Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

"Did you have insurance?" JDiM asks.

"Ummm....not yet... partly", is the answer.

If I'm not mistaken, DiM asked if she had her driver's license, to which Ms. Obtuse responded, "Well, um, not . . . I had it partly."

Hubby thinks that means that she took the test 3 times and hasn't gotten enough correct to move forward to the street test.  She failed the questions on "What should you do at an orange light?" (because there is no such question because there IS no orange light) and "Whose responsibility is it to turn safely across two lanes of traffic into a lane on the other side of the street?"  

She kept playing with her hair so much that I expected her to say, "But I was stroking my hair and she hit me, so it's not my fault."

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

If I'm not mistaken, DiM asked if she had her driver's license, to which Ms. Obtuse responded, "Well, um, not . . . I had it partly."

No doubt that was it! My memory failed me on the way to my computer after  this nonsense ended, so it's NOT MY FAULT, okay? 😏

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

She kept playing with her hair so much that I expected her to say, "But I was stroking my hair and she hit me, so it's not my fault."

She was playing with someone's hair.

[AZChristian]

9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

No doubt that was it! My memory failed me on the way to my computer after  this nonsense ended, so it's NOT MY FAULT, okay? 😏

She was playing with someone's hair.

I almost wrote she looked like she was going to say  "I was playing with 'my' hair" to infer that it was just what you called it . . . "someone's."  

Regardless, she's sure it wasn't her fault.

Edited July 29, 2022 by AZChristian

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Regardless, she's sure it wasn't her fault.

OF course not. It must be the fault of the driver who signaled her to go ahead. Sadly, because she has no license and doesn't know how to drive she didn't understand he was signaling her to go ahead of him in the right lane, NOT to cut across all the lanes of traffic.

9 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I almost wrote she looked like she was going to say  "I was playing with 'my' hair" to infer that it was just what you called it . . . "someone's." 

I really fear some poor horse is missing its tail and is left unable to swish away the flies. 🙁

Edited July 29, 2022 by AngelaHunter

[Back Atcha]

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

It must be the fault of the driver who signaled her to go ahead.

There should be a question in the handbook DMV gives out to those seeking a driver's license.   

What should you do if another driver is motioning for you to go ahead and make your turn into traffic?  

• A.  It's a trick.  Don't believe that driver.
• B.  Make sure your license, insurance, and registration are current.  You're sure to cause an accident.
• C.  Sit back; be patient until traffic is clear and it's safe to make your turn.

"C" is correct, but A and B are good hints too.

[AngelaHunter]

It's a wonderful world in which we live, where a "low-income" SSMO2 can afford to rent a 5-bedroom, single family house.

[AngelaHunter]

In the case of P, who seems to be kind of a slum lord, suing former tenant for rent and damages, above the sec. deposit he retained: Def says she's a teacher's aide so I happily thought this case may stay on a civil level.

Def. brings pics of her neighbour's mushroom-infested ceiling as proof of slumlordism, although her own ceiling was growing no crops of any kind. And then when the judges want to know if it's true that the doors were damaged with holes in them, this educator says, yes, sure - her son came to stay and well, he punched a couple of holes in the doors. He might have ripped up some screens and broken some blinds, but she doesn't know about that. She says all this with a smile as though it's perfectly normal to tear up someone's property like an out-of-control wild animal. WTF?

When asked if P had done any repairs in her unit, def says, "He didn't do NOTHING." I hope her job doesn't actually include teaching children!

She wanted to claim rental assistance for COVID, and according to P, she wanted him to fill out forms for her to get money for rent even though she was not living there at the time and slumlord says he was afraid of being charged with fraud.

He IS a slumlord and she's kind of a scammer and I gave up there. Disappointed, I was.

[Taeolas]

Interestingly, the new season should be weeks away, but I haven't noticed any "New Season!" promos on any of the court shows. Maybe I've missed it, but considering Hot Bench is switching 2/3 of the judges, you would think they'd be promoting that. 

[Back Atcha]

44 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

Maybe I've missed it, but considering Hot Bench is switching 2/3 of the judges,

WHAAAAT?   I don't read enough "published" entertainment news.  I count on my friendly "TWOP" (aka Primetimer) posters!   I hope they keep the sweet male judge who has great common sense and compassion.

[Back Atcha]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She wanted to claim rental assistance for COVID, and according to P, she wanted him to fill out forms for her to get money for rent even though she was not living there at the time and slumlord says he was afraid of being charged with fraud.

It sounded as if the judges actually thought the landlord should "overlook" the LIE on the form the defendant presented--that she lived at an address she did not.  Here's the definition of SLUMLORD:   noun  INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN  a landlord of slum property, especially one who profiteers.  I'm not so sure most of these court cases feature landlords who are "profiteers."  They may be people who own rundown buildings and can't charge high enough rent to keep their properties in good shape.  A vicious circle.

So many of these landlords AND tenants who wind up in television "courts," have figured out how to screw the system(s) or benefit from them after years of experience.  I'm glad my dire circumstances were never THAT dire.

[Taeolas]

8 minutes ago, Back Atcha said:

WHAAAAT?   I don't read enough "published" entertainment news.  I count on my friendly "TWOP" (aka Primetimer) posters!   I hope they keep the sweet male judge who has great common sense and compassion.

Look back a few pages; I posted an article about a new show starting on IMDB TV (the network Judy moved to). Officer Byrd will be the bailiff and it'll be a 3-judge show like Hot Bench with Acker and DiMango as 2 of them.

Corriero is staying behind on Hot Bench with 2 new judges in the new season. 

Here is the article from the end of April: https://deadline.com/2022/04/judy-sheindlin-panel-court-show-tribunal-amazon-freevee-judge-judy-bailiff-petri-hawkins-byrd-patricia-dimango-tanya-acker-ordered-1235011842/

[Back Atcha]

5 hours ago, Taeolas said:

Corriero is staying behind on Hot Bench with 2 new judges in the new season.

Interesting!  I hope he gets two good coworkers so his showbiz job stays enjoyable.

