AngelaHunter December 14, 2023 Share December 14, 2023 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff backs into her parking spot, so she claims the damages are on her front bumper, but plaintiff isn't just claiming for front bumper damage, but also rear bumper damages, new rear lights, and a new cover for her car. The P, who appeared to be on her way to perform at a Caribbean festival, wanted a major facelift on her car at the Def's expense. She tried to paint him as memory-impaired and nearly blind. At 82, he's very sharp and lively and doesn't even wear glasses all the time. Maybe he hit her car and maybe he didn't, but her hearsay from invisible witnesses, who 'don't want nothing' to do with this, doesn't fly. Even if he did hit it, she was just being greedy, wanting him to pay for stuff that had nothing to do with any sideswipe. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 18, 2023 Share December 18, 2023 18 December “The Con Job” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Vera Gaertner vs. Daniel Frederick ) From the show site: Two litigants googled each other's criminal records to try and discredit the other in court. Is that information relevant to their case about a loan for a truck? Or are they just hurting their own credibility? Plaintiff suing defendant for a $2,000 loan for a truck. Loan or gift was for $2,000, a penalty fee of $1,000, and $700. $1700 remaining on the loans, since defendant repaid plaintiff $300. He claims he repaid $2000. Defendant claims the $2000 was an investment in his remodeling, and handyman business. When brother Beasely went to jail (he's defendant's brother), plaintiff made the investment. There was a contract splitting the profits, but there have been no profits. Plaintiff claims there was a verbal agreement about repayment. Defendant says it was an investment, but he paid her back anyway. The criminal record plaintiff submitted to the court includes offenses committed by someone else. Because defendant was in prison at the time when the other offenses were committed. Plaintiff claims defendant paid her $300, but Tewolde says the payments were $800 according to her own records. Defendant's records show almost $4,000 paid to her. Defendant talks about the plaintiff being a scammer, and has a pending case for fraud and identity theft. She also has a bunch of bench warrants for failure to appear. Judges decide thre is no proof the instant transfers went to plaintiff from defendant. Plaintiff receives $1200, no $1,000 penalty or other charges. (This is a new low. Being a bad person, I guess the best part of the case for me is the competition to see who has the worse criminal record to discredit the other). “Mad House” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 97 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 36, 21 February 2023 2 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 19, 2023 Share December 19, 2023 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: (This is a new low. Being a bad person, I guess the best part of the case for me is the competition to see who has the worse criminal record to discredit the other). These three - even the jailbird brother who said nothing - were so distasteful they made me itch. The way P and D talked about how the brother was in jail it's easy to see this is a common occurrence in their trashy lives. And where did P, who was homeless and in "despair" to the point she borrowed 200$ from the incredibly hostile, creepy def for a hotel room, get $2,000? Probably better not to know. I didn't believe anything either of them said. I wish the judges would stop congratulating criminals for not committing any recent crimes. Just once I wish they would ask, "How are your victims doing?" But it was funny when Def tried to make his taking of the money into an altruistic act. He took it to help her. Hey, I've never been arrested or locked up. Why is no one patting me on the back? Oh, right - that's what we're supposed to do. No kudos are necessary. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 19, 2023 Share December 19, 2023 19 December “Can’t-struction” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Jeffery Pete vs. Zachary Dejewski) From the show site: A commercial space was rented as an art gallery and 3D print shop, and the tenant made a lot of "artistic upgrades" which he was supposed to un-do when he left. Now the landlord is suing for the cost of repairs and painting over a mural. Why did the tenant think it was okay to leave it in such a state? Plaintiff has the before and after pictures of the bathroom, and it's hideous, it's dark purple high-gloss paint with withe squiggles on the wall. , one room has a horrible door paint, glass painted over, a mural of graffiti type art, a ceiling painted black, . Repairs cost $4,000 to plaintiff to repair after defendant moved out. Space was an art gallery, private studio for defendant, who produces 3D art. There is a signed, written lease requiring plaintiff/landlord's written permission to alter the rented space. Defendant let an ill friend stay in the studio place, in return for paying the rent, after friend died the caretaker for the friend stayed on. The landlord says he knew about the friend, but they never signed a lease, and landlord never heard of the caretaker. I can believe it took $4,000 to clean the space up. Painting over high gloss paint is tough, especially the colors the defendant used. I'm surprised it was easier to repaint, than to rip out ceiling tiles and wallboard and replace them. Defendant says the wooden wall over the outer garage door was for security, and to fortify the space. Landlord reimbursed the tenant for touching up the wall paint. Defendant claims the caretaker painted the bathroom purple and black, but defendant was never taken off the lease, and caretaker never signed anything. Landlord says someone who claimed to be the partner of defendant paid the rent a few times. Judge Juarez talks about late charges in lease, and says they're excessive. However, defendant signed the contract calling for late charges. Plaintiff landlord sent the demand letter to defendant about damages, what he's being charged for, $3400. Plus, late fees for rent. List says $5186 was the total cost to restore the property. Plus, late fees, unpaid rent, and rekeying because defendant never gave him the keys. Landlord had to pay someone to haul away all of the junk tenant/defendant dumped outside on move out, because it was on landlord's property, and also dumped on the neighbor's property. As usual, Corriero takes defendant's side. Juarez goes with paint, wall removal, but not the $400 in late fees, down to $90. Judges decide $3982 to plaintiff/landlord. “Are You Flooding Kidding” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 94 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 36, 16 February 2023 1 2 Link to comment
DoctorK December 20, 2023 Share December 20, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Judge Juarez talks about late charges in lease, and says they're excessive. However, defendant signed the contract calling for late charges. That annoyed me almost as much as the defendant annoyed me. The contract was signed by the defendant and unless Juarez could cite some local or state ordinance or law defining late fee limits they had no basis to disallow the contractually defined late fees. I also think the judges were all way too sympathetic towards the defendant. He is a narcissistic fool who is totally incapable or unwilling to act as an adult and take responsibility for his trashing the property with his "art". He just floats through life without a care and "does his thing" with no regard for other people's property because he is an artist and the rules don't apply to him. I have known people like him and they can be OK but I learned to never trust or rely on them any further than I can comfortably spit a rat. eta: Just watched the next (rerun) case and again Juarez dumps contractually defined late fees for a tenant because she thinks they are "excessive". Corriero-itis must be catching. Edited December 20, 2023 by DoctorK 2 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 23, 2023 Share December 23, 2023 (edited) Unfortunately, I didn't keep the full info for the 20th, and that went bye-bye. It was the tire/rims case, which was bizarre. "Sick and Tires of You" New, Season 10 (Tewolde, Juarez, Corriero) This is the new one for the 20th. Plaintiff bought a car from defendant's used car lot, paid very little for the required payments, so defendant repo'd the car. Plaintiff claims she put brand new tires and rims on the car, and between that and the personal property in the car, claims defendant owes her either $4,000 or $5,000. She also claims because he kept the personal property in the car after the repo, that she lost her job. (This happened in Missouri) Defendant has to justify keeping the rims and tires to the judges. According to the signed contract, and Missouri law, anything done to the car is permanent when it's repo'd. Defendant say after the repo, plaintiff had the opportunity to get her possessions from the car too. Defendant says he did say if plaintiff brought the original tires and rims for the car, he would give her new rims and tires back. Defendant says that when plaintiff brought the tires and rims, that the tires were old, deteriorating and not what was on the car originally, and the rims were chewed up. Since when does a tire store keep used tires for plaintiff to pick up and try to con defendant with? They throw them out back of the shop, and send them off for recycling or if recaps are still a thing, to have more tread put on. There is no way that plaintiff didn't go to the tire store and get four trash tires and ruined rims, and try to pawn them off on defendant. The judges sure tried to get defendant to back down, but he was prepared, had the policies from state law right on the signed contract with plaintiff, and there was nothing the judges could do to screw him over. Plaintiff case dismissed, no proof of anything she said. This was followed by another season 9 rerun. 