Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff suing defendant for racking up credit charges on her card, $2190.

P, who needs to rethink her wardrobe, was so pathetic it made me very uncomfortable. She wrangles the D (who looks like a dollar store Jimmy Smits knock-off ( without the talent, intellingence, success, and charisma) on some skeevy dating site and signs up for a HD credit with him.  I guess not-Jimmy saw P and it was a love match! More likely he needed some quick money and is another one for whom dating sites are like ATMs.

I gathered that since the card was in both their names he could change it to have the statements sent to his address only?

The best part is that yeah, he admits the statements all came to him, but this mature man had to ask his mommy and daddy with whom he still lives what it all meant? It was all a big mystery to him.

I couldn't stand looking at or listening to either of them, especially sadsack P, for very long so quit well before the end. Thanks CrazyInAlabama, for the judgement.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The movie name is “7th and Westlake Nino’s Revenge” (It’s $17.99 to watch on Prime)

I decided to skip this case. The first movie doesn't seem to be a runaway hit and does make one wonder why a part 2 is a good idea. I read a couple of reviews on IMDB (rating: 4.7) and think I'll keep my $17.99:

Quote

A waste of time and energy. Everyone involved should be ashamed and not allowed to work in movies ever again. The plot, if you can call it that, is one of the worst ever. Everyone involved should be shamed in public.

Quote

The worst movie I've ever seen in my life. The worst acting I've seen in my life. The worst story I've seen in my life. Who gave this 4 stars so we can have their internet turned off.

😆

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Double-Cross Training”

New, Season 9, Episode 73, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Jose Ayhllon vs. Jacob Mauermann )

Plaintiff claims defendant is a con artist, who does drugs. Plaintiff is suing for training sessions, $2600, and $4,000 for defendant’s new business (personal training), so $6,600, and above the court maximum of $5,000.   Defendant claims he owes plaintiff nothing.   However, plaintiff claims defendant started cancelling sessions, and never paid on the $4,000 loan.  

Defendant blames plaintiff for not showing up for training.   There were other clients who prepaid for training, and wanted refunds, but they didn’t get them either.   Defendant was also micro-dosing on mushrooms to handle stress.     Defendant says he was fired for a lot of reason by previous gym owner.

Plaintiff claims after defendant was fired, he borrowed the $4,000 to start his own gym, and plaintiff thinks that would be located in his apartment.   Defendant can’t even figure out how many sessions he did for plaintiff.    Corriero is claiming telling people about the mushroom use was gratuitous, and defamation, but defendant stated he did use the mushrooms.    Defendant sounds like a con artist to me.

Decision is $5,000 to plaintiff.  

 

“Put Out to Pasture”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 39, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Dave Nichols vs. Jana Rinaldi)

Looks like fun, the plaintiff is told he can’t lease property someone else owns, but then rents land he doesn’t own to a cattle rancher, so plaintiff pitches a fit.   He also put a mobile home to live in on the property.  Plaintiff was supposed to be caretaker on the property, but did nothing.

Defendant’s (landowner) finally gave plaintiff an eviction notice for lease violations.   Plaintiff is suing for an illegal eviction, and lockout, and destruction of his property by throwing it outside.   Plaintiff wasn’t allowed to sublet, but the defendant’s witness was given a 1-year lease by plaintiff.   Plaintiff put a trailer inside the barn.   

Defendant says plaintiff claimed the cattle were his, not the illegal sublet.   Ramon Gonzales (defendant witness) had a one year lease from plaintiff, but plaintiff was only on a month-to-month lease, and that was to graze his own cattle.   Defendant says plaintiff retrieved his property, and she didn’t toss anything out.  Defendant says her witness is still paying the current tenant of the land the same amount to run cattle on her land.   

Plaintiff also wasn't paying his rent, or doing any work at the property, while collecting $450 a month from defence witness Ramon.    Ramon said he's paying the current tenants also, or at least I think he said so.    Why didn't the plaintiff put the land on the market?    Even if you sell at a lower price, you would be rid of it, and the tenants, and everything else. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Defendant receives two months rent, and damages, $2950. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/13/2023 at 3:51 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Defendant was also micro-dosing on mushrooms to handle stress.  

Sounds promising. 😆

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/13/2023 at 3:51 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims defendant is a con artist, who does drugs.

He is a con artist and not a very good one. P is very naive, for someone claiming so much business success.

I've been seeing the same physiotherapist, off and on, for years. If he told me he uses recreational drugs and asked me for 4,000$, that would be the last he'd see of me.

But that's not enough gullibility for P. He then gives the Def's new girlfriend 10,000$ for HER new business. That he got it back is nothing short of miraculous.

In addition to being a con artist and a loser, Def is an idiot who admits he lost his place at the gym "for many reasons". Yeah, I bet. To make himself sound even dumber (because everything else he did wasn't sufficiently ridiculous) he says, "I found out I was pregnant with my new girlfriend". Who would think of using protection against disease and pregnancy with a new partner?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't the one waddling around, getting varicose veins and stretch marks or screaming in the delivery room, so no - YOU weren't pregnant, you big goon. 

Hey, he's got 99 problems, steroids and 'shrooms cost money and he's stressed, the poor boy!

I was glad to hear P in the hall stating he's not lending money to anyone again. Finally!

On 1/13/2023 at 3:51 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why didn't the plaintiff put the land on the market?    Even if you sell at a lower price, you would be rid of it, and the tenants, and everything else. 

Yeah, or she could have leased to Ramon right off the bat, got payment up front and only have cattle on it, not crazy squatters who don't pay.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Brought Up on Charges”

New, Season 9, Episode 74, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Deronda Nunley (mother) vs. Michael Wilkerson (son) )

38 year-old son owes mother / plaintiff $3,407 for a loan for legal fees after an arrest.   Another mother who thinks a public defender is not good enough for her criminal son.    Defendant says since mother threw him out of her house, he owes her nothing.

There is a signed agreement from son, promising to repay the mother and godmother.   Mother prepared the agreement, she’s a recently retired paralegal.   I only care if they say what son did, and how long his record is.    $1290 is what son repaid mother.   Son was paying rent to mother.

Son was paying rent.   There was a dispute between mother and son, when mother’s boyfriend received a banana pudding, instead of defendant getting that, caused a fight, leading to son’s eviction.

Mother says she was outraged when son paid her in $1 bills, and said the next payment would be in quarters, and then he cussed her out in front of her mother.   She gave him two weeks to leave her house, and get his stuff out, and never moved anything out.    Then plaintiff changed the locks.   One provision in the repayment contract was a celibacy clause.    Other clauses said he would get employment, and pay her at least $100 a month.  Changed to $350 a month later when son had a good job.  Son paid the right amount for two months, and it went downhill from there.

Plaintiff receives $2600.

 

“I Plant With You!”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 49, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Gabriela Rivera vs. Gera Anderson )

Plaintiff is suing for an assault by defendant on her plant.  Plaintiff is suing for $2,000 for theft of plant and pots, and emotional distress.   Plaintiff lives below the defendant. Plaintiff made a noise complaint against defendant to the HOA board.   Then in retaliation plaintiff kicked over pots on video, but defendant claims she was clearing out junk and dead plants from the common area.

Plaintiff claims after the complaint to the HOA, that defendant starting complaining about everything she did.   There’s a picture of a huge dead plant of plaintiff’s in the common area.   No one has a right to complain about something they planted in the common area, or on someone else’s property.

