out" (telling you that he doesn't believe your lies and you're only embarrassing yourself is not cussing you out).

3.  Unnecessarily getting her poor 16-year-old son involved in this mess (no he didn't.  He sent the neighbor kid to retrieve the dog when you told him to come pick it up; it had nothing to do with the fact that your son knew him).

4.  That you lost your job and got COVID.  She's supposedly an EMT.  Health care workers were at a premium during COVID.  I smell steer manure.   

What I LOVED the most was the whole business with the AKC papers. Plaintiff breeder said "oh no....first of all she doesn't get ANY papers until the dog is paid for; second of all, she paid the 'pet price' for the dog."  I think he said something about any papers she would receive would indicate the dog was sold as a pet and NOT for breeding; if a buyer wants AKC papers, they need to pay an extra $1000.  I think this cartoon was planning on having the dog stud and making some (pick of the litter) money (especially when she saw what the plaintiff was selling them for) - but without AKC papers she'll have trouble getting a decent bitch since the owner won't be able to sell them for top dollar.

 

[Carolina Girl]

OMG - that defendant in the security deposit case yesterday was such a scammer that Judge DiMango literally called her that.  So you placed TWO ads on Craigslist - one that says deposit is refundable and the other saying nonrefundable (and then of course claim you answered an ad saying "nonrefundable" and kill the other so that the victim can't produce it.  Also saying you don't conduct criminal background or credit checks.  Then when deposit is paid, you come back a few days later and say that "oh, you failed the background/credit check but the deposit is non-refundable so bye now!"

I wonder how many people that scamming piece of shit pulled this on before someone like the plaintiff fought back.  

Needless to say, plaintiff won, and DiMango literally said "and you are nothing but a scammer" to the defendant when the verdict was announced.  This is one of those cases where I wish the losing litigant got NOTHING

I'm starting to wonder if they still split the leftover "pot" after judgment between them or if the loser simply gets the appearance fee and that's it.  Since they now solicit cases rather than wait for actual court filings, the potential for sham cases (as we have speculated on several of these) is pretty high.  I'll bet shows decided "nah, here's your free trip to L.A., pin money and $250 for appearing.  Thanks for playing but you're not getting $2500 for bullshit."

[AZChristian]

12 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

I wonder how many people that scamming piece of shit pulled this on before someone like the plaintiff fought back.  

I'm starting to wonder if they still split the leftover "pot" after judgment between them or if the loser simply gets the appearance fee and that's it.  Since they now solicit cases rather than wait for actual court filings, the potential for sham cases (as we have speculated on several of these) is pretty high.  I'll bet shows decided "nah, here's your free trip to L.A., pin money and $250 for appearing.  Thanks for playing but you're not getting $2500 for bullshit."

I googled the defendant, and the main source of income seems to be charging people to teach them how to be social media influencers for profit.  If the defendant has 177,000 followers, that doesn't seem to be a lot for a "famous" influencer.

I think the amount in the "pot" for each case is determined by the amount of the suit.  If someone is suing for $250, then the pot is $250.  The pot is only $5,000 when that's the amount of the suit, and production has to approve that.  It only works to the loser's advantage if the judges award less than the requested amount; then the difference is split between litigants.  At least, that's what I read many years ago that it works that way.

I kind of suspect (but not 100% sure) that if the case is dismissed, all they get is the appearance fee.  So if two scammers get together and file a suit for $5,000 for pain and suffering because one felt  "disrespected," all they actually get is their appearance fee after the judge dismisses the case on the grounds of ridiculousness.

Judge Judy is known to send a case back to the local small claims court when she recognizes it to be a scam.  Pretty sure that those cases don't earn the litigants anything but their appearance fee.  Sadly, the litigants also get free transportation to Los Angeles , a free night or two in a hotel, and appropriate meals.

