The People's Court - General Discussion

[seacliffsal]

About the landlord and tenant case, JJ specifically asked him how much each item cost.  If she had asked for the total, then he would have answered over $300 and it would not sound as nickel and dime.  When given the total cost of replacement items, it just sounds more significant.  I think JJ purposefully asked for the unit prices as she initially thought the plaintiff was right and was trying to embarrass the defendant a bit.  Then, the reality hit-the plaintiffs did leave some damage behind and there was justification for the landlord keeping part of the security deposit.  The plaintiff looked stunned at the end that she wasn't getting what she had asked for and that her strategy of promoting 'nickel and diming us' wasn't working after all.

[SRTouch]

4 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

About the landlord and tenant case, JJ specifically asked him how much each item cost.  If she had asked for the total, then he would have answered over $300 and it would not sound as nickel and dime.  When given the total cost of replacement items, it just sounds more significant.  I think JJ purposefully asked for the unit prices as she initially thought the plaintiff was right and was trying to embarrass the defendant a bit.  Then, the reality hit-the plaintiffs did leave some damage behind and there was justification for the landlord keeping part of the security deposit.  The plaintiff looked stunned at the end that she wasn't getting what she had asked for and that her strategy of promoting 'nickel and diming us' wasn't working after all.

ITA when the case started I was thinking landlord was out of line. But, both litigants and the judge already had his itemized list, so the only ones hearing for the first time was the audience. So, yeah, the landlord list may have been nickle and dime, but the total wasn't that much, and the only big ticket items (which really weren't THAT big of a ticket) was the $30 an hour he paid himself to clean up after the plaintiffs and the approximately $150 in stuff  she admitted they "accidentally" took. Then the plaintiff brought the suit KNOWING a lot of what he was claiming was true, she just felt he should have let them take (and keep) his property and leave a mess, and leave items needing to be fixed, and don'ch know she wanted double plus outrageous interest for being bothered. Uh, if you know you took his stuff, like MM pointed out, it's on you to return it, not on him to arrange to come pick it up. And you don't get out of it by saying you have a 1 year old, it was your neighbor who packed the landlord's stuff in your boxes, or your lazy hubby didn't do a good job cleaning out your crap. Nope, by the end of the hallterview I was sorry she got back so penny.

[AngelaHunter]

Just now, SRTouch said:

Uh, if you know you took his stuff, like MM pointed out, it's on you to return it, not on him to arrange to come pick it up.

Hey, she has  a ONE-YEAR OLD. If she steals penny-ante stuff like shelves, it's not her fault. Someone else did it while she was tending to her ONE-YEAR old!

As I said, both litigants were highly unlikeable. His 30$/hr crap was way out of line (4 hours to clean out a closet??) and they all needed to get the boot empty-handed, except JM was right that landlord shouldn't be left to clear out their junk.

[meowmommy]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Best part of this: The plaintiff, an unattractive older man who uses a walker to get around, bragging about how "the women he dates" are younger than his car. Worst part: I believe him, given how desperate women are these days that they would even settle for this.

He's probably younger than I am but looks older than I am, especially with the hair ten shades darker than the beard, and I wouldn't date him.  Now, I did think the defendant was cute...

[BubblingKettle]

"The Rasta didn't get nothin from me!!!"

The woman suing the man for bail money and lawyer fees was 42?  That was a hard 42, that's for sure. Did she say why she had to sit/hunch over the whole time? And I'm not convinced that her recording was a phone call or a discussion in a room with the defendant.  It sounded like a one-woman monologue she did with her tape recorder. Solo.

I liked Douglas' sharp question for the defendant's girlfriend, "Are you learning from this?" She was clueless. Good for you anyway, Douglas.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, CoolWhipLite said:

I liked Douglas' sharp question for the defendant's girlfriend, "Are you learning from this?" She was clueless. Good for you anyway, Douglas.

How many times during one filming do you suppose Doug either bangs his head on the faux wood walls, mumbles something that sounds like "funkin' passes", or rolls his eyes to Douglas.

I suspect a lot.  Couple that with the witty sayings of H. Levin and I'm sure the poor guy needs to down a few bourbons just to make it to the next day.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CoolWhipLite said:

"The Rasta didn't get nothin from me!!!"

When this started I thought it was just another ho-hum, desperate women bankrolling yet another loser man, but it was so much more. Defendant is a bonafide scammer/gigolo, probably professional, and there's no shortage of pathetic women who want to pay for whatever the hell he has. I wonder which foolish mark bought his earrings. It's so funny - even if there's proof in black and white in the form of WU slips, he denies it. He didn't do anything wrong! She fabricated it all. If I were plaintiff, I would have spent some of those thousands she showered on him for his company and sexual favours (I wonder if anyone thinks about disease? Probably not) and bought some teeth. Being toothless (at 42!) is quite aging. His lavender pants? I didn't know you could even buy men's pants in that colour.

The ridiculous characters fighting over a fence: It's really shameful to see grown men behaving this way, even though we see it all the time. Well, I find it shameful and embarassing but they never do. "He pulled his pants down!" "He cut my evergreen branches!" All we needed was, "He stuck gum in my hair," to make it perfectly juvenile.  Revolting. Someone who is a 9/11 survivor should have better things to think about and to do with his time, IMO, then squabble, bicker and act like total assholes over some stupid fence. I was just waiting to hear, "He blocked me on FaceBook!" to make their idiocy perfect.