Corriero’s pathetic commentary is ridiculous.  

Plaintiff went to court about the plants, and claims that she seeking an order of protection for the plants.   Plants are on common area.

Blocking the fire extinguisher is illegal.  So is blocking access to common area sidewalks, and other areas.   Common area is not one person’s area to plant or do anything with.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant case dismissed.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Bee Bang Boom!”

New, Season 9, Episode 75, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Steven Agan vs. Alexandria Martinez)

Plaintiff is suing defendant for hitting his parked vehicle, defendant claims when a bee flies into a car, the unlicensed driver (she had a permit, not a license) crashes into a parked truck.  Defendant claims plaintiff’s truck was illegally parked, sticking out into traffic.  Defendant says sister/passenger was afraid of the bee, thinking she might be allergic (no proof).

Plaintiff has a doorbell camera of the accident.  Defendant clearly smashed into the back of plaintiff’s truck, moving plaintiff’s truck ahead, and hitting another truck in front of the plaintiff’s car.  Defendant claims plaintiff was mad at her.  Defendant didn’t have a legal license, car wasn’t insured, and the driver wasn’t either. 

Posted speed according to the accident report is 20 mph.    Defendant claims the sign says 30 on her side of the street, then going down to 20 mph.   Defendant is being so rude to Corriero.    Then, defendant starts talking about a dead sister.

Plaintiff received money for damages.  

 

“???”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode , (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (I guess It’s really Season 8, no title except one that doesn’t match.)

(Michelle Cody vs.  Bowden)

Plaintiff Cody was girlfriend of defendant’s father, and plaintiff claims defendant’s father died, and no one told plaintiff he was dead, and defendant stole everything late father, and plaintiff had.   Defendant claims that was her biological father, plaintiff disputes that.    Plaintiff claims defendant and husband took everything she owned, including a mutually shared storage unit. 

So, defendant is out everything she paid to get the storage out of potential foreclosure, and if plaintiff doesn’t pay the current lien off, then she’ll lose everything too.

Plaintiff gets her property back.   Everything else dismissed.

(My cable cut out right at the start of this for a couple of minutes, I think someone at a the station realized they were playing the wrong episode)

Edited January 18, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

Another case where Corrirero was more full of shit than a septic tank.  I don't believe for one goddamned minute that there was a bee in the car.  I think that dipshit was probably looking at her phone, or was totally distracted, and slammed into the plaintiff's car and made up the bee story because she somehow thought it would make her less responsible.  I don't care if the guy was in the middle of the street, she didn't have a right to plow into him.  

And excuse me - if the effing parents know she's not supposed to drive without an adult and that she's not insured behind the wheel, what the everlovin' HELL are they doing letting her drive a car?  The way she described the accident, God forbid the a kid was running out after a ball.  

And she really turned on the waterworks.  And threw in the "intimidated me" in for good measure.  I think she's a liar from start to finish.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

(I just noticed the TV listings of episode number don’t match what Sonia says they are.  That is true for this season, and other seasons too).   Yesterday’s bee case, which is ridiculous as an excuse, the parents financed another car right after the accident.

 

“Couch-Surfing Cousin”

New, Season 9, Episode 76, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Shannette Robinson vs. Diondra Evans)

Plaintiff moved to Denver for a job, they’re cousins, so plaintiff moved in with cousin and her kids.  She’s suing for $5,000 for credit card charges, and property, $10,000 (court limit is $5,000).

Defendant said plaintiff was screaming at her, and her children, after she moved plaintiff into her home.  (This was in Denver). Defendant says her neighbors heard plaintiff screaming, and called the police.   Defendant says she doesn’t have any of plaintiff’s property, because plaintiff’s relative moved plaintiff’s property out.

Then, plaintiff found her credit card in the bathroom, when she went to put card in her wallet, she claims her cash was gone from her purse.  She also claims the kids broke her cell phone.  There were a bunch of credit charges

Plaintiff claims she was the one who called the police, and police said it’s a civil matter.   Defendant says plaintiff lied to police, claiming defendant wanted to kill her.     Plaintiff asked credit card to reverse charges to the gas station, storage unit, apartment deposit, etc., items she admitted she did charge, still reversed the charges anyway.    

Then, they show a video of litigants arguing about everything, in the parking lot, and claims defendant’s son grabbed her phone, to delete the video.   Defendant admits her son grabbed the phone in the parking lot, but returned it to plaintiff, and phone was fine.  Plaintiff also drove defendant to work in downtown Denver, truly a car ride from hell in Denver rush hour traffic.

Plaintiff has a pet scorpion.  (It would be a cold day in hell that someone brought their pet scorpion in my house).

Plaintiff claims she was fired because she couldn’t get clothes to go to work.   

Defendant claim dismissed.

Plaintiff gets money for the phone, which no one proved was broken by the son.  So $280 for the phone only.    (Why was someone who committed fraud on the credit card company rewarded with anything?  I don’t believe anything the plaintiff says.   By the way, if defendant is on welfare the way plaintiff says, then how could plaintiff move in with her?). Tewolde starts family counseling, she needs to stop it.

 

 

 

“What Goes Impound”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 50, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Ronna Thompson vs. Tyler “Allison” Asbury )

Plaintiff is suing defendant/mother of plaintiff’s grandson with plaintiff’s son, for unpaid loans. Defendant had a relationship with plaintiff’s son when he was 16, and ran away from home.

Plaintiff says her granddaughter’s mother borrowed her credit card, and went on a spending spree, they’re also fighting over some loser guy.  Plaintiff is 27, was 23 when she was boinking plaintiff’s son who was 16. Plaintiff put in a police report about son running away from home.  

Plaintiff claims son paid her $400, but says that was part of $1263 bail that plaintiff paid for son.

As always, defendant claims it wasn’t a loan, but a gift.   Plaintiff’s son sounds like a real winner.   So does defendant.   Son isn’t in court, and no one will say why.  My guess he’s either in jail again, or can’t travel out of state. Plaintiff did report fraudulent charges on her card by defendant. 

Plaintiff receives $517 for the loan.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is suing defendant/mother of plaintiff’s grandson with plaintiff’s son, for unpaid loans.

Whoever writes the blurbs for these is becoming increasingly snarky. For this one:

"A woman says her granddaughter's mother borrowed her credit card and went on a spending spree: the "man" at the center of the dispute isn't even in a courtroom."

😆

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Rental Home Gone Wrong”

New, Season 9, Episode 77, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(John and Joyce Dempsey vs. William Craig)

Married couple sue former landlord for moving costs, after city says home is uninhabitable, work done without permits. Plaintiff wife claims defendant’s daughter called police and said plaintiffs were shooting at her, and plaintiffs were hauled outside by police with guns drawn.    Defendant had a home he was renting out, and offered to move plaintiffs into a portion of the home.   Then, defendant told plaintiffs they had to move out because of no certificate of occupancy.    

Plaintiffs are suing for moving and relocation fees of $5,000.  Plaintiffs didn’t live in home for 12 months, so they’re not covered for relocation fees.   Then, litigants had a meeting, and defendant found out other tenant was over charging plaintiffs.    Other tenants were construction workers, and doing work on the house, but never pulled permits, or finished jobs.