[DoctorK]

I really enjoyed today's sprinkler system case, more than any other case in my recent memory. I have dealt with a sprinkler system since I bought my house in 1993 in Florida. I was naive and thought it would be great to not have to worry about it ever again. I was wrong, and I have learned much more about operating and maintaining a sprinkler than I ever wanted to know. I was glad that one of the judges knew something about these systems - Di Mango mentioned that the lines are divided into sections. My experience has been that a sprinkler is a never ending chore to keep operating properly. Sprinkler heads fail (clogging or just blowing off the riser), the pump requires regular maintenance, the frequency of watering changes with the seasons, etc. I initially believed that the plaintiff was just not prepared to use a sprinkler system, but after she got caught in a bald faced lie about the big shed getting removed (which is very likely to produce broken sprinkler heads), I lowered my opinion of her. I was waiting for Correrio to heroically ride in and save the poor little woman from the evil contractor, but was pleasantly surprised that the judges actually looked at everything and noticed that the plaintiff didn't have any proof that the defendant was responsible for her lawn dying. I think the plaintiff just wasn't willing and able to use the sprinkler system and manage her landscaping guy (cutting grass only every two weeks during summer? ridiculous).

P.S. If you think this is long winded, don't let me start on repairing and building fences.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I googled the defendant, and the main source of income seems to be charging people to teach them how to be social media influencers for profit.

I haven't seen this case, but "influencer" seems to be a popular career choice for the super-dumbed-down New Age generation! I'm not sure if I want to 🤣 or 😭.

[Carolina Girl]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I haven't seen this case, but "influencer" seems to be a popular career choice for the super-dumbed-down New Age generation! I'm not sure if I want to 🤣 or 😭.

I saw that he was claiming to be an influencer.  

Yeah - right - you're right up there with Bella Hadid.  

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, DoctorK said:

but after she got caught in a bald faced lie about the big shed getting removed (which is very likely to produce broken sprinkler heads), I lowered my opinion of her.

 

JDiM's observation that peoples' memories often improve (they stop lying) when they find out there is photographic or written evidence was pretty funny.

I liked the def. He was upfront, seemed to know what he was talking about and kept returning every time P whined about something.

[Taeolas]

So, for fans of the show, it looks like there will be a significant shakeup for next season. 

 

Judges DiMango and Acker will be jumping bench to a new Amazon show called Tribunal, which is apparently a variant of Hot Bench with some video twist of some sort. Sheindlin’s son, former District Attorney Adam Levy will be the third member of the bench, continuing Judy's nepotism it seems.

 

As for Hot Bench, DiMango and Acker's contracts for Hot Bench expired this year and weren't renewed. Papa Corierro will have 2 new judges sharing the bench with him next season.  The timing makes a bit of sense I guess; Corierro didn't join until the second season, so his contract would naturally go longer. I wonder if this show will get a habit of rotating judges out after each contract expires? 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Taeolas

[Paperclips]

39 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

So, for fans of the show, it looks like there will be a significant shakeup for next season. 

 

Judges DiMango and Acker will be jumping bench to a new Amazon show called Tribunal, which is apparently a variant of Hot Bench with some video twist of some sort. Sheindlin’s son, former District Attorney Adam Levy will be the third member of the bench, continuing Judy's nepotism it seems.

 

As for Hot Bench, DiMango and Acker's contracts for Hot Bench expired this year and weren't renewed. Papa Corierro will have 2 new judges sharing the bench with him next season.  The timing makes a bit of sense I guess; Corierro didn't join until the second season, so his contract would naturally go longer. I wonder if this show will get a habit of rotating judges out after each contract expires? 

This surprised me.  "Hot Bench" is only behind re-runs of "Judge Judy" in ratings.  Replacing 2 long-time Judges is going to be tough.    JJ seems intent on bringing family members into the mix.  At least Byrd got another job.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, Paperclips said:

This surprised me.  "Hot Bench" is only behind re-runs of "Judge Judy" in ratings.  Replacing 2 long-time Judges is going to be tough.    JJ seems intent on bringing family members into the mix.  At least Byrd got another job.

Meh. I don't know what Amazon TeeVee is and probably wouldn't bother even if I did. I would have preferred DiM and Acker to stay on Hot Bench and just put poor ol' Papa out to pasture.