21 December “Can't Pay, Can't Stay” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 159 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 41, 14 August 2023 “Two Tickets to Paradise” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 34, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 32, 2 Nov 2022 I absolutely disagree with the verdict. The defendant called the boyfriend or partner or whatever he is to come to take care of the woman. No one deserves to be treated the way the plaintiff treated the defendant. Just because you are someone’s caretaker, doesn’t mean they have to right to abuse you. 22 December (No Hot Bench Monday the 25th) “The Gig Is Up” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 10 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 22 September 2023 “Come Hell or High Water Bill” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 32 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (First episode with Juarez and Tewolde) p. 33, 24 November 2022 (No Hot Bench Monday the 25th) Edited December 25, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 24, 2023 Share December 24, 2023 On 12/23/2023 at 8:10 AM, CrazyInAlabama said: Sick and Tires of You" That was a very informative lesson on priorities. The plaintiff hankers for a car that is beyond her means. Doesn't matter. She wants it. She can't make the payments for months. Instead of doing that, she goes right out and buys fancy tires and those "gotta have" RIMS. These all cost her 3K. By my calculations - and I'm "innumerate" so they could be wrong, but that 3K for stupid nonsense could have covered those 6 months of payments she decided to skip in favour of RIMS. I get it. After all, she won't get attention or admiration for paying what she owes, but just wait til everyone sees those rims! I might expect this from a teenager, not a mature woman. On top of all that, she thinks the judges are stupid when she gives them copies of her payments and thinks they won't notice she used the same one twice. On 12/23/2023 at 8:10 AM, CrazyInAlabama said: Defendant says that when plaintiff brought the tires and rims, that the tires were old, deteriorating and not what was on the car originally, and the rims were chewed up. I believed him. Anyone who would lie to judges, create fake evidence, and stiff the person she was supposed to pay probably did that too. Luckily she's not too bright or very good at all that and loses. I was annoyed when JT said she wished she could give P something for the rims and tires. Why? She's an entitled scam artist and a liar who stiffs people. 1 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 26, 2023 Share December 26, 2023 (edited) 26 December “Unlordly Landlord” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 6 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 18 September 2023 “Con Voyage” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 33(Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 32, 1 Nov 2022 27 December “The Drain Game” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 8 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 20 September 2023 “Not so Hot, Dawg” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 43 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 34, 26 December 2022 Edited December 27, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 26, 2023 Share December 26, 2023 I finally saw the "Google was closed" case. Oh, wow. Def tries to sound like a reasonable, avuncular presence in the Woody Woodpecker-headed, mentally unstable P's life, someone whose own aunt urged him to go with the chickenhawk Def - anything to get him out of her house. In fact, creepy Def wanted to get his hands on this disturbed kid ("we had a connection". I'm sure they had so much in common. STFU with that, chickenhawk), young enough to be his son, so badly he'd invite the kid he'd met once to come with him from Portland to AZ. The kid then forced him to go on a cruise. Ugh. I agreed totally with Papa who didn't want to give Def one cent in defamation or "emotional distress." Good for you, Papa. Def was so not as innocent as he tried to portray, and oops - he doesn't happen to have any evidence with him. The other two don't agree with Papa and think Def deserves an award. I couldn't help wondering if they would feel the same way if the P was a disturbed 20-year-old girl living with an aunt who wanted to get rid of her and taken in by a 44-year-old predator man who didn't get what he bargained for. I kind of think not, but I could be wrong as I so often am. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 28, 2023 Share December 28, 2023 28 December “Scoot Scootin' Boogie” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 9, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 21 September 2023 “The Fast and the Furious” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 36 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 34 16 Dec 2022 29 December “License to Bill” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 166 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 41, 5 September 2023 “All A-boat a Family Feud” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 41 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 32, 11 November 2022 (1 January no Hot Bench) 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 31, 2023 Share December 31, 2023 On 12/27/2023 at 9:33 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: All A-boat a Family Feud” I never saw this, but as the year draws to a close, I'm glad I found such a heartwarming tale of familial love! I bet they all had a lovely Christmas, when they weren't at each other's throats, picking the bones like a pack of hyenas. JudgeT goes the Judge Milian route, trying to counsel them to be closer and love each other. 😆 She says she's sorry she has no siblings, and I just bet the litigants had the collective thought, "You can have MINE!" Touching it was. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 31, 2023 Share December 31, 2023 I just have to comment on the case I watched just now, where the way-too-twee landlord, Mr. Fox is suing his tenant, Mr. McFee, for back rent. Mr. McFee is yet another man-child in this epidemic of such, who looks to be well past 30 (or more) yet is so helpless he can't manage his money or pay his own rent and needs some caretaker to do that. He used to have a girlfriend who handled all that grown-up stuff! At first, I thought he had some mental disability but then we find out he has a job where he earns $2500/week(really?) but paying his rent by himself or keeping track of his own money is beyond him. He had to engage the services of some family member or sister's boyfriend to deal with his finances. But oops, seems that person was just keeping the money him/herself and stopped paying Mr. Fox. Mr.McFee certainly has no clue about that since he's used to being cared for that way and trusts that other people will have his best interests at heart. Mr. Fox, ( after a ton of self-congratulatory rhetoric about what a great guy he is)says that the unit stunk so badly that he told McFee he had to get out ASAP. I assume McFee, who says he doesn't want any confrontations and seems to lack a backbone, said nothing to the thief. Mr. Fox tells the judges he was off for the weekend because he just turned 70! One of the judges, I think JT, says "Congratulations." I hope she was being sarcastic. Anyway, 5K for Fox. 3 Link to comment
Chalby January 2 Share January 2 (edited) I had to look to see if the episode from January 2nd had being mentioned on here. Normally the three judges can come up with a decision that I sort of agree with but this case was ridiculous. All I gathered was someone owned a restaurant, and some guy from Atlanta wanted to serve coffee and cake in order to get investors for his coffee. He chose the restaurant because it was in a wealthy neighborhood and he wanted to sell to people living in that area. He asked if he could use the premises and they said sure because a) they don't serve dessert so cake wouldn't cut into their food profits, and b) coffee won't cut into their profits either. The restaurant said they had no issue with his plans because the day he asked for was a Sunday; it wasn't during a busy season so they said, no problem. The restaurant did not charge him for setting up on their premises, so he could coerce their customers to invest. There was also no charge because he was not impacting the business. He was arriving on a day they're normally open so they did not have to do anything to prepare for him. Yet, here he is, suing the restaurant because public health kept them closed when they were 'supposed to be open.' They phoned him a day in advance to tell him they're closed. He could have phoned a ton of restaurants in the same area and asked for a little corner to set up but he chose not to. Judge C was the only one who actually had it right. I was shocked that the two women judges were discussing what amount of money to award the plaintiff as a result of the restaurant phoning the day before to say that the it was closed. To me, that's equivalent to phoning a city, and asking if you can use one of their local parks for a public picnic. If they look it up and say "Oh yeah, you can use it that day as there doesn't appear to be an issue. There's no cost, no charge. Have fun. The day before you plan to picnic in the park you find out there's construction and it's been shut down to the public. Find another park. It didn't cost you anything. Edited January 5 by Chalby 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 2 Share January 2 2 January “A Whole Latte Drama” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Roderick Gaines vs. Rosalind Pennington) From the show site: The CEO of a coffee company (Gaines Coffee Company) had a networking event planned at a trendy Los Angeles club (The Townhouse). But the club cancelled last minute due to a failed health inspection, and he's suing them for his travel cost. The club owners say, "We're professional. We've hosted private events for Beyonce." It's too bad she isn't in court to defend their reputation. Plaintiff/coffee company CEO wanted to have a free coffee and dessert stand at the defendant's restaurant, to attract investors in his coffee business. However, a couple of days before the event, the health department closed the defendant's restaurant because of a rodent infestation. Defendant had to cancel the event, and plaintiff is suing her for $5,000. Defendant also says plaintiff told her the coffee was free, and plaintiff was planning to market the coffee company to investors. Kelly Melton, is defendant's witness and event planner at The Townhouse, who says it was a freebie for plaintiff because it didn't compete with their business. Kelly Milton says plaintiff was calling her constantly, and that plaintiff never said the event was to get investors. Plaintiff paid nothing to the defendants, didn't have a contract and never paid a deposit. Plaintiff claims $2100+ of the $5,000 claim is for his actual expenses. The roach and rodent problem had been going on for a month before the event was cancelled. The health department shut the nightclub/bar down, the venue had a lot of pest control services performed, but the health department inspector wouldn't come back in time to reinspect, and so The Townhouse couldn't reopen. My only question is why someone who is getting a free event expect to get paid when the original venue gets shut down? Ridiculous of Tewolde and Juarez to think the plaintiff deserves anything. For once Corriero is the voice of reason, and says no contract, and no reason to give the plaintiff anything. Juarez wants to give the plaintiff his actual expenses, and Tewolde sides with her. I sided