Defendant says he had cause for eviction before the city complaints.   Noise complaints from neighbors, etc. So, tenants were all evicted.

There is a long list of police calls when plaintiffs, and defendant’s daughter lived there, that’s when the police call and raid about shots fired happened.  Defendant did talk to his daughter about the incident, there were two calls for shots fired, and defendant claims everyone was drunk.  There is a long list of police calls after only plaintiffs lived there.  There was also a 5150 against Joyce.  

Both plaintiffs claim to be homeless and living in their car, everything in a storage unit, and showering at the gym.

Decision is plaintiff case dismissed.

 

“Writings on the Shower Wall”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 124, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Edward and Geraldine Smith vs.  Nachobi Curtas )

Homeowners/plaintiffs say contractor left tub and shower installation unfinished and not up to code, but contractor disagrees.   Plaintiffs are suing for return of deposits, and costs, $4500.  Defendant said plaintiffs put up a negative online review, so defendant quit. Plaintiffs supplied their own tub.   

Plaintiff Edward claims to have an audio recording from defendant complaining about the job, after the review was posted.

This entire war of postings was on Facebook.   The tub was supposed to have a custom epoxy surround, and plaintiffs claim the defendant used rotten wood under the tub.  Defendant claims they put wood to prop the tub up until they could repair the rotten floor under the previous bathroom fixtures.

Defendant says they put the tub in place so no one would fall through the holes in the floor from rot.  The previous tub must have been leaking for years, because the floor joists under it are totally rotten.

Plaintiffs asked a neighbor’s adult kid to do stairs for their deck, and didn’t like the work on that either.   They asked defendant to write a letter stating the stairs were not done correctly, so the plaintiffs could sue the neighbor.

Apparently the plaintiffs regularly sue workers on their house. 

So, Acker wanted someone to work during two bouts of Covid?   

Plaintiffs receive $1100.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Homeowners/plaintiffs say contractor left tub and shower installation unfinished and not up to code, but contractor disagrees.   Plaintiffs are suing for return of deposits, and costs, $4500. 

Granted I wasn't paying close attention, but the plaintiffs, the Stephen King cosplay hubby and his annoying mouthy wife got on my last nerve. What I hate is seeing people this age who can't take care of their own business like rational, mature adults without jumping on stupid Facebook to bitch, whine, and look for sympathy.

No one wants to pay taxes or an extra dime for a licensed contractor, so these dingbats hire that little dude to do the whole thing single-handedly and are shocked when something goes wrong? That expoxy wall was not done properly and was full of bubbles.

But Mr. and Mrs. Cheapskate did the same thing for their deck, hiring some "child" (actually a man in his 20's) from the neighbourhood and - surprise! - weren't happy with him either. They seem to be slow learners or maybe they enjoy going to court and squawking on their silly FB.

I've had a few jobs done in the last 5 or so years, the latest this spring. For some reason I didn't hire some "kid" from down the street for someone I met at Home Depot, but got a licensed contractor to do a partial reno on a bathroom. He came with a helper and they knew exactly what they were doing, cleaned up after themselves and finished in 7 days, not 3 months. I bet I paid less than these plaintiffs and had zero aggravation or court cases. It was all so cordial he even sent me a Xmas card! 😄

It's very rare that the cheap doesn't come out expensive.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Transmission Impossible”

New, Season 9, Episode 78, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Harold Maier  vs. Matthew Jacobson)

Plaintiff of used car expects seller to pay for every future repair, and after transmission and other issues on the ‘as is’ car, defendant/seller is sick of this.  Plaintiff test drove the car, but did not have a mechanic’s inspection, and bought it, five days later it broke down, and defendant repaired it.   Five more repairs were done by defendant’s mechanic shop. Now plaintiff wants the transmission repaired, or replaced.   Sales contract shows “as is”, no warranty is listed, and there is also a statement about no warranty.

Defendant’s mechanic, Daniel, testifies.    Plaintiff also tried to sue the defendant before over this, and obtained a judgment for $4,000.   Then, plaintiff never received the $4,000, because of a counter claim by defendant.   Plaintiff never filed the collection paperwork to collect the judgment.  (this was in Oregon).

Corriero is ticked about the judgment for plaintiff.   There is a voicemail defendant has of plaintiff, saying he wants the $4,000 now, or $6,000 refund on the car.  Judge Tewolde doesn’t understand that a transmission sensor isn’t the entire transmission, it’s just a little part.

Corriero says it’s not a judgement, but says a counter claim was filed against plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant’s counter claim for repair costs, and it’s dismissed.

 

 

“Unlawful Seizure”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 5, (Acker, Corriero, DiMango)

(Robert Smale vs. Jose  Cruz )

Plaintiff was driving a Honda Civic, when the stop light turned green, he started to go forward, when defendant plowed into him.   Plaintiff says defendant’s car kept rolling, with defendant sprawled over the wheel.   With a small car like a civic, plaintiff is lucky he wasn’t killed. 

 Defendant’s doctor and DMV clear him to drive, but he concealed the fact he still has seizures.   I’m wondering if the doctor was told the man still has seizures?    Defendant claims his seizure behind the wheel, and the subsequent accident, was an “act of nature”.  In my view it was an ‘act of stupidity’, he could have killed a lot of people.   

Defendant’s mother-in-law loaned the car to defendant, and his own wife knows he drives, but won’t let him drive with their children in the car.     I guess defendant and wife, and everyone else weren’t worried about the people he could have killed?  The car defendant usually drives, was in the body shop (let me guess why it was in the body shop).

 

Why do I have the feeling that defendant is still driving, and the part about wife saying he can’t drive with their kids in the car is total Bull Pucky?   Wife, Stacey Garay-Cruz testifies, and she arrived at the accident scene about 15 minutes after the accident happened.    Not only is defendant plagued with epilepsy, but also is a dialysis patient, wife claims his sodium was depleted, so that caused the seizure.   (Bull Pucky again).  Defendant has a seizure a couple of years ago, walked into the street, and was hit by a car.  

  DMV suspended defendant's license, but it won't stop him. 

Plaintiff receives $3900 for his damages, the Blue Book value. 

(This case hits home for me, a former co-worked lost her husband to heart attack, but she lived out in the country, so the doctor signed that she was seizure free.  He was not her neurologist, and he lied.   She had a bunch of accidents from seizures (she had the less than Grand Mal type, just went into a trance and did odd things).   However, since she went off the road on private property, they didn’t even give her a ticket, and I bet she’s still driving, and still dangerous to others).

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/20/2023 at 3:48 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff of used car expects seller to pay for every future repair, and after transmission and other issues on the ‘as is’ car, defendant/seller is sick of this.

I thoroughly enjoyed this, with the P proving once again that the adage, "With age comes wisdom" is not necessarily true and we should always add the second part which is, “but sometimes age comes alone.” when referring to litigants.

P goes to the used car lot and sees a LEXUS. Ooh, classy. That it's 20 years old doesn't give him pause.  That he signed a sales contract that says in bold lettering 2" high that this sale is AS IS with NO WARRANTY offered should be ignored by the judges since def gave him an oral lifetime guarantee and "I trusted him". Amazing he reached the age he is with this kind of naivety.

Def says he offered to fix anything wrong on the car found during a test drive and before the actual sale, which makes sense. Def fixed the car five times for free after the sale and didn't charge P anything. He was under no obligation to fix a damned thing on the ancient veehickle, but that's not good enough for P and he wants a new transmission installed for free.