What about Sonya Montejano? Is she staying with Papa Mike and his new sidekicks?

Why is Judge Judy's son named Levy...?

Edited April 29, 2022 by AngelaHunter
Spelling

[AZChristian]

On 4/28/2022 at 7:31 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Why is Judge Judy's son named Levy...?

Because he was born during the marriage of Judge Judy to Ronald Levy.

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Because he was born during the marriage of Judge Judy to Ronald Levy.

Thanks. I had no idea she was married to anyone other than Jerry!

[AngelaHunter]

OMG! When did everyone turn into hothouse flowers and Sensitive Plants?

Well-spoken but BSC plaintiff ghost writer is suing for emotional distress, triggering, sexual assault, and mental health crisis because some woman who hired her to ghostwrite her memoirs (the memoirs of some nut who is so young she probably clearly remembers which teddy bear she slept with) and she pretended to be indigenous and a POC and said racist things on FB or some toxic social media, and OMG! P found out this woman is really 98.8% European (how did she find this out?)and her pretending to be a POC/Indigenous was so triggering it caused the mental health crisis and then P had to defend this woman from horrible, vicious attacks (all online attacks, of course, like words on a computer screen?) and it just sent her over the edge. DId P ever tell this woman she no longer would work with her? No, of course not. She preferred all the abuse, fraud, lying, and racism. JA is very skeptical about all this crazy hyperbole.

The problem is that P is here suing this woman's husband for the 800$ owed for her work, and also for all the terrible, horrible things his soon-to-be ex-wife did. She explains this is because the husband earns more than the wife, controls the money, and they have a joint bank account so even though he had nothing to do with this transaction, he's responsible for everything.

Also, some mutual friend sexually assaulted her and now she has nightmares and Def refused to be a witness to this assault probably because he wasn't even there. She's holding some laptop hostage until she gets her money. She states that this woman "fled" the state when she was being asked for this 800$ and then fled again when P tracked her down.

The insanity is compounded by Papa Mike who starts yelling at D and thinks the Def is responsible for this debt of his not-yet-ex-wife even though the divorce has not yet happened. The other two explain this to him and he finally concedes the poor little lady is owed nothing and her complaint is dismissed without prejudice for her to re-file it when there is an actual divorce and division of community assets and debts.

Don't hook up with random strangers on FB for any reason, people. As Levin would say, "I'm tellin' you!!"

[patty1h]

That was some nuclear level toxicity in the case today of the daughter Marisol suing her mother Tracee for a drill, a pillow and some video games.  There was so much anger there about such insignificant items it made me curious about the cause, but both litigants were vague.  They could not even agree on whether Marisol paid rent/utilities while living with Tracee.  Meanwhile, Tracee was putting out clear vibes that she wasn't a fan of Marisol's husband Jose and harped on the fact that Marisol had a child at 17 -- depending on the age of consent in their state, she could have a reason for that anger but you'd think she would simmer down after the 3rd grandchild.

Marisol mentioned that when her mom visited, she was suddenly treating her grandchildren poorly when she'd been great in the past and she had the nerve to take away the video games that her grandkids played with.   I'll take her word for Tracee being a good grandma because she seemed like a supreme sourpuss on the stand in front of the judges, lying about receipts for those video games and maybe using her teen daughters SSN to get utilities turned on.  Both women were tearing up during the case with hurt feelings, but this relationship seemed broken permanently.  I don't see these women fixing their mess.

Corriero's heart was bleeding for Marisol, but the other 2 judges talked through the details and came to a fair decision, in Marisol's favor - she got the value of those games and her mom turned over the drill, etc. 

**After re-reading my comments about Marisol's pregnancy, I see I implied that Jose may have had an illegal relationship with her.  I realize they both could have been the same age and no harm/no foul -- no bias towards Jose.

Edited May 10, 2022 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/9/2022 at 4:54 PM, patty1h said:

That was some nuclear level toxicity in the case today of the daughter Marisol suing her mother Tracee for a drill, a pillow and some video games.