with Corriero, that explains why where I live Hell seems to be freezing over. Plaintiff gets travel costs $1,000 from Tewolde and Juarez. “Hot Property” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 55, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 33, 5 December 2022 1 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 3 Share January 3 (edited) 3 January “No, You Can't Pick My Part” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Hamoon Pour vs. Rony Maldonado Espinoza) From the show site: An event producer took the scenic route through Griffith Park and was hit by another driver. He did the other driver a favor by agreeing to leave insurance out of it. But does that mean the other driver gets to select after-market parts to save money? The plaintiff wants original parts and is suing for repairs and lost wages. Plaintiff/car accident victim is suing defendant/uninsured driver for lost wages, original car parts, and car repair damages. Car damages are $2400, and with lost wages $3500. Defendant refuses to pay for the plaintiff's damages, because defendant wants to used aftermarket parts, and plaintiff refuses to use those parts. Defendant was turning left, plaintiff was going straight and had a green light, so plaintiff had the right of way. Defendant claims the car belongs to his father-in-law, and claims he had insurance, but didn't claim the accident on the car insurance. Plaintiff says defendant sent him photos of used car parts, and they had cracks and other damges, so plaintiff refused to use the parts. Plaintiff wanted lost wages because the car has to be pristine for some kind of books plaintiff gets, I'm guessing movie related? Defendant claims after plaintiff refused the used parts for the vehicle, that he decided not to pay for repairs. Then, plaintiff claims after he refused the used parts, then defendant wanted aftermarket parts or other used parts. Defendant claims since plaintiff's car was a 2010 Prius that any parts would be aftermarket or used. Plaintiff says 2010 parts are available from Toyota. Used would be $1000 cheaper for the repair. Judges deliberate, and dispute that plaintiff had to take his car to bookings. So. lost wages are dismissed. Car hasn't been repaired and it's been seven months. Plaintiff receives $2,054. only for car damages. Judges say since defendant claims he was insured, then plaintiff should have claimed through defendant's insurance, and had his car repaired. My guess is defendant's father-in-law who owns the car, didn't have insurance, or didn't have defendant named on it, so plaintiff wouldn't have been paid anyway. I would have given plaintiff everything he asked for, and a rental car for when his car will be in the repair shop. I loathed the defendant. Who wants someone to get busted up repair parts for their car? “Hair on the Side of Caution” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 111 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 37, 27 March 2023 Edited January 6 by CrazyInAlabama 2 2 Link to comment
patty1h January 4 Share January 4 Not much to say about the couple of new cases thrown out in the last week or so. The only thing that got my attention is JTewolde's groovy new hairstyle. 5 Link to comment
Gramto6 January 4 Share January 4 37 minutes ago, patty1h said: Not much to say about the couple of new cases thrown out in the last week or so. The only thing that got my attention is JTewolde's groovy new hairstyle. Yes! I thought her hair looked amazing! 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 4 Share January 4 (edited) 4 January “Long Live the Kyng” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Kayoniana Hall vs. Candice Carter) From the show site: A businesswoman on a work trip got a devastating late-night call from her pet sitter. Her beloved Pomeranian was killed by another client's dog. She speculates that the sitter's Pit Bull is the real attacker, and that she took care of the cremation to cover that up. But the sitter denies this and says she's suing the wrong person. Plaintiff/dog owner was called by defendant/dog sitter and told her dog had been in a fight, and plaintiff’s dog died. Plaintiff is suing defendant because she thinks the dog sitter’s Pit Bull is actually the animal that killed her beloved Pomeranian. Plaintiff is suing for $3800. Plaintiff claims that defendant had a quick cremation of her dog, to cover up exactly how her dog died, and which dog killed her dog. Plaintiff was out of town for work, and Kyng, her 1-year-old Pomeranian was at defendant's home. Defendant was watching Kyng and five other dogs, left the dogs alone for a few minutes, and heard a dog fight. Defendant is trying to claim Kyng is 18 lbs., but he was a one year old Pom, and plaintiff says he was 10 lbs. Defendant claims she had up to 10 dogs at a time, and claims dogs 35 lbs. and over are kept separate from smaller dogs. Defendant is blaming another dog named Oliver did the killing. Oliver is a Bernadoodle, 25 lbs. (a Bernese Cross is only 25 lbs? I don't believe that. Defendant says she ran back to the dog room, and Kyng had been injured, defendant says she did everything to help Kyng, but he died. Defendant called plaintiff and told her Kyng was dead, and then had him cremated before plaintiff came back to town. Defendant claims she left the dog for a couple of minutes, but plaintiff says defendant actually left the dogs along while she walked and exercised the other dogs, so much longer than a minute or two. Defendant claims she took Kyng to work with her to socialize him, and let him play with the other dogs to socialize him. There is a video of Kyng playing with defendant, her son, and Oliver, the dog defendant blamed for killing Kyng. Sorry, Oliver isn't that big. Defendant claims poor Kyng only had one puncture wound, and was dead before she got upstairs. So how does a dog die instantly from one puncture wound? Defendant then claims all plaintiff talked about was how expensive Kyng was, and how much replacing him will cost. Defendant claims plaintiff was going to talk to the other dog, Oliver's owner, and he would compensate her for her dog. Plaintiff thinks defendant's Pit Bull was jealous of Kyng playing with the son, and going to work with defendant, and Pit Bull attacked and killed Kyng. I agree with her, but there's no way to prove which dog killed Kyng. Plaintiff says defendant not only has one Pit Bull, but multiple Pit Bulls she breeds. So, Pit Bulls used for breeding, in the same home, and defendant claims one of the Pits was never around the small dogs. I believe nothing the defendant said. As Judge Milian says "I wouldn't believe the defendant if her tongue was notorized". Tewolde says plaintiff was careless, but defendant's story is full of bull pucky, and was negligent. Corriero agrees with Tewolde. Juarez agrees. Plaintiff receives $3800, for the $3500 for Kyng, and dog sitting fees. “Left Turn Only” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 163, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 41, 28 August 2023 5 January “Load of Raging Bull” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 3 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 41, 13 September 2023 “Cleaning Disaster” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 167 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 41, 6 September 2023 Edited January 5 by CrazyInAlabama 2 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 6 Share January 6 On 1/3/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: “No, You Can't Pick My Part” So often we see this - someone crashing into a car and then feeling they have the right to dictate where the victim takes the car for repairs, and that person has to "work with" someone who stupidly hit them. I see why Def. Espinoza keeps crashing cars. He doesn't know how to drive and truly thinks that if both have a green light, the person turning left has the right of way! I wonder whose car he's driving now, and if he's smashed it yet. Espinoza says he was insured in his father-in-law's car, and everyone bought the story that insurance be left out, lest the FIL blast the Def. P is a bit of a slack jaw, saying he decided to trust the Def to pay for the damages. Yeah, I'd trust a total stranger who just wrecked my car and doesn't want to go through insurance and won't reveal the name of the ins. company. The P claims that the damages prevented him from getting some jobs, setting off fireworks, or getting hired for some movie for which he needed his 12-year-old Prius to be pristine because no one wants to see an old, bashed-in Toyota. I have no idea what he does for a living, but those were my impressions. Maybe it was the kind of movie or TV role where he would be in the credits as "Man with car" or whatever. But the two job offers were for May and September, way after the accident. He did nothing to get his car put back into pristine condition. He gets zero for his missed "bookings". He couldn't have fixed his car and then sued, or rented a car for a couple of days? Judge T seemed to be having a little difficulty controlling that super-long weave! I liked the short hair better. The weave overwhelms her dainty, pretty features, IMO. 2 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 7 Share January 7 On 1/3/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: “Hair on the Side of Caution” Oh, mah gawd. I vowed to never watch any more Weave Wars, but I just did. P was devastated, so distressed and traumatized, she couldn't be seen in public, couldn't go shopping or anywhere at all. Well, except on national television. She wore a wig here, so what's the problem? Are wigs not good enough for her? Everyone else on these shows wears one. Weaves and dye and glue and she wonders why her hair falls out. Trying to pin it on the Def and score some $$$ was pretty nasty. Def said when P finally came in, this weave "had a smell." Did she not wash her head for two months? Ew. Judge T was annoyed ("Come on!") that P kept lying and tried to say her gray hair was actually cream. Her bid for a payday fails. 