P just wanted a Lexus, didn't care about anything else, ignored the contract and finally in the hall admits what one of the judges told him, "I was foolish" although I'm sure he means he was foolish listening to D's lifetime warranty promise. 

I watched part of another case with the parties battling and screeching like rabid animals because I do find it interesting when we see litigants here acting all sweet and demure, but the videos tell quite a different story. Why would adults think screaming,  physically attacking someone, and/or vandalizing their property will resolve their differences? I guess I'll never understand.

 

On 1/20/2023 at 3:48 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

This case hits home for me, a former co-worked lost her husband to heart attack, but she lived out in the country, so the doctor signed that she was seizure free.  He was not her neurologist, and he lied.   She had a bunch of accidents from seizures (she had the less than Grand Mal type, just went into a trance and did odd things).   However, since she went off the road on private property, they didn’t even give her a ticket, and I bet she’s still driving, and still dangerous to others).

That someone is willing to risk of the lives of innocent people because "I want" is disgusting.

[AngelaHunter]

Plaintiff takes 5,000$ from her retirement fund to fix the roof of some wizened little 'dating' site troll - who thinks it's normal to eat a whole bag of "edibles" and lapse into unconconsciousness because she's tired - one month after meeting. Well, that's nothing new around here.   But P not trying to buy love! She doesn't need to as she's very lovable, she informs JC.

Well, the big love affair dies PDQ and P wants her money back. Def told P to write a promissory note, even though she claims here the 5K was a gift, but P didn't. She was way too busy - so much going on - had to go to California - was taking classes - has a big heart - all happened so fast - is trusting, and all that usual litigant BS. She did have time to write minimum 50 pages of texts, but not to write 5 lines for the prom. note. Odd.

P gets her 5K back and informs us after the case, "In case you don't know, lesbian relationships seem to go really fast", whatever that means, unless by "fast" she means it takes only 30 days for lesbians to shower someone they just barely know with 5K? I don't agree. We see straight women doing the same for the losers THEY snag on the a variety of skeevy sites. Maybe you're just an idiot trying to buy love in all the wrong places?

Judge Y said she wouldn't give someone 5K even after a year of dating, and maybe not even if married.👍

Who knew there were so many "big hearts" out there, and how come I don't know any of them? I could have used one when MY roof needed to be replaced. Should have tried a hookup site. Hmmph.

Can you really buy a house for way under 100K anywhere in Washington?

[CrazyInAlabama]

The only house I saw near Olympia for under $100k looked like half tool shed/garage and the other half was a tiny studio apartment.  It sold instantly, and I bet was a teardown.  The Unsellable Houses HGTV show house prices are humongous prices, and they sell all over the area. .  

“Dude, Where’s My Cat?”

Rerun, 2022, Season 9 Episode 42 (Tewolde, Juarez, Corriero)

(Susan Lewis vs. Leslie Potter)

Two women fighting over custody of a cat, named Sweetheart.  After a house fire (sounds more like an eviction after a fire), plaintiff couldn’t afford a place to live, and was evicted, so she had defendant keep the cat.   Defendant says if she can’t keep the cat then she wants $5,000 for cat boarding, food, vet care.   Plaintiff claims they were only friends for a couple of years, but defendant says they were acquaintances for years.   Plaintiff wants the cat back.

Plaintiff says she visited the cat every week.   Defendant says there were two cats, plaintiff only had Sweetheart after one cat went missing, and presumed dead.   Then, a man ran over Sweetheart at Hermosa Beach, but he paid for the surgeries, and plaintiff had the cat in her car.   Defendant says plaintiff was a neglectful cat owner, and is bothering the other tenants when plaintiff comes by demanding her cat back.   The video of plaintiff harassing defendant is appalling.  

Right after this, plaintiff called in a welfare check and the fire department broke down defendant’s front door.    Corriero says defendant was taunting the plaintiff on the video.   However, plaintiff wants the cat back to give to someone else to keep for her.

Defendant’s witness says cat was living under the storage facility, and will live in plaintiff’s car.

Then, both women admit they were alcoholics, or my guess is they still are.    Why does plaintiff want this cat back?   She doesn’t have anywhere to live with the cat, and sounds like she never will.    I bet next case is plaintiff suing the next cat caretaker, because you know she’ll get the cat back.

Both litigants are out of control, and defendant isn’t much better than plaintiff, but she does have a place to live in.

Within two weeks, the litigants, minus defendant’s witness Michelle, must meet in a neutral place, and plaintiff gets Sweetheart back.   No money for either side.   Nothing said about fire department report about a welfare check, that caused defendant’s door to be broken down.

(I wouldn't let either litigant, or their s$*% stirrer witness, near a live animal.)

 

“Are You Scamming Me.”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 8 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Adrian Elias vs.   Bell)

First licensed mobile mechanic in Las Vegas accused of ripping off a customer.

Plaintiff hired defendant to repair two of her vehicles.   Defendant claims plaintiff fired him before he could fix her Mustang and other car.  Video of Mustang running sounds horrible. She claims defendant kept asking her for more and more parts, but cars were never fixed.  Plaintiff paid almost $1000 to defendant, $900 were for parts.  So, almost $2000 paid.

No written estimate. 

Defendant claims the issues on the Mustang were alignment related, tires and rims too. Car is 22 years old. Defendant says car needed motor mounts.

Decision is $535 to plaintiff. He gets credits for parts and work, plaintiff gets a partial refund.

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The only house I saw near Olympia for under $100k looked like half tool shed/garage and the other half was a tiny studio apartment.  It sold instantly, and I bet was a teardown.

I was curious so took a look. I did find one for 95K - a mobile home out in the boonies that looked as though opening a window would make it collapse. I'm guessing it's as you say -  buyers of these places tear them down and build something else.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Baby Brother Car Wrecker”

New, Season 9, Episode 83, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Lauren Hughes (sister) vs. Briley Hughes (brother)

Man owes sister for car loan, he’s the usual deadbeat. Sister suing for $4350 for a car, and pay $350 a month until it was paid off, but he only paid $400 once to sister.  Defendant brother totaled the car, and thinks that means the loan is gone too.  Brother has had six cars in his short life, at least one broke down.  Brother claims he paid $350 to sister twice.

Sister is 16 years older than 19-year-old brother.

Briley wrecked car driving reckless, went off the road over 200 ft., and totaled the car. Defendant was driving with a child in the car, and was charged with child endangerment.

Brother doesn’t think sister should have sued him, and then gets yelled at by Corriero for his attitude and his language.

Plaintiff receives $4350.

 

“Divorce Majeure”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 6, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Pamela Penrod  vs. Christopher Myers ) She’s stepmother to defendant.  This happened in Redmond, OR

Plaintiff loaned defendant $3300 for defendant stepson to divorce wife.   Defendant claims plaintiff stole from his father (John “Greg” Myers) during the divorce, and he owes her nothing.

Defendant claims plaintiff made CPS complaints against him and wife, robbed defendant’s father, and other acts. Plaintiff claims stepson and wife had a baby born addicted, defendant denies this, and they passed all of their drug tests.   The texts from defendant differ greatly with the same texts received by stepmother.

Defendant says plaintiffs (father and stepmother) don’t deserve money from him.