Wow. I started to watch this, but couldn't take P's overly-dramatic expressions and couldn't stand looking at or listening to Momma. I assumed this was a case concerning serious issues. like abuse, drug addiction, or maybe even homicide. But anguish over a drill, a pillow and some games?

Instead I watched another "as is" case of P suing D for selling him a lemon. The two know each other (seems D gives P tats) and when P saw D was selling his Chevy Tahoe, he wanted it. It's black and sexy on the outside. He wanted it "BAD". This is a mature man and he wanted this vehicle so badly that he didn't care that couldn't test drive it because the key was not there and the tags were expired. Like a child, he just could not wait another day or two. Papa Mike wants to know WTH?? "To be honest, I trusted him", is the answer.

So he hands over 5,000$. Apparently these are very good vee-hickles, but it WAS 15-years-old.  Does he at least take it to a mechanic after he buys it? Nope. He goes straight out to buy a big-ass sound system for this elderly car he had to have, to make it even more sexy and cool, as some teens would. He drives the car around happily for at least two weeks and then, boom  - dashboard lights up like a Christmas tree. THEN he takes it to get it checked and he says the mechanic told him the t***** is shot, the car is "bad", a real POS and he needs to get his money back.

Def was a little shifty but there is no proof he did anything wrong. Of course, P gets nothing, since no warranty was given and old cars are prone to conking out. D has the car back and if P doesn't go pick it up, D can do whatever he wants with it.

We saw a pic of the dashboard with a snakes' nest of wires hanging out of it and Def makes the point of how does he know that whoever installed the big-ass sound system didn't mess up the electrical works on the car. Could be, I guess. 

JA says she feels sorry for P? I have no idea why since he's a grown man of at least normal intelligence who did exactly what he wanted to do, all on his own.

P says he won't let a little matter of 5K down the drain ruin the friendship and he'll go get more tats from D.

[AngelaHunter]

Stupid dragon momma is here with her stupid, sad-sack heifer daughter, Alyssa, suing daughter's stupid, POS thug loser off/on boyfriend, Jorge. This Casanova has another "baby momma" but claims he wasn't with her when he - as he put it -  "knocked up Alyssa", but he was, as Momma and Alyssa found out when they tracked him down and went stampeding over there wanting the money back.

Momma is willing to take five thousand dollars from her retirement fund to get him a lawyer when he gets arrested because no one in his family would help him.  Mom then found out from the lawyer, who asked if she was sure she wanted to spend all this money on the POS, that Jorge had 2 priors, both for beating his desperate, pathetic "baby momma" so severely that he was sentenced to five years in prison this time.  THAT baby momma decided to have not just one, but two kids with this paragon. "Oh, how I love that man of mine!" Mom is shocked at the priors but okay when thinking it was just one charge of violent domestic abuse.

He gets sprung from prison early because of COVID and he goes back to Baby Momma #1 - it seems he has something no woman can resist and I have no idea what it is -  so now Momma wants her money back.

"He should be a man and pay me back," she whines. Lady, do you know how silly you sound? I guess she was taking her cue from Jorge who in his mumbling monologue said several times, "being the man I am".  Neither the make-up laden Alyssa nor Momma really cared about his crimes and Mom never thought, "He might beat my darling daughter too". You really think "being a man" is on his agenda, you damn fool?

I thought he got a really good reaming from JDiM, until JA started on him and ripped him a new one. That was enjoyable. She obviously also couldn't see that special something he has that brings all the ladies to his yard. Well, he's good with his fists, I guess, as long as the target is a woman.

Jorge doesn't care. He informs them all that he loves women and that he and his battered ladylove are now "like this" as he clasps his hands together. So happy for her.

Momma gets her 5K back, Alyssa (who desparately needs serious counselling for all her problems) gets a lecture by JDiM and Jorge gets a final reaming and is pronounced  a "loser". Oh, and Papa Mike asks if he pays child support for his newest progeny. Yeah, sure he does.