2 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 8 Share January 8 (edited) 8 January “Gold Wedding” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Keyanna Parker (now Thorn) vs. Timica Smith ) From the show site: A bride says she was so angry at her wedding planner that she wanted to attack her, but she restrained herself - even though her mug shot would have looked "real cute." Is the planner guilty of ruining her big day, or did the bride embarrass her in front of everyone by creating an unnecessary scene? Plaintiff bride wants $3500 from defendant wedding planner for screwing up the flowers, and everything else. Plaintiff actually wanted to assault the defendant. Defendant offered a partial amount back on the flowers, and subbed for the DJ when plaintiff’s DJ didn’t show up. $3500 covered wedding consult, chair covers, linens, décor, and supervise everything else. Defendant says she supplies linens and décor from her own inventory, and says plaintiff got a bargain. Plaintiff wanted true red flowers, gold sashes, and a lot else. Defendant says bride ordered the roses herself, and says she told bride that the silk flowers would be a sure thing, and look good, when fresh roses are not a sure thing, and may not be in good shape when they arrive. The roses plaintiff demanded and paid for were withered, and in bad shape when they arrived. (Yes, Mrs. Thorn is complaining about roses.) Plaintiff also says defendant should have run out to Kroger and bought red roses that day. Defendant says the finished reception area was lovely, and I agree after seeing the video. Plaintiff says she was upset about her reception area, and said it was tacky and substandard. Defendant says the rehearsal was chaotic, because the participants were drinking a lot, swearing, and disruptive, and wouldn’t listen. She also says plaintiff made a big scene at the reception, DJ was a substitute who didn’t know what to do, so defendant had to manage that too, and do announcements and coordination. Defendant offered $ to plaintiff for the flowers. Plaintiff also says defendant was wearing a rag on her head, booty shorts, and when she bent over you could see her Cash and Prizes (trademark Kelli of Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders). Defendant says it was one of those dressy short suits, and entirely appropriate. (No, the shorts that defendant said were appropriate looked horrible). Plaintiff also says defendant had business cards on the cake table. Defendant claims she doesn’t put business cards out, then says other vendors put out business cards too. Flowers were $2200, so that’s what plaintiff will get back. Since plaintiff demanded fresh flowers, and refused to settle for silk, I wouldn't have given her the $2200 for them. When you hire a wedding planner, and they tell you something will probably be a disaster, and you demand the item anyway, you shouldn't get anything back on that. Plaintiff receives $2200 for the flowers, and nothing else. “Chip Off the Mold Block” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 15 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 9 October 2023 Edited January 9 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
patty1h January 8 Share January 8 Keyanna Parker was a nitpicking Bridezilla and I disliked her as she whined about some flowers and how the planner ruined her day. I agreed with wedding coordinator Timica Parker that the plaintiff made a big deal out of the most trivial matters when you'd think she would be focusing on starting a new life with her husband. Keyanna was so immature that she even mentioned the guests did a prayer circle and she thought about putting hands on Timica and was judging the outfit Timica wore. Yeesh. I think that Keyanna was very picky and made those flowers a reason for her to be a big drama queen. Timica needs to make sure to communicate better with her clients, have a clear meeting of the minds, but I didn't think that the finished product was so terrible and did not fall to the level of complete fiasco. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 8 Share January 8 25 minutes ago, patty1h said: she thought about putting hands on Timica and was judging the outfit Timica wore. A knock-down, drag-out would have been the perfect touch for this high-toned social event. We know from watching these shows that any dispute can be solved by violence. How admirable that the blushing bride managed to control herself to the extent she did. She maybe didn't want her dress ripped up. Congrats! Had she followed her urges and attacked, the weight of those ginormous buttocks would have flattened the def. Flowers ruined her wedding and she didn't enjoy anything at all! I also believe she was galumphing around and screaming at the Def. I believed Def that the wedding party was drunk, unruly, and shouting "F" bombs. But the Def lying and saying she's so classy she'd never wear shorts to a wedding was shown to be a big fat lie when we saw the pic. Well, okay - maybe she'll retract her lie and admit she did wear short-shorts, but they were very classy short-shorts! Very expensive! Suede! On what planet would that be appropriate? Did she think she looked hot? I'm not picky, wasn't a bridezilla like the P and had no wedding planner to contemplate assaulting, but had someone hired to do something at my wedding appeared dressed like that with her big cheeks hanging out, I wouldn't have been pleased. 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 9 Share January 9 9 January “A Doggone Accident” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Jennifer Robertsen vs. John English ) From the show site: When a man accidentally stepped on his puppy, his friend did a good deed by using her credit card to pay for the dog's broken leg. But that friend now has a bone to pick with him; his failure to pay off the debt resulted in massive interest. Does the falling out of their friendship have any bearing on the status of his debt? Plaintiff/poor broke fool suing defendant/former friend and deadbeat dog owner for the unpaid balance and interest for a Care Credit card used by plaintiff to pay defendant's dog's vet bills. Plaintiff is asked if defendant knew the interest would kick in after six months. Everyone knows Care Credit is interest free for a certain period, and then the interest rate starts and it's high. Plaintiff credited defendant $500 for car work that defendant did on her car. Defendant paid $1,000 to plaintiff, but claims since he and partner/wife/girlfriend had a baby, he couldn't pay any more for the vet bill. Care Credit does give a while without interest, but after six months, the interest rate starts and it's not cheap. Deborah is defendant's witness, and says nothing, and Tewolde tells her to sit down. Defendant claims he paid $200 a month, which isn't right. He claims he paid a total of $3,000. Then, he says he paid her $1500 cash, $500 in car work, and $600 credit for something, so that's $2,100. There is only evidence of 1500. There is something about a stimulus check to defense witness, Jennifer Stinson, that somehow came to plaintiff, and witness claims Robertsen cashed the check. Jennifer Stinson claims palintiff cashed the check for $600, and it was to be credited to the vet bill. Corriero says there is an amount owed for interest plus loan to plaintiff. The big issue is trying to figure out what was actually paid. Juarez says $2600 was repaid out of $3519 owed plus interest $881. Plaintiff receives $1960. “Eviction Friction” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 11 October 2023 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 10 Share January 10 10 January “Car and Driver Missing Wire” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (James Beasley vs. Vergara) From the show site: A man bought a used Prius for his son, and it was immediately wrecked in an accident. He took it back to the seller for repairs, but when insurance refused to pay, he decided to do the repairs himself. Now he's accusing the seller of stealing parts while it was in his possession. Plaintiff / car buyer suing defendant/car seller and mechanic for stealing parts on the car he had defendant repairing for him after an accident. One missing part was a $5,000 part, a wire harness. Letter to defendant from plaintiff's attorney says wire harness was $3800. Toyota dealer says harness is $6,100 with equal amounts of labor charges. After plaintiff found insurance wouldn't pay for the repairs, he wanted car back. Defendant wants storage and towing fees for the car. Plaintiff's son was purchased from defendant, and it had a salvage title, then a while after purchase the car was wrecked in an accident, and plaintiff says accident was other driver's fault. At fault driver didn't have insurance, and plaintiff decided not to fix the Prius. Defendant already towed car after accident for free. Car had been at defendant's shop for a couple of months, then plaintiff wanted to take the car back. Text messages from plaintiff to defendant said that plaintiff wanted the maximum amount including storage charged to the other driver's insurance, and he offered to split the profits with defendant. After the text from plaintiff about ripping off the other driver's insurance and splitting the profits, I wouldn't give plaintiff a penny. Defendant claims the plaintiff fixed the car himself, and car wasn't safe, and wired together. Judge Tewolde says she knows nothing about cars, but says car plaintiff wired back together doesn't look fixed. Photo from plaintiff of the 'repaired' car is hideous, and it's still bent and looked wrecked. Plaintiff spent $1,000 'fixing' the car. Defendant says wholesale price for harness is $1800 to $2200, and used is $300. Juarez wants to give plaintiff $4800. Tewolde points out storage charges. Judges settle for $2400 to plaintiff. “What the Truck?” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 16, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 10 October 2023 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 11 Share January 11 (edited) 11 January (This is bizarre. The Hot Bench channel where I am is running behind and still showing General Hospital, suddenly switched to Hot Bench right before the end of the Loan Business case. Then, another unlisted case is being showing on the second half of the new episode) “Mind Your Loan Business” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Ramey vs. Baker) From the show site: Two ladies at a senior living center used to love watching Netflix together. But when a loan was made between them and nagging ensued, their relationship lost all its chill. The defendant says she'd pay it if she had it, but she's fighting a separate battle to recover lost wages. Is the plaintiff being too pushy? Plaintiff is suing defendant for an unpaid loan. Defendant apparently had no reason she hadn't repaid plaintiff, so the loan was paid to plaintiff by the court. Judges gave the plaintiff her $500. Second case, not listed anywhere, even on TV titan, or the show site listing episodes. Second case (Don't have any idea what the real title is). (Salomon Navarro vs Daniel Ong) Plaintiff suing defendant for car damages from parking in defendant's parking lot. Plaintiff parked in defendant's parking lot, and he heard a strange noise, and the concrete bumper was under his car, and caused damages. Photo shows the metal rebar securing the concrete parking space block was sticking up under plaintiff's car. However, plaintiff parked over the concrete bumper with the concrete piece going front to back under his car, not where his tires would hit the concrete stopper the way it does when you pull into a parking space normally. Defendant sent a check to plaintiff, for $429, but plaintiff never opened the envelope or cashed the check. Plaintiff refused to pick the check up at the post