Carissa, the defendant’s wife testifies, apparently they didn’t divorce.   Both defendants claim to be sober, but child’s mother relapsed after baby was born, and she was in rehab.  Defendant man claims baby was never in CPS custody, plaintiff says no that’s not true either.

Defendant cross complaint dismissed, because there is a stalking order against defendant, and husband has a restraining order against defendants.

Plaintiff receives $2980.  

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Brother doesn’t think sister should have sued him,

I despised that punk. He has wrecked 3 or 4 cars driving recklessly, was hit with reckless endangerment of a minor for one of the times he wrecked a car (didn't hear any more about that, but he claimed he had only been in a court once before when he was 14 years old and driving around so what happened to the reckless endangerment charge?). He used both "shit" and "pissed" in court and mumbled answers with "yeh","yep" and "uh huh" repeatedly (JJ would have skinned him alive). He has the maturity and responsibility of a spoiled ten year old. He thinks it would be "cool" to make a living as a pro fighter (cue up a five year old saying "I wanna be a fireman when I grow up"). I am surprised that the judges didn't let him off because the plaintiff should have known that the deadbeat parasite would never pay her back as they have so often in the past. Nothing that the judges said to him made many impact on him at all. The plaintiff is going to be bailing him out forever, until he finally kills himself (and maybe other people) with his continuous reckless driving, or picks the wrong person to use his surly whiny act on.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The reckless driving and endangering a minor charges were pending.    Depending on where you live, it can take up to two years to see the inside of a courtroom.

Tuesday's shows:

“Why’d You Stop Bumper Thumper”

New, Season 9, Episode 84, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Andrea Sylvester vs. Tyesha McClearn)

Plaintiff wants car damages, and medical bills paid from defendant rear-ending her car.  Defendant says plaintiff caused the accident by stomping on her brakes, and is exaggerating her medical bills, injuries, and car damages.    Plaintiff stopped to allow on coming traffic to clear, when defendant hit the plaintiff.   Plaintiff says defendant was on her phone.    Plaintiff was going to chase down defendant if she fled the accident.    The litigants pulled into a gas station, and plaintiff said defendant confronted her.   Defendant claimed to be fully insured, but never showed proof of insurance, and the truck she was driving belonged to someone else.   Plaintiff claims no one can find proof of insurance for defendant.

Defendant was cited for following too close.   However, since vehicle insurance was confirmed, but not for defendant.  Plaintiff went to the truck owner’s home several times, and Ms. Jones (truck owner) denies she had any knowledge of being on the truck defendant was driving, that was registered in Ms. Jones name.   Defendant claimed truck was registered by her mother.

Police report says defendant doesn’t have insurance.  Diagram of accident in report is dramatically different from when defendant testified.   Accident happened before the intersection, not after the right turn merge.   Mercedes (plaintiff’s car) rear end damages are severe.  Defendant claims plaintiff kicked the Mercedes truck herself.  Defendant claims she was only going 15 mph when the accident happened.   Leading Papa Mike to say ‘ that leads us to believe that Mercedes are made of paper Mache”.

Plaintiff received $6400, but is still short $1400 on car damages.   She’s suing for $8,000 for physical therapy, and other medical insurance expenses.  (This all happened in Daytona Beach, FL).

Plaintiff receives $5,000 (Biggest problem on medical is plaintiff didn't show enough receipts showing what insurance paid, and what plaintiff still owes). 

“Turf Concrete Con Job”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 15 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

( Nieblas  vs. Richey)

p. 31, 30 Sept 22

 

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Are You Faux Real?”

New, Season 9, Episode 85, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(David  Manyika vs.  Patrick Garmhausen)

Plaintiff says defendant wanted to leave some of plaintiff’s property to store about 30 vehicles.  Four years later plaintiff told defendant he needed to move out, and refused.  Defendant received a restraining order against plaintiff.   Plaintiff wasn’t actually the owner, but was also a leasor.  Defendant claims someone broke into his rented property and stole $4500 worth of property.   Plaintiff claims he has the right to sublet. 

Plaintiff claims he didn’t sign the lease agreement with defendant, and it’s an obvious forgery.  Defendant claims to have  a permanent restraining order against plaintiff. 

In a fight over a storage property, there is security cam tampering, a run-over foot, and masked thieves. There is a video of plaintiff cutting locks and trespassing in defendant’s property.

Video submitted by plaintiff shows the vandalism allegedly by defendant, including running over someone’s foot, and plaintiff claims he has a restraining order against defendant, and claims defendant’s TRO was dismissed.

Plaintiff has an agreement with the new owner, and defendant claims he also has a verbal agreement with the new owner of the property.   Defendant still has unpaid rent.  Defendant claims to have testimony from plaintiff’s father saying plaintiff is a thief.

There is no testimony from the older owner, or new owner about this mess.

Plaintiff receives $1650 for three month’s rent.   Defendant’s claim is upheld by judges, for $1655, so both claims cancel each other out.      (Juarez looks like she’s tired of Corriero’s statements in deliberations).

 

 

“Lexus a Mess; Accident After Accident”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 12, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 30, 27 Sept 2022

[Carolina Girl]

I didn't believe a word that came out of defendant's mouth.  He FORGED a rental agreement and perpetrated a fraud on the Court to obtain a TRO.  Then says the new agreement with the new owner is up in his head.  

Oh, and taking down the camera equates with destroying his property?  I notice the clown car on the bench didn't have any comment about nut job running over the plaintiff's foot, or a comment on the property of the plaintiff that was also vandalized (windows broken on the travel trailer).  

The so-called declarations from the former owners were a nice touch.  The show pays for witnesses - why didn't he bring them to testify instead?  

I wish I could get a debut date for Tribunal on FreeVee.  For all her faults when it comes to insurance-less drivers, I really miss Judge DiMango. 

[AngelaHunter]

P is driving along, has to merge into the right lane due to an accident in the left. He's sitting and waiting his turn to go. Def is behind him, gawking and being "nosy", trying to get a look at the accident instead of watching the road and slams into P.

P is only asking 530$ for the damages to his brand new car and def gives him the slip even though he was patient for months. Why didn't she pay what she owed?

"I'm a single mother". Of course she is, but her decisions to give birth are not P's problem and don't magically negate debts, although they all seem to think it does. JA takes special exception to that. Then, like countless others before her Def says she had insurance. Ah  no, she did not. She drives around with the kiddies in the car, uninsured. She was having a hard time!

Then, when none of that works, she comes up with another excuse to try to weasel her way out of the whole thing by informing the judges that the marks on the cars "don't line up", so it must have been someone else who crashed into P. The judges don't buy her less-than-expert accident reconstruction.

Plaintiff was much calmer, nicer and more patient than I would be, and he's not even trying for a jackpot but just wants his car the way it was.

The judges award P the money and remark on what nice people both of them are. I beg to differ.

[patty1h]

"Pitchin' A Kitchen Fit" -- I hate Eli Yeshaya with a passion for holding the nice homeowners cabinets hostage because he had a problem getting paid from the developer.  He felt perfectly comfortable taking the money and then wanting the homeowner to join in a lawsuit with him.  She didn't ask for that headache but he wanted her to go through a possibly extended case with the guy who took HER money and didn't follow through.