And thanks for the URL.

[AngelaHunter]

If the two new judges aren't like DiMango and Acker, a lot of low-life scammers, predators, liars, and grifters are going to get away with even the most outrageous acts if Judge Corriero (aka Papa Mike) has his bleeding heart way.

[Back Atcha]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

If the two new judges aren't like DiMango and Acker, a lot of low-life scammers, predators, liars, and grifters are going to get away with even the most outrageous acts if Judge Corriero (aka Papa Mike) has his bleeding heart way.

Yeah...even though he's "my man," every word you write is correct.

[AngelaHunter]

56 minutes ago, Back Atcha said:

Yeah...even though he's "my man," every word you write is correct.

Better not let him hear you say that! One of the few times he got hot under the collar was when some nitwitted bozo referred to him as "My man on the side here." 😄

[Back Atcha]

A recent case (perhaps a repeat) was interesting.  A White man's white dog (heeler...a herding dog) JUMPED out of his car window.  The man blamed the dog and his lack of locking the "child safety lock."  The dog had been barking long enough while IN the car, that a Black man in the parking lot worried enough to yell, "Roll up your window!"

That didn't happen.  The dog jumped out of the window, ran straight toward the terrified Black man and bit him through his cargo shorts.  He went to ER immediately, had a shot (tetanus? rabies? we don't know) and some meds.  The dog's owner INSISTED his dog did not bite the man.  He further insisted that the victim's proof (photos of the bite on his inner thigh) were FAKED because the skin in the photo was lighter than the skin on the Black man's face.

The defendent also claimed to live in a neighborhood where scammers (his neighbors) pulled this sort of thing "just to get a paycheck."  He lost the case, but he remains unconvinced; he is "the victim" here.  The plaintiff had wanted around $2,400 when he contacted the defendant personally...$1,200 for medical bills--the same amount for pain and suffering.

Judgment?  $5,000 and some of that was for the defendant's racist (oops, did I write that?) attitude.    If I were a Black man, I'd assume my thighs (usually covered) would be a lighter color than my face...hit by the sun day in and day out.  Wouldn't most of us?

[DoctorK]

Today's first case was interesting for me because of the issue of the OBD scanner because I have one and have used it for many years on vehicles of various model years. Corriero sounded like he might actually have heard of them (or the producers just gave him the name of the device) but nobody caught the defendant's incorrect statement that if you reset an engine code, it will still show up on the scanner after the reset. This is incorrect, the code does go away (except on some newer cars where the computer will not accept the reset and tells you on the scanner). However if the problem is constant, the code will come back quickly after the engine is started or after it warms up. (I recently started getting an intermittent misfire code on #2 cylinder that only showed up once every one or two weeks; by swapping coil packs around, resetting the code and waiting for the code to come back I confirmed one bad coil pack which I replaced, smooth running since then. I love my code scanner, it has outlasted several cars. Yes, I am a little OCD and gadget happy.)

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

However if the problem is constant, the code will come back quickly after the engine is started or after it warms up. (I recently started getting an intermittent misfire code on #2 cylinder that only showed up once every one or two weeks; by swapping coil packs around, resetting the code and waiting for the code to come back I confirmed one bad coil pack which I replaced

When did this switch from an English language site to Greek?

(LOL.  I'm impressed.  I only speak English and crochet - which is equally difficult for most people to understand.)

[AZChristian]

Mr. Ernst, today's plaintiff, has quite the high opinion of himself.  He claims to be a chef at fine Dinning bistro in Eugene . . . and a singer/songwriter.  If the "song" he wrote and sang is a sample of the quality of his work, I wouldn't want to eat at his "fine Dinning bistro."

[Carolina Girl]

Neighbors like Mr. Ernst is why I have a .40 Taurus Millennium in a gun safe near my bed.   I suspect she isn't the ONLY neighbor that has been terrorized by this dickhead.  But I'll bet the others let him know in no uncertain terms that they'll turn him into hamburger if he doesn't leave them alone.  

I am SO glad that the defendant obtained that recording of the hearing so that she could play it for the judges and they could hear for themselves that the judge in the TRO case only denied it on procedural grounds.

22 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I wouldn't want to eat at his "fine Dinning bistro."

$10 he flips burgers at the local McDonald's.  If he has a job at all.

[Carolina Girl]

Wow - the defendant in yesterday's car-buying case was such an idiot she couldn't keep her LIES straight.   And DiMango was right - she was nothing but a thief and a scammer and frankly her ass belongs in jail.  

Why the HELL do people like the defendant agree to go on national television and have themselves exposed as crooks and criminals.  I get that it's nice to get a third-party to get you out of the money judgment but I'm seriously hoping someone reported this bitch to the local DA.  

[Back Atcha]

5 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Why the HELL do people like the defendant agree to go on national television and have themselves exposed as crooks and criminals.

Carolina Girl, I saw a "repeat" of some judge show--can't remember which--and saw a first cousin's daughteron the show.  She won her case about bedbugs in a place she rented, but those of us who know this GRIFTER thought she probably brough the bedbugs with her.  She brough pictures of furniture that had to be replaced (even a living room sofa).  She's a dramatic scammer and took her poor (truthful) landlord to the cleaners.  SO...in answer to you question, they probably think they'll win their case; these scammers are an optimistic bunch.

P.S.  I asked another cousin if he'd seen or heard anything about it.  He wrote down the Season/Episode numbers and said he'd pass the info to his siblings (but not the father of the scammer).

Edited September 16, 2022 by Back Atcha

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

And DiMango was right - she was nothing but a thief and a scammer and frankly her ass belongs in jail.  

Don't forget "some piece of work" who lies as easily as others breathe. A child could see through her including that the mythical "Christopher" doesn't exist and D stole the money. But unrepentant scammers like this one could not exist without naive, trusting marks like the P who is way too old to be so easily taken, and who will hand over 2500$ in cash to a virtual stranger about whom they know nothing and not even request a receipt.

People need to handle their money and buy their own cars.

I was rather perplexed about today's case of the epileptic who was driving, had a seizure and smashed into plaintiff's car. He claimed he was not responsible due to "an act of nature".