 

[DoctorK]

New case, plaintiff let a friend move in, a mess when she left. My only strong reaction to any part of this case is that I continue to despise Corriero as a judge. Specifically, when he was questioning both litigants about whether or not the plaintiff told her that she would have to give 30 days’ notice, he asked the defendant directly if she remembered being told that, she answered that she didn't remember it happening, Corriero followed up with "then it may have happened?" to which the defendant agreed. Within two minutes while Corriero was loudly berating the plaintiff about the thirty day notice, he asked the defendant again about the notice and now she is totally sure that the plaintiff never told her. Corriero, in his zeal to save the poor helpless little girl from the evil old man, ignored this direct contradiction, she was lying one way or the other. Fortunately, the other judges were not so blinded by sympathy and disagreed with him. On a minor point, they all three denied the $75 claim for the sheets she allegedly took when she left; this is small change but with the defendant acknowledging that there were sheets when she moved in and the sheets were gone when she left (just because she had receipts for some sheets she bought doesn't mean she didn't take the plaintiff's sheets also) sounds to me like "preponderance of evidence" leans towards she took them (perhaps accidentally). Oh well, if it wasn't for Corriero (who once loudly stated that he never bends the law based on his feelings) my urge to comment would be much lower.

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/13/2022 at 5:40 PM, DoctorK said:

Oh well, if it wasn't for Corriero (who once loudly stated that he never bends the law based on his feelings) my urge to comment would be much lower.

Yes, like when he wants to play Galahad and give the purchase price of a car back to some poor little helpless damsel/big grown woman who bought a 20-year-old heap with no test drive or mechanic check, but who squirts tears because she's a single mother.

[DoctorK]

7 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

she's a single mother.

Don;t forget sainted.

[AngelaHunter]

I saw the freakish cast of characters (who would not be out of place in a Craven film) in the tattoo/piercing shop case and was going to watch just for the sheer madness of it all, but then saw P's hubby cuddling a tiny dog. I didn't know why it was there, nor did I wish to know so checked out with great haste.

[AngelaHunter]

No TPC for me today, so I switched to this. OMG. The unholy triangle of the top-knotted, clownish Terrell - present bed partner of P - who likes to send very threatening texxes while he "was in anger", the corrupt-looking, makeup-laden P, Ms. Smith, and goofy def, Mr. Chamberlain was so nasty I couldn't hang around for the judgment.

Ms.Smith, who was formerly g/f of Def says he booted her out of their shared apartment and changed the locks. After watching the sordid videos, I see why. Ms. Smith and her buddies or herd were shown trashing the place like a team of penned bison - smoking, dumping soft drinks and snacks on the floor, grinding them into the carpet, etc. She told Mr. Chamberlain that if he kicked her out, she would come back and just squat her huge butt there until the landlord evicted both of them.

Mr. Chamberlain is quite proud of his lengthy rehab stay, where he says he kicked his methamphetamine habit, but unfortunately admits here that he remains a drunk. Congrats, I guess.

Ms.Smith doesn't appear to be the least ashamed of her behavior, which JA called "abominable" and "outrageous". Or maybe the former couldn't change her expression for fear of cracking the thick layer of makeup which did nothing to enhance her appearance.

All of this might have been merely amusing, in a sordid kind of way, if not for the fact that the charming Ms. S has a daughter, baby daddy unknown I assume. She wails that D's behavior and drinking was done in FRONT OF MY CHILD, who was 2 1/2. I guess she thinks it's okay for HER to behave like a wild beast in front of the kid though.

These helpless children need to be taken away from lowlifes like these. 😡

Even Papa Mike couldn't see his way to finding the big, brutal Ms.Smith to be a poor little helpless SSM who deserved a big award. Ugh.

[AngelaHunter]

Did anyone watch the Motorcycle Morons today?

P, who is boyfriend of D's momma, is suing D for crashing his bike. P, who looks like he was repeatedly punched in both eyes,  was "out of town" (why do I automatically think that is a euphemism for "in the slammer?" Probably too cynical of me.) and asked D to go get the bike that was in the shop and pay the 1200$ owed on it. He said D could play with the bike if he did this, even though P knew D had no license and virtually no experience, expecially on a powerful bike like this one.