I'm glad that Corriero reamed Yeshaya and got the plaintiff done with that fool.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Pitchin’ a Kitchen Fit”

New, Season 9, Episode 85, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Janis Blakeslee vs. Eli Yeshaya)

Contractor/defendant is having an issue with previous owner of the house (the developer/builder), so he’s holding plaintiff’s cabinets hostage.  Defendant demands that plaintiff join his lawsuit against the builder.  Defendant refuses to give the cabinets and wine fridge to plaintiff, even though she paid him.   When plaintiff bought house, there was a wine fridge, and plaintiff wanted storage instead.  Wine fridge was removed, and defendant was supposed to put a cabinet with drawers in that space, and plaintiff paid him $1254 for the cabinet, and plaintiff paid.

Defendant says he built kitchen for developer builder, and that person owes him money, and hasn’t paid.  Defendant claims he didn’t know builder wouldn’t pay him before he contracted with plaintiff and she paid him.   Plaintiff was willing to pay another contractor to install the cabinet she already paid defendant for, but he refused.

Original kitchen cabinets were installed in April, but defendant didn’t demand the payment from plaintiff and the builder until December.  Plaintiff didn’t contact defendant about installation until February.  Corriero goes after defendant, and I’m enjoying his ranting and raving this time.  Plaintiff even offered an extra $500 to defendant to put the cabinet in, and he still refused.

Plaintiff receives $1254, plus punitive damages if plaintiff had asked for them, but she didn’t.   Corriero wants a refund to plaintiff and punitive damages also, and the other two judges agree.

 

 

 

 

“Scratch That” p. 30 29 Sept 2022

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 14, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Contractor/defendant is having an issue with previous owner of the house (the developer/builder), so he’s holding plaintiff’s cabinets hostage. 

Was he one of the most outrageous defendants ever? Not only a crook, - taking P's money and giving her nothing -  but belligerent, disrespectful, and obnoxious about it. I really thought I just wasn't getting what was going on since it seemed impossible.

Of course P should never have paid in full and upfront for the job, but I guess she assumed that Def, a cabinet contractor who supplied all the cabinetry for the new home and worked for the builder wouldn't be a crook.

The builder owed him money for the cabinets, so he takes P's money then says SHE needs to go to the builder and pursuade them to pay D or she's not getting what she paid for? "She didn't want to do that", he says. Of course she didn't! His deal with the builder has nothing to do with her, you thick a-hole!

He goes on to pontificate that P is using and enjoying all the cabinets in the home (which she paid for when she bought the house!), so somehow getting him paid is her responsibility and therefore she should be a be a debt collector for him?

ELI YESHAYA of "SOUTH BAY KITCHEN", you are a reprehensible, pompous idiot and in addition to P telling everyone she knows to never deal with you I hope everyone who watched this show will think twice.

I just wish P had requested punitive damages. They were certainly deserved in this case.

[Carolina Girl]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

ELI YESHAYA of "SOUTH BAY KITCHEN", you are a reprehensible, pompous idiot and in addition to P telling everyone she knows to never deal with you I hope everyone who watched this show will think twice.

Did this jerk REALLY think he would come across as some sort of victim in all this?  Normally I have little use for these three judges, but how they were able to navigate the invoice mine field was pretty impressive.  I have this incredible feeling that Eli the Schmuck sent out invoices for additional and unsubstantiated charges and when the developer refused to pay them he then came up with this absurd legal strategy.  If he had a legitimate claim and dispute, shouldn't he have been able to file what is known as a "mechanic's lien" against the property?   

I can only hope that enough people - especially developers -  in the area watched this that  Eli the Schmuck sits at his business, waiting for a phone that's no longer ringing.   

[Carolina Girl]

Eli's got a C+ rating at the Better Business Bureau.  

Our fair plaintiff registered her complaint there in April of 2022 and this scumbucket didn't even bother to respond.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

I have this incredible feeling that Eli the Schmuck sent out invoices for additional and unsubstantiated charges and when the developer refused to pay them he then came up with this absurd legal strategy.

That's probably what happened. Quite a few people saw this episode and were not impressed.

Quote

Yelpers report this location has closed. Find a similar spot.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Dude Hit My Car”

New, Season 9, Episode 87,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Felipe Ching vs. Ryan Frazier)

Plaintiff is suing defendant/distracted driver, after he rear ends a couple at high speed, the accident victims want more than Blue Book value, because car has sentimental value to them.  Defendant didn’t have a driver’s license or insurance.    Plaintiff and wife were coming from downtown Chicago, when they heard a siren and stopped, then defendant rear ended them.   Defendant has the usual excuses for not having insurance.  Judges say $3000 to $5,000 value Blue Book, and plaintiff wants more money than car is worth.    Plaintiff says car was his wife’s first car, and she wants to keep it.

Defendant’s mechanic said the damages to plaintiff’s car were a small dent, when the damage is severe.  Defendant claims plaintiff’s friend threatened him.

Plaintiff paid $4500 to a body shop to fix his car.   Car Blue Book is only $4,000.

Plaintiff receives $4500.    Plaintiff didn’t bring in receipts for the damages, and parts. I believe what the plaintiff said about the costs he paid to repair his car.  Corriero and Juarez believe the plaintiff, but Tewolde doesn’t.

 

 

“Boats and Nos”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 11, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 30, 25 September 2022.

Boat seller fails to mention the lien still on the boat.

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Boat seller fails to mention the lien still on the boat.

I noticed something this time around for this case. The defendant sent a text to the plaintiffs saying that he was cancelling the boat sale deal because of (as read by the judge) "due to so many deaths and extenuating circumstances". I happened to be looking at the screen when they put the text up on the screen and said wait a minute. I backed the video up and freeze framed the text image - it actually said "deaths and exterminating circumstances"  which puts things in a different light. Its sort of blurry but it is clear that there is no "n" in the middle of the word but there is clearly an "m". Sounds like they actually used a better word than "extenuating".

[AngelaHunter]

56 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

cancelling the boat sale deal because of (as read by the judge) "due to so many deaths and extenuating circumstances".

They really need to do what Judge Milian does and that is read the texxes exactly as written, just for the lulz.

OTOH, maybe they had a cockroach infestation.

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/30/2023 at 5:39 PM, DoctorK said:

I despised that punk. He has wrecked 3 or 4 cars driving recklessly, was hit with reckless endangerment of a minor for one of the times he wrecked a car (didn't hear any more about that, but he claimed he had only been in a court once before when he was 14 years old and driving around so what happened to the reckless endangerment charge?). He used both "shit" and "pissed" in court and mumbled answers with "yeh","yep" and "uh huh" repeatedly (JJ would have skinned him alive). He has the maturity and responsibility of a spoiled ten year old. He thinks it would be "cool" to make a living as a pro fighter (cue up a five year old saying "I wanna be a fireman when I grow up"). I am surprised that the judges didn't let him off because the plaintiff should have known that the deadbeat parasite would never pay her back as they have so often in the past. Nothing that the judges said to him made many impact on him at all. The plaintiff is going to be bailing him out forever, until he finally kills himself (and maybe other people) with his continuous reckless driving, or picks the wrong person to use his surly whiny act on.

I just watched this and had to quote your whole post as it's dead-on.

However, I thought the sister should be penalized, even if only marginally, for doing something so dumb and naive in her mid-thirties. Oh, he wrecked every car he drove (all paid for by others no doubt) yet she honestly believed that if she gave him a 5K for yet another car he'd take great care of it and become responsible, when he couldn't even keep some marginal job without getting sacked? Really?