His wife claimed she never allowed him to drive their car with their two kids, due to his epilepsy, but for him to drive solo in someone else's car and risk the property and lives of others is okay, I guess. It's also okay with the DMV who gave him a license because he hadn't had a seizure in a year.

Okay, I understand if someone who has an unknown medical condition that could cause him to have a heart attack or stroke while driving could certainly be seen as not at fault. But in this case Def knew full well he had this condition and even pointed out scars on his head from when he had another seizure and fell. He also says his medication does not totally eliminate seizures yet wants to drive and doesn't understand how insurance works.

I don't understand how the DMV works!

[Carolina Girl]

14 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Don't forget "some piece of work" who lies as easily as others breathe. A child could see through her including that the mythical "Christopher" doesn't exist and D stole the money. But unrepentant scammers like this one could not exist without naive, trusting marks like the P who is way too old to be so easily taken, and who will hand over 2500$ in cash to a virtual stranger about whom they know nothing and not even request a receipt.

People need to handle their money and buy their own cars.

I was rather perplexed about today's case of the epileptic who was driving, had a seizure and smashed into plaintiff's car. He claimed he was not responsible due to "an act of nature".

His wife claimed she never allowed him to drive their car with their two kids, due to his epilepsy, but for him to drive solo in someone else's car and risk the property and lives of others is okay, I guess. It's also okay with the DMV who gave him a license because he hadn't had a seizure in a year.

Okay, I understand if someone who has an unknown medical condition that could cause him to have a heart attack or stroke while driving could certainly be seen as not at fault. But in this case Def knew full well he had this condition and even pointed out scars on his head from when he had another seizure and fell. He also says his medication does not totally eliminate seizures yet wants to drive and doesn't understand how insurance works.

I don't understand how the DMV works!

My understanding (and maybe another Cali resident can vouch) is that in cases where you have diagnosed conditions such as epilepsy or a medical condition (such as low blood pressure) caused you to pass out behind the wheel, that you are not permitted to hold a valid driver's license until such time as a physician informs the DMV in writing that you are well enough to drive and do not pose a risk to others driving on the road.  

[AngelaHunter]

40 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

t in cases where you have diagnosed conditions such as epilepsy or a medical condition (such as low blood pressure) caused you to pass out behind the wheel, that you are not permitted to hold a valid driver's license until such time as a physician informs the DMV in writing that you are well enough to drive and do not pose a risk to others driving on the road.  

Yes, his doctor gave him clearance to drive, but epilepsy is not a condition that goes away but may strike at any time, which it did. It's just lucky he didn't kill anyone. I don't know how a doctor could say there would be no seizures while driving and def. was free to drive as much as he liked with no restrictions - at least D said there were none. Oh, well.

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

don't know how a doctor could say there would be no seizures while driving and def. was free to drive as much as he liked with no restrictions - at least D said there were none. Oh, well.

I finally saw the episode (we get It here in Sacramento at 5:00 p.m.) and noticed that he said that even taking the medication, he still has the occasional seizure.  What the actual FUCK?   You know that you are still getting seizures and you still get behind the wheel of a car?? 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

You know that you are still getting seizures and you still get behind the wheel of a car?? 

Hey, he wants to drive. Fuck everyone else. I just watched the end of this and it was no surprise the judges agreed he was taking a big gamble driving, especially with no insurance. I doubt anyone would insure someone so high-risk, without demanding 10K a year in premiums.

I'm glad it wasn't just me and the judges also compared this "act of nature" to someone having a sudden heart attack and that was NOT the case here, since D knew all about his condition but decided to take a chance with his life and the lives of others, but not the lives of HIS wife and kids.

He caused the accident and had to pay P 3900$. Maybe his doctor should have to pay, if indeed he/she gave D the go-ahead to drive.

[DoctorK]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

His wife claimed she never allowed him to drive their car with their two kids, due to his epilepsy, but for him to drive solo in someone else's car and risk the property and lives of others is okay,

That really grated on my nerves. If i heard correctly, he went with all of one year without a seizure so his doctor told DMV he was safe to drive? I hope his wife's insurance company hears about this so they know that he drives (without coverage) in her car so they need to look really closely at any claim she ever files (I can almost hear him saying to the cops and the insurance company "No, no,really it was my wife was driving, not me so pay up!").

[Carolina Girl]

58 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

That really grated on my nerves. If i heard correctly, he went with all of one year without a seizure so his doctor told DMV he was safe to drive? I hope his wife's insurance company hears about this so they know that he drives (without coverage) in her car so they need to look really closely at any claim she ever files (I can almost hear him saying to the cops and the insurance company "No, no,really it was my wife was driving, not me so pay up!").

What really pissed ME off is not a single one of the judges called out the wife about the obvious hypocrisy and endangering of public safety because this jerk wants to drive a car.  They seemed to be all in for the “poor defendant”!  Wonder how sympathetic these three idiots would be if he’d had that seizure as he was approaching a crosswalk with pedestrians and killed them. 
 

It would also not surprise me to learn he still drives a car even though the DMV yanked his license.  

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

 Wonder how sympathetic these three idiots would be if he’d had that seizure as he was approaching a crosswalk with pedestrians and killed them. 

I was wondering the same thing. Even though they found against him for this accident they still oozed sympathy and told him how great his wife is.  Would they have done so had he maimed and killed little kids at a school crosswalk just because "I like to drive"? Would he still refuse to take any responsibility, shrug and say it's "an act of nature?"

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I hope his wife's insurance company hears about this so they know that he drives (without coverage) in her car so they need to look really closely at any claim she ever files

IIRC, on the day of the accident his mother-in-law let him drive her car, which is now all banged up. Good.

Reminds me of the case where the drunken woman had a fight with her boyfriend, jumped in her car "closed my eyes and hit the gas". They were sympathetic to her too.