Def couldn't be expected to cruise around quiet streets and rides it to some canyon to show off to his little friends, proceeds to crash the bike and P wants the value of it - 6500$.  The judges want to know why D doesn't owe the money? He says the P assumed the risk when letting his dumb ass play with the bike, plus he whines that P has caused so much trouble in his family so why should he pay, and nothing is his fault!

He claim he's just a young thing, naturally "looking for speed" and shouldn't be held responsible for what he did. "How old are you?" JDiM asks. "Twenty-five," the great big hulking baby with the big bushy beard answers. Twenty-five really is the new fourteen. "You're not that young", JDiM replies, probably as disgusted as I am with the new reality, where fully adult men and women call themselves "kids" and expect the type of leniency you'd give a naughty child. These shows make me so glad I"m not young and looking. The pickin's are seriously depressing.

Anyway, the judges ask P for proof of his damages. "Uhh...proof? What do you mean? Um..I didn't think I needed any," he says. He sold the bike for parts but there is no pics of what condition the bike was in, no proof of what he got for the parts or that he even actually sold them, plus he kept dumdum Def's 1200$, which he may have used to fix the bike.  Who knows?  BIg surprise - he gets nothing.

My PVR has become just as snarky as my CC as both are fed up with this shit. The blurb said: "An unlicensed CHILD crashes his stepfather's motorcycle". 😄

I was concerned about that and when the case started I was confused, wondering where was this child.

[AngelaHunter]

Don't mind me going on and on here. I haven't seen a lot of these cases and I'm quite enjoying some of them.

Silly, blank-eyed dingbat is suing her ex-boyfriend, the dumb Fabio, for 5K for totalling her car. She had no insurance on it, and he had no driver's license. We never find out why this mature man can't get or keep a license. P says she was waiting to get insurance for some stupid reason.

Fabio says she should sue the person who ran him off the road, resulting in him getting a broken back and receiving 30K in compensation, 10K of which went to his lawyer. He told his dingbat g/f he would pay for the truck, but he can't afford it due to medical bills. Well, dingbat can't sue the other driver since - IIRC - she allowed an unlicensed, uninsured driver to use  her car, plus she waited too long since Tarzan kept promising to pay.

These two dumbells lived together off and on, neither of them care to work, yet made the smart choice to have a kid together. For sure these stellar genes need to be passed on.

It's decided both of them have unclean hands, but Dingbat is awarded 5K anyway, since Fabio the Fool did say he would pay it.

In the hall, the Dingbat says about her ex-loverboy, "I hope he learns to do unto others as he would do unto them." 😄Lawdy, lawdy!

Then we had Ms.Gurang suing D for pulling out of a parking lot into traffic and crashing into her. Def seems unable to fully open her eyes because of exhaustion, boredom, or the giant eyelashes which are weighing her lids down.

"Did you have insurance?" JDiM asks.

"Ummm....not yet... partly", is the answer. JA rips into her: "Either you have insurance or you don't! Where were you going?" Well, D was going to visit a relative. "A sick relative?" JA asks. "Ahh.. I think so...?" JA wants to know if the sick relative was in the mall? "Duhhh..." Seems she was actually meeting some guy there and anyway it was P's fault. She was going too fast and didn't slow down for the "orange" light.

Def has no license, of course, and accuses P of "double-dipping", which I guess is a term someone told her since I doubt she has a clue what it means. The judges explain to her that even though P had insurance that paid for her damage, there is something called a "deductible" (2500$ in this case) that Def would know if she had insurance, a license and actually knew how to drive. Def stands there, dumb as a stump, fingering and stroking the super-long, synthetic horse-tail hanging off the back of her head.

In deliberations, JDiM opines that Def "seems a little obtuse". Understatement of the year. "Brain dead" is my diagnosis, although D seems rather expert at applying a lot of makeup and getting her eyebrows done. As my old history teacher told me and a friend of mine, "If you spent as much time putting something in your heads instead of on the outside you'd be better off." You were right, Miss Bradwell!

2900-odd $ for P, to cover her deductible and her car rental. Def learned zee-ro.