She'll pay 5k so her darling baby brother will eat dinner with her once a month? I'm sure he's a charming dinner guest. Maybe she sees something lovable in this inarticulate, insolent, sullen lump, and keeps imagining some "Walton Christmas" scene in her head, but continuing to buy him cars is not the way for him to straighten up. Only by calling the halt to the enabling will he ever learn a thing.

Yeah, he lost his father. So? A lot of us lost our fathers at a young age yet didn't automatically end up in court, getting fired, having silly fights ending with a black eye, and trashing 3 or 4 cars.

Papa's soaring rhetoric made zero impression on him and was a waste of time since this kid couldn't understand half the words used.

[Paperclips]

The Judges on this show NEED TO STOP YELLING.  My God.   The director on this past episode must have told them to yell at the top of their lungs.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“A Tale of Two Tenants”

New, Season 9, Episode 88, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Lou Rossi vs. Howard Teman)

Fistfight erupts between hairstylist (he’s a renter, who sublet) and his subtenant (a tattoo artist).  Plaintiff claims defendant assaulted him.  Plaintiff wants back rent, defendant claims he paid the rent.   Defendant claims plaintiff can’t hound him for rent, because plaintiff was evicted.  

Defendant says he didn’t pay rent during Covid, but building owner excused the tenants except plaintiff, who wasn’t paying anyway.    Defendant paid security to plaintiff, but he’s not the building owner. 

A former tenant, Natasha, testifies that plaintiff is awful to everyone.  Because of the situation between tenants and Rossi, defendant’s witness says she has PTSD from plaintiff’s harassment.  

Plaintiff says he always paid his rent to owner, and refuses to say why he was evicted.   Defendant claims building owner told him plaintiff didn’t pay rent after Covid started.

 Police report on the confrontation between litigants, says Rossi refused to talk to police.   Plaintiff claims that defendant slipped while trying to attack him. 

Plaintiff case $5,000.   $4200 to defendant, so plaintiff gets $800. 

 

“Friends and Business Don’t Mix”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 13, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 30, 28 September 2022

[Carolina Girl]

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yeah, he lost his father. So? A lot of us lost our fathers at a young age

Most of the young men I know that lost their dads felt an obligation to conduct their lives in such a way that Papa would be proud of them.  Not this wretch.  

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Friends and Business Don’t Mix”

Papa Mike fawns over plaintiff for being such a "tough business woman." I had to wonder if someone so savvy would really think charging $9,000 in interest for a 2-month loan of 25K is really so knowledgeable? John Gotti would be in awe of this incredible usury. But it seems she had no idea about that. Maybe she's not as savvy as she thinks.

I thought from watching these shows that anyone charging illegal outrageous interest would be penalized by getting none of it. Guess not.

[DoctorK]

44 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

charging $9,000 in interest for a 2-month loan of 25K

I wasn't watching too closely but I heard the judges talking about  36% interest which would be illegal. However, the interest rate for any determination of legality is Annual Percentage Rate (APR) which would be 216% interest (without even considering compound interest). Not even Gotti would pull that off. For the judges to just leave 36% hanging in the air as the interest rate is sloppy and misleading to anyone listening.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Fistfight erupts between hairstylist (he’s a renter, who sublet) and his subtenant (a tattoo artist).

That was some insanity going on. Mr. Rossi is a bit nuts.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A former tenant, Natasha, testifies that plaintiff is awful to everyone. 

"I'm from Canada so I'm not used to this". True. 😆 BUT, Natasha - PSTD, anxiety attacks, hospital visits, meds, etc because the little guy is a loud, annoying, PITA freak with a bad wig? And don't tell us he "made" you buy him 3 signs. Get real. You better toughen up, dear, or go home.

I was wondering why all the judges were screaming, but I'm pretty sure I heard P say "I can't hear anything". So many people refuse to get hearing aids and force everyone around them to strain their vocal cords and get headaches from screaming at them.

[Paperclips]

Does anyone know what happened with the new Hot Bench which I think was going to launch on Amazon?

I stand-by my nick-names for the new Judges - Motor-Mouth, Half-Awake, and my new name -Old Yeller for the Judge in the Middle.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Tribunal, with Acker, DiMango, and Adam Levy (Judge Judy's son, and a very accomplished attorney) with Officer Byrd is apparently going to be shown on Freevee like Judy Justice, but no premiere date yet. 

“Pawn But Not Forgotten”

New, Season 9, Episode 89, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Jhavia Johnson vs.  CarmellaDavis )

Plaintiff bought SUV for cash, with intentions of giving it to defendant. Plaintiff gave ex-wife a SUV as a wedding gift, and transferred title into defendant’s name.   After both went to get title loan on SUV, and plaintiff found out that defendant hadn’t transferred the title, or paid on the loan.   Plaintiff has vehicle back, and she wants defendant to pay for the title loan, and fees.  Defendant says since they were married, she didn’t see any point in transferring the title.    The women maintained their separate residences, and defendant ran short on rent, so the title loan happened. 

When the title loan company called plaintiff and said a payment was missed, the plaintiff gave the title company defendant’s address, and SUV was repo’d.

After title loan company repo’d the SUV, plaintiff paid the back payments, and is still making payments on the title loan.   Corriero says since plaintiff has the car back, that she will have the car valued at $3826 when it’s paid off.   Plaintiff says she paid off the car to keep her credit intact. 

Defendant claims she tried to repay plaintiff, but plaintiff didn’t want to work it out.   Plaintiff is a single mother, on SSI and Section 8, and had to get another job to pay the loan.

Plaintiff says everything she ever gave defendant, that defendant sold it.   Juarez points out that divorce courts don’t like divorcing spouses suing each other during the divorce.  Juarez says they aren’t interfering with the divorce court action.

Decision is to give the loan cash back to plaintiff, $2347.  Not including the fee to recover the vehicle.

 

"The Young and the Lexus/Re-Lease My Deposit"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 7 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

“The Young and the Lexus”

(Soraya Munoz vs.  Tamarah Bell)

Litigants fighting over damages from a car accident.    Neither driver was insured.      Plaintiff was driving, without insurance, was merging into another freeway, and the collision happens.    Defendant claims plaintiff hit her, and owes her $2183Plaintiff was on the freeway ramp, ahead of defendant, and that’s when defendant hit plaintiff.    Both drivers claim the other driver hit them.  After the accident, they went to a lighted parking lot to talk.  Plaintiff’s damage was left side, and defendant’s damages are on the right side, so the way the accident happened is described completely differently by each litigant.

Decision is $3069 (value of vehicle) to plaintiff.

 

 

 

“Re-Lease My Deposit”

(Eloise Thomas-tenant  vs. Jean Chugg-landlord )

Plaintiff lived in defendant’s condo for two years, and defendant says 30 day notice must be on the first of the month, and lease doesn’t say this.    Plaintiff is suing for return of security deposit. $1420.  When defendant consulted the attorney, he said notice should be given on the 1st of the month, but that’s not in the lease.

California statute says notice during a paid period of rent is adequate for notice.   

Plaintiff wants security deposit, minus the 10 days rent she used before move out.

$1,225 to plaintiff for the balance of the security deposit.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Litigants fighting over damages from a car accident.    Neither driver was insured.  