[patty1h]

The judges had to listen to two fools dither about a fender bender where neither of them had insurance.  It wasn't a fiery wreck kind of accident, just contact made while trying to move from the freeway to an exit.  They both told their stories, placing blame on the other driver.  The one driver that was annoying was a moronic 19 year old, who decided to ask for over $4K for her car that was worth about $3K... her reasoning being that she inflated the price thinking that it may be lowered to a different price by the judges.  In other words, she did what job seekers do - ask for a high salary in the hopes the employer is willing to give you that, or you have a high starting point to bargain with, at the very least.   She also brought a repair shop estimate for a price closer to the cars worth, but only confessed that after the judges questioned her.  

I don't even remember how this one ended, but JDiM did chew them both out for driving w/o insurance, as this pisses her off and she regularly gives these wrongdoers a tongue lashing.

[Carolina Girl]

I get that diMango hates people who drive without insurance, but she assumes everyone carries COMPREHENSIVE and COLLISION and they don't.  If plaintiff, for instance, had carried the minimum liability required under California law, her insurance company would NOT have covered her.  It would only cover property damage she caused, but not damage to her own vehicle.  It was the fact that defendant had no insurance that was the problem, not the plaintiff.  And plaintiff's failure to have insurance is something for the police to cite her for.  I can't even believe I'm agreeing with Papa Mike, the bleeding heart, when he brought diMango back down to earth by telling her that a jury wouldn't care about the fact that the plaintiff was uninsured.  Sure plaintiff was wrong to be driving without insurance but it was irrelevant to the proceedings.  

Considering these are the same three morons that last week were sympathizing with a careless asshole who suffered seizures and STILL put his ass behind the wheel of a car, they need to find some consistency.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

 Today's rerun is over Paisley the French Bulldog, sold for $3700, $300 down, two more $100 payments, and not a single penny after that.   Then the plaintiff made up a lot of stories about being in an accident, losing her spleen, and it was all a lie.    I'm guessing plaintiff will get the $3200, and defendant will keep the dog. 

 The way defendant keeps demanding the AKC papers, I'm guess she's going to be another shift breeder.   You don't get AKC paperwork until the dog is paid for, and $1,000 extra for AKC paperwork.  She could get 'not for breeding' AKC paperwork, but she doesn't want that. 

My guess is the second this woman gets AKC paperwork, she'll breed that poor dog every heat.   She's just in it for the money.   I suspect if dog doesn't produce multi-puppy litters or can't get pregnant that doggie will be gone. 

Now, defendant claims she is getting a job, and will have income.    I feel sorry for the dog, I bet the plaintiff will get the money, and then defendant will bother him for the AKC breeding papers, which are $1,000 more. 

Plaintiff gets $3100, but will not give the AKC papers.    I worry about the future of the dog. Sorry, but defendant keeps whining about plaintiff cussing at her, she wasn't paying, and she kept lying to him, I would have cussed her out too.  

You know poor Paisley is having as many puppies as is possilbe, and probably will be dumped the second she can't have more pups.   It's all about the money. 

(It was totally random that I watched Hot Bench, the channel it runs on locally changes the time a lot.  That's no way to build viewership. )

Edited September 23, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I skipped the dog case, as usual, and went to Baby Nathan Gottlieb and his Daddy, being sued here when Nathan backed out of a parking slot and smashed P's car. Little Nathan said he looked in his driver's mirror and passenger side mirror. The P wasn't there so he backed out. She just dropped out of the sky, I guess. I guess no one told Baby N. that is not how you look, but must actually turn your head to determine if it's safe to go. P wants 500$ for her deductible.

Then Big Daddy Gottlieb gives a long, rehearsed schtick about parking and his own mistakes (insert big self-deprecating grin. The judges smile happily at this tacky performance but it made me cringe) which encourages Daddy and makes him think his Baby Boy is a winner. Defs try to claim contributory negligence on P's part, since she should have known Baby was backing out, that he didn't know how to check for oncoming traffic and she should have stopped even though she had the right of way in the lot. Ugh.

Daddy tries to get his insurance co. to pay for his damage, but oh, oh - Baby Nathan was using this car to do Door Dash or whatever food service deliveries, therefore using the car for a business and insurance won't pay.

However, P never let it slip that she no longer has her car, had it totaled out for 6900$ and never paid any deductible. Her logic is that if she HAD the car fixed she would have paid the 500$, therefore she's entitled to it. Okay.  She also wants 2,000$ for "Pain and suffering" which consists of the Gottliebs not replying to her texts and weaseling out of paying anything. The judges eventually decided that maybe she could have made an extra 500$ on her car had it not been damaged and gave her that. No reprimands for hiding the fact that she got rid of the car.

[Back Atcha]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Daddy tries to get his insurance co. to pay for his damage, but oh, oh - Baby Nathan was using this car to do Door Dash or whatever food service deliveries, therefore using the car for a business and insurance won't pay.

Hmmm...guess whose insurance company will be keeping EYES on Baby Nathan's employment choices while on the family policy.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New "The Tenant Commandments" 2022

Eckridge /landlord says defendant trashed his place, ants and roaches throughout the apartment, pest control told plaintiff there was food strewn around the apartment.  He kept the $1950 security, part for the last month's rent she didn't pay.   Defendant was on some kind of assistance from some charity or program.   She lived there for two years, rent was often late.    Lease also said no pets, and landlord found out she had pets.     Tenant moved out in November, paid no rent for November.   The agency paid her security, $1950, monthly rent was $1750.   Defendant paid 30% at after the first two months, first two months were paid by the organization.   SInce when does someone move out late, and get pro rated rent?  

Defendant says 'this wasn't my first rodeo'.    Landlord had pest control monthly, and he would text to say when the pest control people would visit.   The pest control people told the landlord about the filthy apartment with food everywhere.  The photos on move out, from defendant, show cabinets were broken,    Landlord says he doesn't have move-in photos, but defendant signed a statement saying the place was acceptable on move in.   Defendant had a dog, prohibited by lease.   Defendant says she only moved the dog in one day before the landlord told her dog had to move.  