office. This is what plaintiff is suing for, and it settles the case. Judge Juarez is slamming the plaintiff for taking this to court, and clogging up the L.A. County court system. Plaintiff is so stubborn. $429 check from defendant to plaintiff. “What a CARtastrophe” Rerun, Season 10, 18, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p.42 12 October 2023 ( Tina Pickett vs. Jean Eckhoff) From the show site: A nurse sustained a broken neck and jaw in a horrible car accident. Now the friend who sold her the car is suing her for the remainder of the unpaid balance. Both parties suffer from memory loss due to medical conditions. How will the judges determine what happened and who's in the wrong? Defendant was driving to her third job of the day, some animal ran in front of her car, dshe swerved, and went down an embankment and totaled the car. Defendant's injuries were severe, and life changing. Defendant claims insurance wouldn't pay for her injuries because an animal running across the road was an Act of God, then accident is blamed on the weather. Plaintiff /car seller suing defendant/car buyer and accident victim for the final payments owed on vehicle defendant was buying, and still owes money on. Plaintiff says car was totaled, and defendant was paid $5,000, so plaintiff wants the final payments. Plaintiff had cancer and some of her memory is gone from chemo, so car price should be $4300 (she was suing for $4500 that she thought might be the amount but isn't on the contract. Plaintiff says the $1200 was for a recliner and other things from defendant, but not for the car. Defendant/buyer claims it was fraud, but no proof of that, because car was salvaged before she bought it, and no one told her about the damages. Defendant claims she remembers nothing about owing money on the car, after her accident severely injured her. Defendant claims ex father-in-law and others in her family deal with salvaged vehicles, and claims plaintiff hid that the vehicle was a salvaged vehicle. She blames the salvaged condition of the vehicle for her injuries, and says she can't get jaw repairs or dentures because the insurance won't pay, and she didn't have health insurance. It sounds as if defendant may qualify for low income health insurance subsidies and I wonder why no one helped her. Plaintiff bought car from a man who runs a body shop, originally bought for her college student daughter, who did food and pizza deliveries in the car without issues. Defendant has no proof, and says abusive partner that she had to be rescued from, and she left with nothing. Defendant claims her $50 nursing license renewal was lost in the mail, so she had to relinquish her license. Defendant says car had full coverage, but she doesn't remember if she received a check for the vehicle. Plaintiff says she received $120 for the car from defendant. She wants $5000, even though she's only due $4280. She wants the extra for having to get the money from defendant. Plus, insurance company claims they paid the ex-boyfriend $5500, even though policy wasn't in his name. Defendant says the ex-boyfriend has the original title, that she swears says salvaged. However, you can apply for a replacement title from the state, and that would clear this up. How did the boyfriend get a check issued from the insurance company? He wasn't on the insurance, at least if defendant's testimony was accurate. (My question is where this happened, because I can't find any state where a nursing license for a registered nurse is $50, so I'm wondering if it's LPN?) Plaintiff gets $2980 for the unpaid balance of the vehicle. Judges believe that plaintiff was paid more than she admits. Plaintiff in the hall-terview claims she should have been awarded more. (I missed most of this the last time around, DoctorK’s excellent recap follows my rip off from the show site. ) (Copied from DoctorK’s excellent recap of the case from 12 October 2023, p. 42 To me this was another uncomfortable case to watch. I understand that the defendant had major injuries from the accident that totaled the car, but some of her testimony sounded sort of off. She claimed that the car she bought was a salvage title but she wasn't told, but I don't see that that has anything to do with the case. The plaintiff found out the defendant's insurance paid off the car to the defendant for $5500 but the defendant "doesn't remember" getting it. I understand that she had a lot on her mind after the accident but $5500 is pretty memorable. Her story about losing her nursing license by not getting a $50 renewal fee in on time so she has to go back to college and start training all over doesn't sound right. I don't disbelieve her but she mentioned several other things gone wrong in her life (such as no medical payment from the insurance company because the accident was caused by weather conditions (?), and nurse with no medical insurance (not even subsidized ACA coverage (since she sound like she is living hand to mouth)) is surprising for a medical professional. I would have liked to know more about her professional status because "nurse" can mean many different things, and the income can range from fairly well paid for RNs (which comes along with high stress and horrible hours) to nursing assistants who tend to get meager pay and few or no benefits. Actually, the judges came up with exactly the verdict I would have given, plaintiff is due the unpaid balance on the car sale (based on sale price, not the $5500 the insurance and taking into account the $1200 already paid): Sorry for all the bad things that the defendant suffered (through no fault of the plaintiff) but that doesn't wipe out the debt she owed on the car. The plaintiff gets what she was owed and the defendant keeps the $5500 from the insurance company.) Edited January 12 by CrazyInAlabama 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 12 Share January 12 5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Judge Juarez is slamming the plaintiff for taking this to court, and clogging up the L.A. County court system. She didn't slam him hard enough, IMO, not that anything she did say sunk in. Something is wrong with Navarro's head, which seems to be made of cement. Unreal. Def sent him a check for the amount P claimed and did it promptly and properly with registered mail. OH, but Navarro doesn't understand that. Someone at the post office asked him to sign for and he wasn't going to do that. He didn't know what that was all about! Maybe the envelope had a big tarantula or a bomb in it! Also, P got one email from Def and never got any of the others, even though they were all sent to the same address. Sure. Anyway, he decided the Def owed him more and had to pay him for the time it took him to go to the courthouse and file a claim for the money he already got and rejected. He was infuriating, nodding to and fro like one of those ducking birds. 5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Two ladies at a senior living center used to love watching Netflix together. But when a loan was made between them and nagging ensued, their relationship lost all its chill. They were quite lovely ladies, and I feel very sorry for def if she is living at the poverty level. I hope after this they were able to resume their friendship. @CrazyInAlabama - The case above is titled "Handi-Snapped" on my DVR. 4 Link to comment
DoctorK January 12 Share January 12 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Copied from DoctorK’s excellent recap of the case Oh my! I am blushing LOL. I enjoy these threads and chime in when something or someone hits one of my pet peeves, but mainly I am just happy my life and my friends have just about nothing in common with the dysfunctional fools on these shows. 3 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 12 Share January 12 12 January “Turf Wars” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 164 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 41, 29 August 2023 “Baaad Blood” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 136 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 39, 10 May 2023 Warning, this case is a disgusting and graphic one. “Baaad Blood” is actual spelling of the episode title. I don’t think the episode title is funny, if that’s what it’s supposed to be. 3 Link to comment
Shrek January 12 Share January 12 19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff says she received $120 for the car from defendant. She wants $5000, even though she's only due $4280. She wants the extra for having to get the money from defendant. Plus, insurance company claims they paid the ex-boyfriend $5500, even though policy wasn't in his name. So I have a little experience of this (in CA at least) and it doesn't matter who is listed on the insurance when it comes to the payout if the car is totaled, the money goes to whoever is the listed owner on the registration not who is on the insurance, so I would guess he was listed as the owner. Sorry for the length of what follows but it is pertinent to the case. I know this because when the now Mrs Shrek was divorced she had a car that her daughter drove and was listed on the insurance along with everyone in the family EXCEPT the ex husband as he was actually listed on the insurance by the insurance company as someone who was 100% NOT allowed to drive the vehicle and this was left on the insurance for some reason. Well as it turned out when the daughter totaled said vehicle it was discovered that ex husband was still listed as the owner (apparently he was listed as the owner of all their vehicles when they were married) of said vehicle because the now Mrs Shrek had forgotten (she says) to have it changed into her name. He got a check for over $5,000 from the insurance despite having not even seen the vehicle for over a year or made any payments on it or paid the insurance. When the daughter asked him about getting the money for a new car he laughed at her & told her to pound sand and there was nothing she could do about it. 4 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 14 Share January 14 On 1/10/2024 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: After the text from plaintiff about ripping off the other driver's insurance and splitting the profits, I wouldn't give plaintiff a penny. I tried to decide who was most distasteful and settled on the shady, slimy P, Mr. Beasley. His boy demanded a 25K car but daddy wants to save a few bucks while still keeping his boy happy so he buys the salvaged car. Son, of course, wrecks it and says it wasn't his fault. On 1/10/2024 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: At fault driver didn't have insurance, and plaintiff decided not to fix the Prius. Oh. I thought there was insurance but they wouldn't pay, probably because it was Sonny's fault. I'm probably wrong. P and Def conspire to scam the insurance company and split the profit. How P was awarded money here, I have no idea. Papa Mike is offended when JT, in the deliberations, uses the word "scam". What would you call it, Papa, when both parties agreed to overcharge the insurance co. and divvy up the spoils? It looks like Daddy slapped that car together with baling wire and duct tape. Just buy your boy another car, Daddy! Maybe he won't wreck it as quickly as he did this one. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 15 Share January 15 (edited) Maybe it was that the insurance wouldn't pay, I wouldn't be surprised if plaintiff lied about that too. That 'repair' on the car was ludicrous, and so unsafe. Does California have car safety inspections? I hope so, and that car gets condemned, or whatever you do to an unsafe car. Edited January 15 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 15 Share January 15 (edited) 15 January “You Win Some, You Cruise Some” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Christina Brown vs. Shaleia Winston) From the show site: A family matriarch loved this defendant like a daughter and loaned her money to come on a cruise with all of them. But a hug with innocent intentions had the defendant convinced that the matriarch wanted her husband. So, she isolated herself on the cruise and is now refusing to repay. The matriarch is happily married and bewildered by her claim. Plaintiff is suing defendant for the cost of a cruise that plaintiff loaned to defendant. The loan wasn't just for the cruise ticket, but spending money, travel to the cruise ship, and other expenses. Defendant claims it was a gift. 22 people went on the cruise, including defendant and husband. There are texts from defendant saying this is a loan. Defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay for the airfare and transportation to the cruise port. The two litigants keep talking to each other, and have been told several times by Judge T to stop it. On the cruise plaintiff wanted a group picture of all 22 people, but defendant and husband didn't show. Defendant claims plaintiff only did the cruise because plaintiff wants defendant's husband. This comes from a hug at the cruise between husband and plaintiff. Defendant's husband says he didn't feel inappropriately touched (Vincent Winston II), but since his wife is talking about this so much, he thinks there may be something to the allegations. The only time plaintiff and the rest of the group saw defendant and husband was at Captain's Night. Defendant says plaintiff spent thousands on her trip in a nefarious plot to get the defendant's husband. After the trip is was six or months for defendant to reach out to plaintiff and say defendant's tax refund didn't come in, so defendant's not paying. Twanna York is plaintiff's niece and witness. She says the only time on the six/seven day cruise anyone saw the defendant and husband was when first boarding the ship, and was at Captain's Night. Plaintiff says she hugged everyone hello when they first met on the ship. Plaintiff breaks out in tears, and defendant glares at her, and says "Really?". Then, Judge J has to tell the litigants, mostly the defendant, stop making nasty remarks to each other. There are texts months after the cruise, defendant says she'll try to repay the loan, and there are lots of nice texts from defendant to plaintiff. Plaintiff wants $4,000, including $1,000 for defendant's move to Vegas, this wasn't a lump sum of $1,000 but several loans adding up to $1,000. Corriero tries his usual ridiculous counseling and reasoning with the defendant. Plaintiff has a voicemail from two weeks ago, from defendant acknowledging the loan, and the cruise loan. Juarez says $2342 is mentioned for the cruise, but plaintiff says she also gave more money to defendant for expenses on the cruise, airfare to and from the port, and the $1000 during the Vegas move. Plaintiff gets $3,000. For the $3,000 cruise expenses, but not the extra $1,000. (I would have given plaintiff $4,000 including the loan, and probably $5,000 for the ridiculous allegations from defendant.) (If looks could kill, the defendant's glare at the plaintiff leaving the courtroom would have charcoaled the plaintiff). “No Free Rent!” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 17 October 2023 Edited January 15 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 16 Share January 16 (edited) 16 January New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) “Rental Case” (Dena Speckman vs. Fabian and Misty Ochoa) From the show site: Ex-tenants say their landlady hit them with a double-edged sword when she demanded they vacate the premises, but then badmouthed them to a series of other prospective landlords. She denies this and says she only wants to be paid for missed rent & damages. But she already deducted that from their deposit. Is she double dipping? Plaintiff/former landlady Dena Speckman suing defendants/former tenants/ Fabian and Misty Ochoa for $5,000 for damages, unpaid rent. Plaintiff gave 60 days notice of non-renewal of lease because of non-payment a month late check for a previous month, but defendant husband stopped payment. Next check bounced. Defenadnts claim they only owed half of a month's rent, and claim plaintiff was bad mouthing them with prospective landlords so they couldn't move. Corriero is whining about the late fees. Plaintiff claims part of the security deposit was used for two months of unpaid utilities. Plaintiff wants attorney fees for sending eviction notices to defendants, but Corriero doesn't want plaintiff to get fees. Eviction attorney went to the walk-through with defendants instead of plaintiff, because of threats from defendants. Juarez says the only nasty text messages were from defendants to plaintiff. The move out pictures were horrible. Tewolde claims the crud on the stove is easily cleanable with spray cleaner, and she's wrong. You don't get baked on fruit filling juice off that way. Or other baked on food spills. The top of the gas range, and the oven are nasty. The freezer is nasty looking. Then there's some dustup about solar panels. I wish plaintiff had move in pictures of the house. A cashier's check was given by defendants until August, and it was for June's rent. Defendant wife is getting misty (yes, horrible pun), but she's acting, not acting very well, but acting. The defendants have a bunch of excuses. Cindy Slotnick is plaintiff's witness, about plaintiff consulting two eviction attorneys, and the Ochoas moved out three days after being served by the attorney. Corriero slams plaintiff about the lack of a 21 day damage list to defendants, and Tewolde and Corriero slam her for double dipping and suing for unpaid rent that she took out of the damages. Defendant husband claims the attorney was kicking the front door, and screaming at them. Misty claims the plaintiff told other prospective landlords that they were deadbeats. Corriero as usual takes the defendant's side. Tewolde does says the $7400 would be legit to give plaintiff, minus security deposit. Tewolde and Juarez go against Corriero and say defendants' owed another month's rent also, plus cleaning fees If the tenants didn't want to be called deadbeats to other landlords, then they should have paid their rent on time, and cleaned the house. Plaintiff receives $7250, minus the security deposit $5000, so $2150 to plaintiff. “Unprovided Services” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 18 October 2023 Edited January 17 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 16 Share January 16 On 1/15/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: A family matriarch loved this defendant like a daughter and loaned her money to come on a cruise with all of them. Either the plaintiff, in a pretty bad wig-hat, looks very young for her age, or the Def is prematurely aged. To me, they looked the same age. On 1/15/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Defendant's husband says he didn't feel inappropriately touched (Vincent Winston II) I just knew some sexual innuendos, and/or accusations had to enter into this eventually. Vincent Winston II (Who is such a desirable hot property, on hard times or not, that I'm sure many ladies would spend thousands on a cruise just to be in his vicinity for the duration, yearning for him from afar) could hardly be blamed for casting an eye around, considering that his beloved is a ranting, lying, incoherent, ignorant grifter who rips off her pretend Mother. Why should she pay back the money to this husband stealer after saying she would? Attempted husband stealing, much like SSMhood, automatically negates all debts. On 1/15/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Corriero tries his usual ridiculous counseling and reasoning with the defendant. Thank goodness I turned this off before it reached that point! JT to Def. "So you saw them there?" Def: "Yes, I seen them." Whatever. Thanks for the verdict, @CrazyInAlabama! 2 1 Link to comment
DoctorK January 17 Share January 17 5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Vincent Winston II (Who is such a desirable hot property, on hard times or not, that I'm sure many ladies would spend thousands on a cruise just to be in his vicinity for the duration, Yeah, he was quite a prize, complete with nose and lip rings. However it was clear who wears the pants in the family - he saw nothing wrong with The Hug until his wife browbeat him into calling it inappropriate. I fell sort of sorry for him only because he is married to a nasty, bat shit crazy paranoid witch of a wife. 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff/former landlady Dena Speckman suing defendants/former tenants/ Fabian and Misty Ochoa for $5,000 for damages, unpaid rent. Landlady was awfully clueless about what a landlord can and should do but I hated both of the Ochoas. Husband is a bad tempered chiseler, hustler and liar. Wife is a liar who fakes a tear choked voice to pretend she is crying. They are both a combination of dishonesty and stupidity. Two months notice just isn't enough time for them to find a place to move to (which can be true) but this is not the landlord's problem. It is also not the landlord's job to lie to other landlords about the Ochoas being lousy tenants although landlords frequently lie to other landlords just to be rid of bad tenants. Incidentally (and unkindly) to Mrs. Ochoa - giant glasses and dark roots are not a good look for anyone over sixteen years old. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 17 Share January 17 17 January “Love Freight Relationship” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Olamide Aborowa vs. Tanya Cochran) From the show site: A trucking business owner is obligated to follow federal transportation guidelines. So, when a driver she hired allegedly started operating in a loosey-goosey fashion - swapping trucks, adding drivers, etc. - she decided to clear up the confusion and take her to court. Both are strong, independent businesswomen, but who kept better business records? Plaintiff/trucking company owner is suing defendant/driver for $5,000 for gas costs, insurance, 10% to plaintiff for using her DOT permit. Defendant claims she brought in $19,000, but plaintiff says defendant's expenses are higher than the income she generated. Plaintiff wants $5,000 for gas and other costs. Plaintiff would receive the delivery money, and deduct 10% for gas, insurance, and the use of plaintiff's business permit. Plaintiff say defendant was using a truck from a cousin, and later rented a truck, and those vehicles had to be put on and removed from the insurance policy. Plaintiff says the first two weeks were fine, then claims plaintiff added two relatives who were not on the insurance policy without telling plaintiff. Last statement indicates a balance of $4030, that defendant owes plaintiff. Defendant was using plaintiff company's D.O.T. permit. and her company gas credit card. Defendant's daughter (she was another driver defendant added without telling the plaintiff) testifies that plaintiff was ripping them off. Plaintiff says gas costs for defendant and her relatives were ridiculously high, and much of it was charged to her gas card when defendant and associates weren't driving loads for her company. Defendant denies she was still driving her cousin's truck, but plaintiff says she was still paying the insurance on cousin's truck. Defendant witness, Janice Wilson, claims plaintiff knew everything they did, and owes them money. Defendant claims she read contract, and claims she notified plaintiff in writing of the change in vehicles. Defendant was the only person authorized to use the company gas card, but daughter and cousin both used the gas card. Plaintiff says the cousin's information to put them on the gas card and insurance never arrived. Juarez and Corriero agree that plaintiff is owed $4200. Plaintiff $4200 awarded, defendant claim dismissed. “Cheaper by the Cousin” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 16 October 2023 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 18 Share January 18 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: “Cheaper by the Cousin” Marcos, P, is suing his cousin, Fernando for rent and car payments. Fernando is a mature man old enough to have 3 kids but was living in a packed house with Mommy and Daddy, so Marcos invited him to come live in his townhouse. Rent was $150/week and Fernando paid for a while, then had financial difficulties, of course. Another cousin gave him a roofing job but then his car got repossessed. Marcos sold him his 2010 Mazda, payments to be another $150/week, hoping that F. would work, but seems he just didn't bother showing up on the job. Marcos seemed to think being very strict with this grown man would somehow make him act like a responsible adult. Uh, no. Marcos knew what he was like. Why would he think Fernando would change for him? Marcos boots him out and texts him to come and get his stuff. Fernando says he ignored the texts so his stuff got thrown out. The judges ask Fernando where this car is that he didn't finish paying for. "It doesn't work anymore," he says, so why should he pay for it? He's not in the habit of paying for his cars. Everyone else should fix his problems. While I thought Marcos was prissy and nit-picky (and how did he expect F. to pay all that money when he barely works?) the Def has obviously skated along, mooching and getting other people to pay his way. I feel sorry for his kids, but that he had one woman who actually chose to have 3 kids with this immature slacker, and now has a new sadsack girlfriend - who I bet is either fully or partially supporting him - boggles my mind. Everyone needs to stop supporting him and giving him jobs. 4K for Marcos. Maybe he can use some of it to buy a jacket that fits him. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 18 Share January 18 (edited) 18 January “Bear Necessities” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Emily O'Connor vs. Michael McElroy) From the show site: A strip club bouncer says his friend "ruined his career" by posting details about his past online; because of her, the girls don't trust him now. The friend was angry because he wrecked her truck and didn't pay for repairs. Will the judges believe the bouncer's story about a bear stealing all his money in Alaska? Plaintiff is suing defendant for crashing her truck. Defendant won't repay plaintiff because he went to Alaska, and he claims a bear stole his money. Plaintiff loaned her truck to defendant, he had the truck while his van was in the shop. Four or five days after the loan, defendant was in an accident, no police report was made. Defendant hit a white van, and supposedly, the other driver was gine. One night when defendant came home, the plaintiff took the truck back. Defendant had the truck for 45 days, and had a bunch of excuses about why he still needed the truck. Plaintiff says she sent him screen shots of the repair bills, and he didn't pay her. Defendant says he's a strip club bouncer, and claims plaintiff trashed his reputation, so the strippers won't trust him. Plaintiff is suing for $ for unpaid repair costs for her truck. Defendant claims the repair costs were inflated by plaintiff, and she was trying to get him to pay for damages to the other side of her truck. Defendant's tets to plaintiff say he knows someone who would give plaintiff money on top of the insurance payment by committing insurance fraud. Judge Juarez asks how a bear robbed defendant, he says he was leaving a bank with the money in his coat pocket. He claims a bear attacked him, ripped his coat off, and the money was in the coat. I lived in Alaska, the bears rip your face off, and not just your coat. Bears have no pockets to carry a wallet, and in an obvious case of species discrimination, they are banned from shopping at Walmart and Dollar General. Defendant still has the job at the strip club in Portland, so I guess his reputation being tarnished didn't affect his bouncer job. Plaintiff says $380 was paid to her and she wants the rest, $1489. “Improper Property Removal” Rerun, Season 9, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 19 October 2023 I totally disagree with Corriero and Tewolde giving anything to plaintiff. Landlord went by Georgia law, and did nothing wrong. Plaintiff abandoned the rental, and never tried to pick up her stuff. 19 January “Mother May I Have My Kids” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 169 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 41, 8 September 2023 “Wouldn't Put It Pastor" Rerun, Season 9, Episode 145 , (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 39, 22 May 2023. (I believed the plaintiff, and do think the defendant and her buddies did what he said in a takeover bid. Moving $30,000 to your personal account is embezzling, not safeguarding the money. Just because it was put back doesn't make it 'safeguarding'. ) Edited January 19 by CrazyInAlabama 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 19 Share January 19 19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Will the judges believe the bouncer's story about a bear stealing all his money in Alaska? I thought Yogi only stole picnic baskets. 🤔 Got some catching up to do, I see. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 20 Share January 20 On 1/18/2024 at 3:14 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: From the show site: A strip club bouncer says his friend "ruined his career" by posting details about his past online OH, mah gawd. She ruined his "pristine" reputation as a bouncer at a strip joint and a lot of people told him about it (none of whom are here), so of course, he doesn't owe her the money for the truck he wrecked. Maybe she wouldn't have defamed you if paid what you owed. Duh. He didn't see "a big white truck"? Maybe instead of getting more scribbly loser tats, he should get his eyes checked. Or maybe, like so many other litigants he just doesn't give a rat's ass about someone else's property, since we know he never intended to pay for it? 7K in his pocket when a bear tore his jacket off him? Sounds like a big lie to me or maybe a drug-fueled hallucination. What an asshole. He says he doesn't know anyone who hasn't tried to commit insurance fraud. I'm sure that's true, considering what his friends must be like - a bunch of petty, grifting, marginal, lying losers just like him. I was not at all surprised to hear he had a girlfriend. So many women are willing to settle for nothing at all. On 1/18/2024 at 3:14 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Bears have no pockets to carry a wallet, and in an obvious case of species discrimination, they are banned from shopping at Walmart and Dollar General. 😆 "Speciesphobia"! That tatted-up fool couldn't come up with a better lie to weasel his way out of a debt than blaming a bear? 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 22 Share January 22 (edited) 22 January “The Maltese Falcons Game” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Sabrina Watts vs. Johnnie Walker) From the show site: Two die-hard Falcons fans traveled together for away games in Seattle and Los Angeles. The plaintiff is a "Founders Club" member, and the defendant happily accepted her invitation to come along - but she refused to pay for their hotel as they agreed because she never saw an invoice. Can they settle their differences and get back on the same team? Plaintiff suing defendant for repayment of defendant's portion of hotel costs for a trip to an Atlanta Falcons away football game in Seattle. One was a trip to L.A. that defendant paid for, but the hotel for the Seattle trip hasn't been paid by defendant. Defendant won't pay the hotel because the hotel would only give the charge list to the card holder, which was plaintiff for this game. When you book the hotel stay through plaintiff's credit card, and prepay the hotel. In Seattle, plaintiff prepaid the hotel on her credit card, through American Express, and the only additional charges would be incidentals at the hotel. Defendant claims friends at the same hotel had a lower rate, so she's refusing to pay the hotel costs. Hotel for each lititgant was $894 each with incidentals, so $1669 total before incidentals. Plaintiff is suing for $1162 for defendant's part of the Seattle trip still owed. When plaintiff booked both trips in August, she sent copies of all invoices to defendant. Then Corriero starts his Dr. Phil routine. (Plaintiff's membership in the Founders Club was financed to it was about $137,000 with interest. Two tickets are free away games for each club member. Since it's included in the case, if anyone is wondering what the Atlanta Falcons Founders Club program offers: Complimentary ticket access to 2024 Road Games (Mercedes-Benz and Delta Club Account Holder Only), Ticket Sell-Back & Swap Program, Custom exclusive member merchandise, Access to pregame parties, Complimentary Concessions (food and non-alcoholic beverages) on Falcons Gamedays, Right to buy same seats for most other Mercedes Benz Stadium Events.) Plaintiff receives her $1162 owed by defendant. Then litigants agree they're still friends, and hug in court). “Fiction Eviction” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 25 September 2023 Edited January 22 by CrazyInAlabama 1 2 Link to comment