I was with JdiM and wouldn't have given anyone anything. Car damage is one thing, but what if P, or others like her, keeps driving with no insurance because she got rewarded for it today and hits someone and cripples them? "Sorry. No insurance." *shrug*

And she had the gall or stupidty to bring the highest estimate - more than the car is worth - because she thinks it's best to start really high in case the judges lower the amount? This isnt' a barter or a pawn shop, you dummy.

The condo women and the hardships and idiot lawyers who don't know their asses from the elbows and all that? Whatevs.

But never mind all that nonsense. Are we getting a brutal looking, actual dominatrix and her pet tomorrow? As Doc Holliday would say, "How lewd".

Can't wait.

[patty1h]

Fortunate Son - This was the case of plaintiff Renee Jewel suing her son Robert Stockhaus for a $5000 loan to get bailed out of jail. 

Right out of the gate, the plaintiff drops that she was a "notorious" dominatrix back in the day.  No shame in her previous occupation, but no matter how I squinted my eyes and side-eyed Renee Jewel, I couldn't picture this woman in a bondage outfit cracking a whip.  I know it was 20+ years ago, but my mind can't seem to visualize such a drastic shift.

I didn't like the son because of his dead affect and that he had a lot of excuses, like that his uncle was a shit stirrer in the relationship between mother and son and that he wanted his mother to wait until the bail was no longer tied up in the court, even knowing that she needed it for medication.  He seemed to be in the "that's what mothers do - help their kids" and "I had bills to pay, so she had to wait" mindset.  Ugh, he's grimy.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Fortunate Son”

New, Season 9, Episode 90, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Renee Jewel vs. Robert Stockhaus)

Plaintiff admits that her job as a dominatrix when son was young interfered with the mother-son relationship.  Plaintiff is suing son for repayment of his bail, $5,000.    Son was going to pay back mother when his case was adjudicated.    (This was in Warwick, RI)

Stockhaus runs an eBay store for plaintiff.   Son was given back the bail money, and used it to support himself, and his family.  Plaintiff relates the sordid tale of her son being raised around her dominatrix business.  Corriero tries to tell son that he owes his mother his love. 

Son says he left items worth over $5k in mother’s basement workshop, and she can sell that to get her money back.

Unanimous verdict, $5000 to plaintiff.

“The Tenant Commandments”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 30, 23 Sept 2022

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff admits that her job as a dominatrix when son was young interfered with the mother-son relationship.

How many notorious people actually refer to themselves as "notorious"? But yeah, I guess being a notorious alcoholic dominatrix will get you noticed. I guess she at least paid her own bills, unlike so many other litigants. I'm sure there's an endless stream of men who will pay big money to be humiliated, degraded, and beaten. Each to his own, but picturing her as a dominatrix is very frightening. OTOH, I guess that's precisely what the clients wanted.

She really didn't need to go into such an autobiographical spiel about her dom career and the "aminosity" between her and her son but I was interested in the fact that her God runs an employment agency. She asked him for a job and he got her one fixing clocks and music boxes. She mentions her father, who is 97 and no doubt still being pestered by her.

8 hours ago, patty1h said:

Ugh, he's grimy.

YES. IMO, the son is worse. Nothing is his fault and it seems the judges agree. He "got caught up in something that landed him in jail". We call that "committing a crime".  Seems charges were brought against him by his father but that must be someone else's fault.

The dom says both she and her son are "alphas". He didn't strike me that way. He's a dumpy little man of middle age who lives with his in-laws, can't earn a living unless his mommy pays him to fix clocks, can't pay his own bail, and owes money to everyone.

He "got mad" over something some uncle did or said so decided not to pay Mommy Dom the 5K she spent bailing his useless ass out of jail. He needs to get a real job and stop depending on and blaming everyone else. "Alpha" and "Throws tantrums like a 6-year-old" are not the same thing. I can't visualize the woman who wanted to actually marry him.

Okay, we got to Papa Mike and the "We are family" lecture and I had to stop there. HIs sermonizing has actually started to make me queasy. He said to Big Momma he's sure she's had a lot of pain her life, and I thought "But not nearly as much as her customers had". Oh, but true - they enjoyed their pain.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Valve Schmalve... Who Needs It?”

New, Season 9, Episode 90 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Paul Hannibal vs. Anthony Mendoza)

Plaintiff’s Honda motorcycle broke down, and he took it to defendant’s (Ruthless Kustoms) repair shop, then bike broke down on the highway.  

It would be $4,000 to fix the bike.   A new valve for one cylinder would be $2500.  Defendant claims the valve can’t be adjusted to specs.

Plaintiff says he knew about the bad valve, and took bike to another shop who claimed they could adjust the valve that defendant claimed he couldn’t adjust. 

Defendant offered to take bike to another shop, and pay for the valve adjustment.

Defendant says since he didn’t see the bike after the breakdown, and can’t say what the issue is without seeing the bike and diagnosing the issue.

Decision is $1300 back to plaintiff.   Corriero wants $2,000 to plaintiff, but both other judges say no.   Juarez and Corriero want to give $1300 back, and Tewolde says $0. 

 

“Unfinished Busy-ness; Car-pay Diem"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 22, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 12 Oct 2022.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff’s Honda motorcycle broke down

I was way more interested in the high speed chase by the highway patrol where  roly-poly little outlaw P was making his getaway after doing something naughty. The valves were of no interest to me. Well, it was amusing to hear Def brag that he's the most expensive shop in the area. Is this supposed to attract a large clientele?

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Corriero wants $2,000 to plaintiff

Of course he did. I guess he's still trying to make amends for being forced to give the max sentence to the 'young man' who viciously murdered a senior. Or maybe he had a "The Wild One" fantasy at one time. I think JT had the right idea. 

[DoctorK]

15 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

way more interested in the high speed chase by the highway patrol where  roly-poly little outlaw P was making his getaway after doing something naughty. The valves were of no interest to me.

I also wanted to hear more about the high speed chase and to what extent that may have damaged the engine (and if he managed to escape). Personally, I was interested in the valve issue (a much more interesting issue than the standard despicable, illiterate and trashy problems most litigants bring in) and wish the plaintiff had let the defendant take him and the bike to the shop that said they could adjust the valve to spec and if they could, the defendant would pay for the adjustment - either the defendant would pat himself on the back or find out he wasn't quite the mechanical genius he thinks he is. Oh by the way, Corriero's arguing about this case once again reminded me that he is loudmouth idiot.

[Carolina Girl]

On 2/7/2023 at 11:53 AM, Paperclips said:

Does anyone know what happened with the new Hot Bench which I think was going to launch on Amazon?

I've been looking everywhere for a launch date - all I seen to be able to find is the announcement of the show itself.  It was like a YEAR ago.  It can't have taken that long to get enough cases to pull at least the start of a season together.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

It's called Tribunal I think, and it just got picked up by Freevee, and I wasn't able to find a premiere date.      

[Paperclips]

You are right - Corriero couldn't join because he was contracted a few years after the others.  I wonder what happened to it?

I watch Judge Judy repeats on my unpaid for tv station.  I think they made a mistake in thinking people would follow them to streaming.  I watch Hot Bench, JJ and Peoples Court on an antenna.  I don't pay for anything.  I work at home and some Court show is on in the background.