Defendant claims dog is an emotional support dog, which is not guaranteed to be allowed except in federal housing.   She didn't have a letter from a doctor or anyone else saying she needed an ESA dog.    Corriero goes off on landlord, because lease says No Pets, but doesn't say "No Emotional Support Animals".   Actually Corriero needs to catch up with the law, if the tenant has a verifiable letter from a mental health professional, and it's verified they have a need, then in subsiduzed housing the landlord has to allow the animal, without size, breed, or other restrictions.   I don't know what state this happened in, but in my state landlords don't have to accept pets, except actual service animals. 

Defendant dumped dog at shelter, but eventually took dog back from shelter.  Why do I suspect unneutered or unspayed Pit Bull? 

Plaintiff says he wasn't discriminating against defendant's assisted rent status, because both buildings he's managed (he's been an apartment manager for 20 years), have a lot of tenants with various types of assistance.    Acker gets mad at landlord because he doesn't have a separate carpet cleaning receipt.  Defendant dumped a big pile of trash on the sidewalk.    Landlord had to pay cash to someone to remove her trash, because he would get fined if it blocked the sidewalk,   

Plaintiff/landlord keeps the rent money, but prorated. No proof of trash hauling, or damage proof, plaintiff keeps the $1950 security deposit.   Though Corriero would have given every penny to defendant. 

Rerun, "Race Boat Rip Off"  2022.

Plaintiff dropped boat engine off to be repaired by defendant (Begley vs. Villegas).  Defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay, and plaintiff claims there were used parts put in by defendant. PLaintiff is a part time boat racer, but is a yacht manager.    Defendant has been in the racing engine repair business for 45 years.   There is no written contract, but verbal agreement was for $2,000 for labor, plus parts, and had to be finished by March, and was done in February.   Defendant needed money up front for parts, and machine work.  Defendant says plaintiff didn't pay him anything until defendant threatened to lien sale the engine.    

Sounds like total lack of communication from plaintiff.    Who has enough room to keep all used parts, the way Judge Acker seems to think you should? 

Plaintiff has no proof that defendant used substandard parts,   However, defendant bought parts without a contract with plaintiff.  

Defendant spent $7,000 for parts and machine shop work. Plaintiff finally paid him $6597.

What a loose way to run a business by defendant.   Plaintiff case dismissed.   I wonder if plaintiff is still able to get work done on his boat without a contract?  

Edited September 24, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero goes off on landlord, because lease says No Pets, but doesn't say "No Emotional Support Animals".   

Corriero is such a dick.  I can only hope DiMango kicked the defendant in the ass.  I imagine this isn't their "first rodeo" - that jerk's probably been gaming the rental system for years.  I'd love to know how many evictions are on their record.  It sounds like this clown doesn't give a crap WHAT the landlord wants or the rules.

Edited September 24, 2022 by Carolina Girl
Need to correct

[DoctorK]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says 'this wasn't my first rodeo'. 

That is certainly true, that nasty little troll knows all the ins and outs of playing the system to her benefit and screw everybody else.

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero goes off on landlord, because lease says No Pets, but doesn't say "No Emotional Support Animals".

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Acker gets mad at landlord because he doesn't have a separate carpet cleaning receipt. 

Overall, this case was a crapfest of the judges all screwing over the landlord and coddling the lieing lying scummy grifting slob defendant. Corriero as usual was a real dick but I was surprised at how bad Acker was also, she is usually more balanced.

Edited September 24, 2022 by DoctorK
I have trouble with lying and lieing so I looked it up.

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/24/2022 at 8:48 AM, DoctorK said:

Overall, this case was a crapfest of the judges all screwing over the landlord and coddling the lieing lying scummy grifting slob defendant.

Don't feel bad about the lieing/lying thing. After reading a zillion illiterate texxes and listening to endless splintered and fractured English on court shows, I do sometimes have to stop and think before saying something like, "Me and her had went there and we was..."

On 9/24/2022 at 8:48 AM, DoctorK said:

that nasty little troll knows all the ins and outs of playing the system to her benefit and screw everybody else.

I was just going to watch this, but one glimpse of the squat little troll made me decide against it.

"Emotional support animals"? Did the judges ask to see the certification for this animal or any other proof that such a pet is required? Or was this just another scam by someone who knows very well that Political Correctness does not allow for dismissing any "bovine scatology" cooked up? Can't trigger or hurt the feelings of any hustlers or scammers! That would get you "cancelled" by the many judges and juries in the cesspool of social media. 😏

[CrazyInAlabama]

I read that Acker and Dimango are leaving the show for a new one with Officer Byrd, leaving only Corriero on hot bench.    "Tribunal" will also have JJ's son Mark Levy on the panel.  

They are supposed to add two new judges to work with Corriero.  That should be interesting to see new judges.   

(It's also very pleasant not to hear Levin and his awful puns on this show). 

New 26 Sept, "Boats and Nos"

Plaintiff Sherwood and partner Zach bought a 30 ft sailboat from defendant.  Plaintiffs put down insurance, and docking for the boat, and put $2500 down on the $10k price.   Then, defendant claims he found out Zach, an employee of his at the boat yard, damaged the boat belonging to defendant, that Zach was living on.  

Sherwood claims she was going to use the boat with her teen son, not her business partner Zach.   Defendant says he repo's boats, but doesn't mention he had to pay off a lien on the boat, and deal fell through.      Defendant blames the resale delay on DMV and Covid, so he cancelled the sale, it would take too long. 

Corriero really hates the defendant, but everyone but Acker seems to.   In sales agreement defendant says he's the owner, but he wasn't the owner until the lien was paid off and transfer went through DMV.     Acker calls defendant charming, she must be having hallucinations. 

I think defendant is a total fraud.   

Decision, plaintiff gets $5,000, including punitive damages. 

Defendant's ridiculous counterclaim is dismissed, because he's a liar. 