patty1h January 23 Share January 23 Johnnie Walker seemed petty and trifling to me, deciding that the invoice from the hotel was not acceptable to her and refusing to pay a dime towards the football trip. She sure did think that her friend was getting over on her and turned into a old bat who would not open her purse to pay her share. A great example of "no good deed goes unpunished". They seemed to end on a good note, but the plaintiff was nicer than I would have been... I don't think I'd be so forgiving towards old Johnnie. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 23 Share January 23 23 January “Father Nos Best” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Eric Harrison vs. Greg Harrison ) From the show site: A man sues his own father for an unpaid loan of unspecified purpose. The judges dig into allegations of drug use and physical attacks - none of which are directly related to the loan. But as Judge Juarez explains, sometimes gauging credibility is the best way tell who's telling the truth in court. Plaintiff/son suing defendant/Father for a $2,000 loan that father never repaid. In son's claim to the court, he alleges assault, restraining order. Father says it wasn't a loan, so he's not paying. Son thinks it was for gambling, and claims father said he would pay son back from his tax refund. Son did buy a $500 motorcycle, borrowed money from father for that, and paid it back. Father, Greg claims the motorcycle was collateral. Jessica Torramino, is plaintiff's witness, claims father held the motorcycle as collateral. But son paid for the motorcycle to father, for $500. Son says father asked multiple times over a two week period. Son was in a car accident after the loan, so witness Jessica explains that to the court. Witness Jessica says Eric was in the hospital on and off for a year, Greg interrupts and claims Eric was only in the hospital a couple of months, as if that was a trivial time. Jessica has a restraining order against Greg. Greg Harrison Jr is his father's witness, and claims son assaulted father, and sent a demand letter for the loan. Son Eric has a restraining order against Greg. Greg Jr says there was no loan to their father. Eric has texts from father about the $2,000, where father says he's not paying. Then one text from father says he owes Eric the money. Jessica claims the photos Greg Sr has of syringes he claims are Eric's are syringes Greg put on the ground and photographed. Judge J askes aboutthe altercation between Eric and Greg, Eric was working on a car, Greg was using a leaf blower, and blew dirt and crud on the car and Eric. Son lived in a 5th wheel on father's property in return for buying dad a Harley-Davidson, then father claimed he wanted rent. Greg denies Eric bought the Harley for him. Father Greg claims his granddaughter can't play in the yard because of Eric's syringes all over the yard. Jessica, plaintiff witness claims to have a Ring camera video of father scattering the syringes. Eric says father has a temporary restraining order, so he can't get his 5th wheel and move off of the property. Jessica (girlfriend) says she saw Greg Sr and Greg Jr scattering and photographing syringes. Judge J says they want to determine if witnesses and litigants are credible. Corriero takes father's side. Eric admits he had a drug history a long time ago. He also claims defendant and witness are faking the syringe pictures. Judge Juarez believes plaintiff more, and father acknowledged the loan in his texts. Judge Tewolde and Corriero agree with Judge Juarez. $2,000 to Plaintiff for the loan. “Don't Play-Date Me” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 23 October 2023 1 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 24 Share January 24 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: $2,000 to Plaintiff for the loan. Thank you for the verdict, @CrazyInAlabama I just could NOT take any of them - not the toothlessness, the huge, odd bulges on all of them, or the sweet tales of familial love. That was bad enough, but when Jessica, with her rode-hard/put-away wet persona started piping up about Eric's "traumatic brain injury" (even Papa got slightly irritated at her), I had to quit. All of them seemed to have had traumatic brain injuries. I didn't take the time to find out if Jessica was Eric's caretaker or his squeeze. What a gang. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 24 Share January 24 24 January “Med-Spat” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Kytana Smith vs. Sheila Foster) From the show site: An esthetician and a nurse practitioner started a wellness center together, but all is not well with their accounting. Nothing is writing, so it's no wonder a feud arose over who is responsible for remodeling the space and paying the front desk employee. Which party in this extremely disorganized partnership will prevail? Plaintiff /esthetician suing former partner/defendant Nurse Practitioner. Plaintiff wants $5,000 from defendant, but defendant is counter suing for $11,000 for plaintiff's half of the partnership. Plaintiff claims they both paid for the flooring, but plaintiff paid $5,262 for remodeling. Defendant claims they spent $20,000 for remodeling the business, and plaintiff agreed to that amount. Defendant paid half for the flooring, bought lighting, and paid for installation. Then, after the partnership dissolved defendant says plaintiff sent utility and other bills to defendant. Defendant claims the plaintiff created a hostile working environment. They were only partners for four months, and defendant decided she wanted out after 3 1/2 months. Plaintiff claims she didn't agree to the $22,000 remodel. Defendant also claims plaintiff cut off her phone and internet, and that plaintiff tried to get her to fight her, so she could press charges. There is a police report about the altercation, restraining order attempt by plaintiff was dismissed by the court. Plaintiff also refused to pay their only employee, saying that the employee was defendant's employee and not hers. Receptionist and front office employee did all of the business operations, but plaintiff still claims she didn't have to pay the employee. Judge Tewolde adds up the remodeling list for defendant, and it doesn't add up to $22,000. Defendant says she didn't sue first, because plaintiff is broke. Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant case dismissed. No contract or definite proof of their agreements, and no way to know who owes for anything. No proof of any bills owed by either side. “Door Jam” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 27 October 2023 3 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 25 Share January 25 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: An esthetician and a nurse practitioner started a wellness center together, but all is not well with their accounting. Here we go. Two professional "ladies" fancy themselves as business people in a partnership, but, as so often happens it ends in police being called, restraining orders, screaming fits, $100,000(?)calling out of name (*b-i-t-c-h*), and - my favorite statement on these shows, and ALWAYS from women - "She wanted to fight me." 😆 Of course, nothing at all is in writing for this partnership and def. was never given receipts for the money she spent or paid to workers in cash. I assume all these cash payments were under the table. No pesky taxes. P is sure D "conceived" of the expenses. They were right there! Yes, all very professional and they lasted a whole three months. Here, judges. We have no idea or any proof of who spent what, but YOU figure out our dumb mess. 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant case dismissed. Thanks! I quit this but figured that would be the outcome. I swear I could write this stupid nonsense in my sleep. Even Papa, who usually swoons over women in business was not inclined to fawn over these litigants. 2 4 Link to comment
Gramto6 January 25 Share January 25 I've just recently started watching this show. Some like the one above just leave me shaking my head so hard it might fall off! I couldn't finish this one either... way too stupid. I went and cleaned the cat box. More satisfying than that drivel! Some cases are certainly more interesting, but ones like these, sheesh .... sometimes I wonder how the judges can keep a straight face. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 25 Share January 25 (edited) 25 January "InCARcerated” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Jaime Johnson vs. Crystal Blackwell) From the show site: A man let his friend drive his Lincoln while he was in prison, but only if she paid for the storage fees and insurance. She did neither, and then her ex-boyfriend stole and totaled the car. Her defense is, "I'm not the one who crashed it." They clearly still love each other like siblings - but can she be convinced to take responsibility? Defendant was supposed to pay for storage fees and insurance, but didn't do that either. Defendant let her now ex-boyfriend drive the car while plaintiff was in jail, and car was totaled. Since defendant let the insurance lapse, plaintiff will get nothing for his Lincoln. Plaintiff claims that defendant told him about the crash, and promied to replace his car, pay the tow ($500), and storage fees. He's suing for $5,000. Johnson agrees the agreement was she would pay for storage, and insurance, and she would be the only car driver. Defendant keeps claiming her sister figured out a way for plaintiff to pay the storage and insurance after he got out of prison, after 18 months behind bars. Defendant says she gave plaintiff presents while in prison, and that should erase her debt to plaintiff. She brought no proof to court of anything she spent. She's blaming everything on the ex-boyfriend. The photo shows that the boyfriend drove off into the woods, front wheel is ripped sideways. When Judge Tewolde asks defendant if she feels responsible, defendant says "I don't know". Tewolde wants to give plaintiff $3460. Juarez wants to make him whole, but not what plaintiff is claiming. Car $2260 current value. Plaintiff gets $2,260 for the car, plust $523 towing, $690 storage, totalling $3473. “I'm Not a Money Machine” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 12 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 26 September 2023 26 January “Breast Side Story” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 129, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 38, 1 May 2023 “Counter Intelligence” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 24 October 2023 Edited January 25 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.