Rerun "New Roommate Nightmare" 2022

Plaintiff Pehrson vs. Rivera, former roommates.  Plaintiff needed a new roommate, and found defendant.   They were supposed to pay 1/2 utilities, and $900 a month each for rent.   Plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay rent, utilities, and was just an awful roommater.   Defendant says plaintiff harassed her, took defendant's bedroom door off, and other obnoxious acts.   They were only roommates for three months.   After they had a flood in the apartment, plaintiff offered to use part of her renter's insurance to help defendant with the shortfall in rent, because defendant didn't get renter's insurance.   

Plaintiff took the doors off of defendant's bedroom, after defendant didn't pay rent or utilities.  Defendant claims she worked around the clock, had two jobs, and severe anxiety, so she didn't pay anything. Defendant claims plaintiff gave her an anxiety attack by demanding the money plaintiff was owed. 

Plaintiff shows pictures of damages.  Defendant went to the emergency room five or six times in three months.   

Plaintiff wants to get paid for her time she spent putting her case together.   That's not happening. 

How did the two women get on an apartment lease?   Defendant's only 19 and neither one seems to have a well paying job. 

(My guess is the apartment is in a really bad neighborhood, and landlord has a hard time getting tenants to pay the rent they want.)

Decision is plaintiff gets everything but the filing fee, $995. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero really hates the defendant, but everyone but Acker seems to.

I was a little suprised that JA found the scamming, lowlife, detestable, lying def with a flag(?) wrapped around his non-neck so very "charming". Wow. As we used to say, "He had more excuses than Carter has pills." Sorry, Judge Aker. I just couldn't see what you saw.

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff Pehrson vs. Rivera, former roommates.

"I'll just invite a stranger to live with me and expect her to be a paragon of virtue." I just couldn't with these millennials. Skipped.

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

How did the two women get on an apartment lease? 

From what we've seen of landlords on these court shows, none of them have a clue about their business. Maybe they're just very trusting.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New 27 Sept "Lexus a Mess, Accident After Accident"

Case 1-Lexus, plaintiff bought Lexus from defendant for $3800, defendant bought 4 or 5 months ago, $300, and a book value of $1600-$1700.   Plaintiff paid for the car, and two days later it croaked, but it was an 'as is' sale, and plaintiff didn't take it to a mechanic to check it out.    As usual, buyer says car had concealed issues.  This is the first used purchase plaintiff made.  

So, defendant had the car for 4 or 5 months, never did anything but routine items, but didn't get it smogged?    So, buyer didn't do due diligence, and defendant didn't smog the car before selling.   

I suspect the person who sold to defendant sold for $300 because of the huge amount of repairs the car needed. 

Ruling is $3465 back to plaintiff, and car and title back to defendant.   I hope plaintiff will go to a decent hair stylist.  

Case 2-Accident, Plaintiff had a collision with defendant, that was her fault.   As usual, defendant claims she didn't do it, but if she did it wasn't as bad as plaintiff claims.  There had been two previous accidents in front of them, the litigants were the third accident.   Defendant rear-ended the plaintiff,  Plaintiff agreed for defendant to pay him out of pocket, but she never paid him a penny.     Plaintiff's Prius had $530 worth of damage, and defendant claims her car wasn't damaged.   Plaintiff came home, claimed the damaged with defendant's insurance company, and defendant's insurance declined coverage.   Insurance company said car wasn't covered by their company. 

Defendant is pulling the Sainted Single Mother card. 

Plaintiff gets $530.     Dimango says it was pleasant dealing with both litigants, I disagree, defendant was deceptive, and a liar, and driving without insurance coverage. 

Rerun 2022 episode, "Too Short" 

Plaintiff wanted a shoulder-length trim, but instead two years growth of hair was cut off, and she's suing to get extensions to repair the damage.   Toth vs. Reinagel.   Plaintiff wants a refund for the haircut, and reimbursement for hair extensions.    Defendant claims she didn't butcher the hair, but did exactly what plaintiff wanted.   Plaintiff told defendant Amber, to cut 2" off the bottom.     PLaintiff wanted 2" off, no layering, but instead she claims defendant did a free hand cut, and a lot shorter than what plaintiff asked for.   Plaintiff said instead of hair being to her shoulder, it was right below her ears.   Plaintiff paid $35, and a $6 tip.  

Amber the hair dresser says after a consultation plaintiff wanted hair 'above her shoulders', and didn't tell her a specific length to cut off.   When plaintiff holds the back of her hair up, the hair is way too short to put in a pony tail.    Plaintiff went to hair salon, wanted a refund, but defendant claimed owner was on vacation, and couldn't do a refund.   

Defendant finally admits instead of 2", she cut off at least 5".    I think I'm with Dimango, I may have nightmares about this.  

The photos of plaintiff's haircut are horrific, I could do a better job, and I don't have any training or talent with hair cutting.   Dimango hasn't been to a professional hairdresser for many years, after a haircut just as bad as the plaintiff's.  Defendant salon owner says plaintiff went too long with her extensions.    (I wish I knew the name of the salon, to avoid it). 

Plaintiff gets $35 for the haircut, and initial extensions that were installed, so $1790.   Plaintiff will not get the amount for updating the extensions every six months. 

(I wondered about who pays the litigants on this show, they get airfare, meals, transportation locally, and $35 appearance fee, awards are paid by the show, but there is no extra money above the award to either side. )   

Edited September 28, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

2 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Dimango says it was pleasant dealing with both litigants, I disagree, defendant was deceptive, and a liar, and driving without insurance coverage. 

So she didn't give her usual lecture about the irresponsibility of the Sainted Single Mother driving without insurance?  God can these people EVER be consistent?  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Lexus a Mess, Accident After Accident"

I admit I like "As is" cases. They are usually quite entertaining.

Overly-coiffed boy - actually an adult - goes on FB Marketplace to find a car. Well. of course he does. There he finds this wonderful 23-year-old Lexus with 185,000 miles, for 3,400$ which is twice book value. I guess P never heard of the Kelley Blue Book.

Did he have a mechanic check it out? No. Why would he do that? He's driven cars here and there for maybe a whole 5 or 6 years, which gives him the knowledge to know if anything is wrong with the relic just by listening to it. Hats off to him. I've been driving for way WAY longer than he's been alive and still don't have his expertise. 🤥

Def. is very slimy, saying the car was never driven in the few months he had it because he bought it for his 19-year-old daughter, only to learn it was too powerful for her to control! Really? He makes a sympathy ploy for being a loving daddy who only wants his to keep his darling daughter safe. Cue the violins.

Papa Mike, defender of the unwary (and young women who boff dirty old men for cash and cigarettes),  doesn't believe in free enterprise or "buyer beware" and is morally outraged that Def bought the wreck for 300$, probably found out it would cost a fortune to patch up and sold it to the P for over 100 times what he paid. I guess that was part of D keeping dear daughter safe, but why not? He was looking for a sucker and he found one. Happens every day and P is not special, although I'm sure his Mommy would vehemently disagree. I mean, just look at her boy's hairdo!

P only thought of how cool he'd look to his little friends as he tooled around in his Lexus (rapidly nearing 1/4 of a century old) and didn't care to check it out first. Def told him it was okay! The only thing that saved P was that the car wasn't or couldn't be smogged. He gets his money back and Def gets the car AND gets to keep the idiot's 3400$. Def still wins.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I hope plaintiff will go to a decent hair stylist.  

Maybe he can find a "Hair influencer" on FB who can guide him in that endeavor.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New 28 Sept, "Friends & Business Don't Mix"

"Seymour vs. Finley" Plaintiff loaned longtime friend $25,000, and fails to repay repay $34000 in two months, $9,000 interest.   Plaintiff had defendant sign a promissory note, but defendant says it was an investment, and he owes nothing.    Finley repaid the $25,000, but not the full $9000 interest, he claims he repaid $5,000 already and loan nothing.  (This was in L.A.)   Defendant inherited a mail box business from his late dad, and repaid two earlier loans to plaintiff.     

Corriero does exactly what I suspected he would, and claims the interest of $9k for two months is usury, and illegal (except in some states).   Much as I dislike Corriero's opinions, $9,000 interest for two months on 25,000 is ridiculous, defendant might have received a better interest rate from his neighborhood loan shark.   

There is proof of the loan, proof of repayment of the loan, but no proof defendant repaid any interest. 

Enforcing 36% interest is illegal.   So, plaintiff will get $2500 interest and that's all.

$2500 to plaintiff for 10% interest.  

Rerun, 2022 "Overpower of Attorney"

"Merrill vs. Maher"

Plaintiff was incarcerated, and gave his mother's power of attorny to his cell mate's fiancee, and she changed his passwords, and paid herself what she wanted.    

Plaintiff wants to be repaid for fraudulent charges, and phone charges.   Defendant only worked on the financial account for one month, paid herself $1,000 to handle plaintiff's fianances.   Agrement was plaintiff would pay defendant $300 phone bill, and $50 to  defendant's boyfriend's commissary account.      Plaintiff is still out of pocket $3500 after getting some charges cancelled.    

Plaintiff says he's still locked out of some of his accounts, due to defendant changing the passwords.  $1100 Zelle payment,  Defendant admits she changed his passwords and locked him out of his accounts.   Defendant stole a lot from plaintiff.  

I find it interesting that before defendant handling his accounts, he had an accountant doing the same thing.   I've never needed a business manager, so he must have a lot of finances to handle. 

Plaintiff receives every penny he asked for, $  .   After the verdict, and a lecture from Acker and Dimango, defendant stomps out of court. 

[Carolina Girl]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New 28 Sept, "Friends & Business Don't Mix"

"Seymour vs. Finley" Plaintiff loaned longtime friend $25,000, and fails to repay repay $34000 in two months, $9,000 interest.   Plaintiff had defendant sign a promissory note, but defendant says it was an investment, and he owes nothing.    Finley repaid the $25,000, but not the full $9000 interest, he claims he repaid $5,000 already and loan nothing.  (This was in L.A.)   Defendant inherited a mail box business from his late dad, and repaid two earlier loans to plaintiff.     

Corriero does exactly what I suspected he would, and claims the interest of $9k for two months is usury, and illegal (except in some states).   Much as I dislike Corriero's opinions, $9,000 interest for two months on 25,000 is ridiculous, defendant might have received a better interest rate from his neighborhood loan shark.   

There is proof of the loan, proof of repayment of the loan, but no proof defendant repaid any interest. 

Enforcing 36% interest is illegal.   So, plaintiff will get $2500 interest and that's all.

$2500 to plaintiff for 10% interest.  

Rerun, 2022 "Overpower of Attorney"

"Merrill vs. Maher"

Plaintiff was incarcerated, and gave his mother's power of attorny to his cell mate's fiancee, and she changed his passwords, and paid herself what she wanted.    

Plaintiff wants to be repaid for fraudulent charges, and phone charges.   Defendant only worked on the financial account for one month, paid herself $1,000 to handle plaintiff's fianances.   Agrement was plaintiff would pay defendant $300 phone bill, and $50 to  defendant's boyfriend's commissary account.      Plaintiff is still out of pocket $3500 after getting some charges cancelled.    

Plaintiff says he's still locked out of some of his accounts, due to defendant changing the passwords.  $1100 Zelle payment,  Defendant admits she changed his passwords and locked him out of his accounts.   Defendant stole a lot from plaintiff.  

I find it interesting that before defendant handling his accounts, he had an accountant doing the same thing.   I've never needed a business manager, so he must have a lot of finances to handle. 

Plaintiff receives every penny he asked for, $  .   After the verdict, and a lecture from Acker and Dimango, defendant stomps out of court. 

I remember this one.  She worked for him for something like two weeks and made off with thousands of his money.  He was right - I do this in front of my computer every month.  It takes a total of 15 minutes for me to pay my credit cards, mortgage, PGE, Water, and AT&T bundle.  Where this bitch thinks her services are worth anything more than the payment of her cell phone bill is beyond me.

"I don't think like a criminal."

You're a criminal.  And you think.  So yeah you do.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New "Scratch That"

Lucy Wise vs. Robert Schiefer,  Plaintiff bought house without inspection, claims her realtor inspected it for her, and when she moved in the floors were scratched.   However, there is no proof that the scratches were done by defendant.  Plaintiff claims the scratches are too deep to repair, and the boards have to be replaced, and she wants $5,000 for the damages, for three rooms of flooring.   Plaintiff's sisters cleaned the house before plaintiff moved in, and she says there were scratches in dining room, and one other place.  However, plaintiff wants money to fix other damages on the floor. 

Defendant says there were two small scratches, and he thinks they were done by his movers.  I think they were from defendant not using the little felt pads on the bottom of the stools and other furniture.  Defendant says plaintiff didn't claim through the moving company, and is delaying.    Defendant says the two small areas he saw that were scratched would be easy to fix, and not cost $5,000.   (I had an acquaintance who severely scratched her brand new bamboo floors, she bought a little kit, and the liquid fixed it, and you couldn't even find where the scratches were.)    I call bull pucky on having to replace the entire floor. 

Plaintiff has two estimates, one from a company, and one from some internet source.   Defendant says the scratches are small, but plaintiff claims they extend through three rooms.   (My guess is she wants to replace three rooms of flooring, and have defendant and his moving company pay for it. )

 There are only two small sections of scratches, but multiple close up shots of the same area, and no longer distance shot of how big the scratched areas are.   I don't see the damages as caused by the movers, but by normal wear and tear, which could be avoided by putting the little felt floor pads on everything. 

Corriero wants to give her three rooms of floor replacement for two small damaged areas, and the $5,000 she wants.   Dimango is much more realistic, and objects to plaintiff wanting the subfloor leveled, sanded floors and releveled.    Corriero wants to give her $5000, and Acker and Dimango want to give her $1000. 

$2,000 to plaintiff from Acker and Dimango agreeing, and Corriero deciding in the plaintiff's favor, as usual.  

Rerun, 2022, "Rear Ending"

Cao vs. Memon. Plaintiff claims when defendant rear ended the car Mr. Cao was a passenger in, and went to a chiropractor for medical treatment, for $5,000 with pain and suffering.   Defendant says it's a scam,

Defendant says plaintiff was the driver, not the passenger as plaintiff alleges.    Apparently girlfriend didn't have a license at the time of the accident.   After the accident, plaintiff immediately consulted a slip-and-falls attorney, who sent him to the chiropractor for almost $5,000 in treatments. Also, plaintiff claims he didn't go to work after the accident, and is still unemployed.  However, plaintiff's text to defendant say he was at work after the accident.   

I agree with Judge Acker, the chiropractor bill is a gross exaggeration, and fraudulent, and no supported by the car damages on either car.   In fact there were a few bumper scratches, but on defendant's car.   

Plaintiff's car's minor damages were paid by the insurance company.  

Plaintiff photos show minor scratches on his bumper, and no other damage pictures. Dimango says plaintiff is a scammer, and exaggerating everything.  There are no visible scratches on defendant's car.   

There are no paid bills from chiropractor. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero wants to give her three rooms of floor replacement for two small damaged areas. 

OMG. Papa nearly gave the other two aneurysms with his insane illogic and bias in favour of a poor little lady. He wants to give her 5K to do the floors. JDiM and JA explain they have only tight shots of two damaged areas. Papa says, "She got two estimates for 5K. We can ASSUME the floors are all damaged."

JDiM:(paraphrasing) "We should give her money to redo the whole house when we can't see if any other parts are scratched?"

Papa Mike: "Exactly!"

Me: 😲

Of course the flooring company, upon meeting Plaintiff see she depends on the kindness of strangers and want to take her for everything they can get, but that's not Def's fault.

Edited September 30, 2022 by AngelaHunter

[Carolina Girl]

Oh man, I likewise remember the rear-ender scammer.  TWICE he slipped up saying "I was driving" and then changed it to "I was riding."  And there's a good reason the girlfriend. ex or not, wanted no part of this case.  A 7-letter word - "perjury."  

The scamming shitbag engaged a slip-and-fall lawyer whose first move is to create some sort of "injury" record by sending him to a Chiro to run up some bills.  When the insurance company comes back and says "yeah, sorry, property damage only", I imagine the lawyer made ONE stab at "settling" and the insurance company said "no."  So slip-and-fall lawyer kicks scamming shitbag to the curb, but there's still these Chiro bills that he's on the hook for.  And THIS is why those slip and fall lawyers are so quick to tell you that you pay NO FEE until they win your case.  What you are on the hook for, folks, is COSTS.  You owe them every penny of money expended on your behalf, including Chiro's padded bills.  

It would not surprise me to learn that Plaintiff Walking Turd created those bills himself to get some money.  I would like to see the Chiro's dunning letters asking where payment was.   I don't think a single word that came out of his mouth had a modicum of truth to it, other than his girlfriend was the one that turned him on to the slip-and-fall attorney.  He tried to imply that the defendant was trying to escape after the accident, among other things.  

[Carolina Girl]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

OMG. Papa nearly gave the other two aneurysms with his insane illogic and bias in favour of a poor little lady. He wants to give her 5K to do the floors. JDiM and JA explain they have only tight shots of two damaged areas. Papa says, "She got two estimates for 5K. We can ASSUME the floors are all damaged."

JDiM:(paraphrasing) "We should give her money to redo the whole house when we can't see if any other parts are scratched?"

Papa Mike: "Exactly!"

Me: 😲

Of course the flooring company, upon meeting Plaintiff see she depends on the kindness of strangers and want to take her for everything they can get, but that's not Def's fault.

Of course, if a LANDLORD made the same claim and had tried to put forth this same evidence, Papa Mike would have lambasted him from the bench as being deceptive and disingenuous.  

I find it interesting that Judge Judy raided her own show to staff a new one completely similar on a streaming service.  Wondering if perhaps she's planning to "sell off" Hot Bench to another production company (or her commitment contract has expired) while she takes DiMango and Acker over to FreeVee, teams them up with Byrd - the fan favorite - and Papa Mike can't carry the show because who the hell wants to watch a dickhead judge when thre are other choices?