Plaintiff who wanted the def. mechanic to pay for tickets she racked up after she finally got her hoopty out of his shop AND make him pay for her lost wages for the time she sat on her large butt while she left her car on his property: JM doesn't award lottery prizes and def refunded the money she paid him - not something we see mechanics do all the time. I'll never understand how a mature person can't drive without accumulating a bunch of tickets. In the last 30 years, I think I've had maybe 160$ in tickets and that's including a tail light I didn't know was out and of course I paid them so they wouldn't skyrocket. Funny how I always knew when I had a ticket and none of the litigants ever do. Well, they never know their insurance has "lapped" either so not too surprising.  "Wow," she moaned when she got nothing. "Wow", as all losers say when they are trying to scam for a whole bunch of money and get a big fat zero.  Even Douglas, who is usually pretty impassive,  couldn't hide his mirth at her astonishing "chutzpah".

Doug-in-the-Hall - thank you! It's so nice to again be able to listen to the hallterviews!

58 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Couple that with the witty sayings of H. Levin and I'm sure the poor guy needs to down a few bourbons just to make it to the next day.

If I had to listen to Levin for even one day, I'd drink poison.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Someone who is a 9/11 survivor should have better things to think about and to do with his time, IMO, then squabble, bicker and act like total assholes over some stupid fence.

You just know the guy couldn't wait to cash his 9/11 "survivor" chip, even though it apparently had nothing to do with this fence.  Sometimes good fences really do make good neighbors, because these people needed to stay the hell away from each other.

[Jamoche]

She bought him a Range Rover? Those are not cheap, even used. How can you have your life together enough to be able to buy Range Rovers, and not-together enough to give it to a loser gigolo?

[AngelaHunter]

24 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

You just know the guy couldn't wait to cash his 9/11 "survivor" chip, even though it apparently had nothing to do with this fence.

It's like all these scamming, amoral phonies with prominent crosses on their necks who have to squeeze, "I was coming from/going to CHURCH," or "I'm a Christian," into their testimonies, as they lie like rugs.

[SRTouch]

1. feuding neighbors: these folks haven't been neighbor's all that long, but things have gone downhill since the beginning when things were civil. On the one side is a retired fireman who is a 9/11 survivor. On the other, elderly man and wife. Apparently, first hint of trouble was when elderly gentleman wasn't properly impressed when he learned that his neighbor was a retired firefighter. Things went along okay until the day elderly guy's fence fell. At first firefighter offered to pitch in and split the bill for a new fence, even though it was on the other guy's side of the property line - oh, and let him know when the work is going to be done so he can secure his dog. Oops, guy starts the clean up without telling firefighter first, so minor kerfuffle with dog barking and elderly guy acting like he is going you hit pooch with a hammer. Nothing major, but now elderly guy, trying to do a good deed, commits a major goof. Trying to be a good guy and clean up all the debris from the fence and the trash that blew into firefighter's yard, in his zeal to do a great job, he tosses a couple chunks of old concrete - ah, but those chunks were salvaged by the 9/11 survivor as momentos of that major event in his life. Just to add a little fuel to the flames, the firefighter already has a nice privacy fence for most of his property, and our elderly guy throws up a cheap plywood fence, then asks for the money. Firefighter thinks the plywood fence is permanent, but old guy says in court, no, it was meant as temporary. To top it off, firefighter had a row of evergreen trees a foot onto his property, and our old guy came over onto his property and cut all the branches on his side back to trunk, cutting about 12" over the line. Now the feud is on. Firefighter calls up code enforcement and tries to get the plywood fence torn down - code enforcement says nope, it may be ugly, but it's legal. Next, he thinks they're harassing him when he sees them recording and taking pictures of his property. Hey, defendant's wifey says, we were just trying to get pictures of what you say hubby messed up on the trees. Well, turns out firefighter had a little tantrum when he saw her recording, and dropped trou and mooned the old lady on camera. So, they end up in court being lectured for acting like kids. Yeah, both sides acting childish, but I think a big part is the firefighter being hurt because once upon a time he was treated as a hero, and now these folks are rolling their eyes wondering why he's retired at a young age. Oh well, the part of his suit dealing with the cheapo fence is out - code enforcement already ruled. MM awards a little something for the defendant crossing the property line to trim the trees, but not whole new trees (when they started the case he was talking like all that was left was stumps), MM decides on $500 for crossing the line, saying they'll grow back.

Ok, this may be it today as I'm off to the day old bakery.

[momtoall]

The pit stains on the plaintiff, in the feuding neighbors case, distracted me so much, I barely heard the testimony.  Surely the producers could have given him a clean shirt. 

[wallysmommy]

Wanda, who was so desperate to have sex (yuck!) with Jamaican Gigilo looked 82, not 42.  Why is my radar circling around SSI and Section 8 as part of the background of this case?  Cynical much?  Yes, I am.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Sometimes good fences really do make good neighbors,

And for some neighbors, razor wire is a good choice, not just wimpy barbed wire.

[SRTouch]

silly case day today

1. Unclean hands case: another of those plaintiffs coming on TV to tell the nation that they were scamming the unemployment and welfare system by working under the table, and the employer, defendant, owes wages. Only thing different here is that the employer is a charity, and the lady says he was a volunteer, not an employee, so he was never working for wages. Next goal for our plaintiff is to learn how to button his shirt - anyone want to bet he showed up in t-shirt and jeans and the staff gave him that long sleeved shirt to cover offensive tats? And anybody buying charity lady's claim that she was giving dude $300 a week out of the goodness of her heart? Nope not buying it, especially as she quickly abandons the "he was a volunteer" defense and starts arguing how long he worked for her, and, oh here's a text where he says he was owed for 4 days work - and oh, oh, we were closed those four days and he didn't work. I can't keep up with her hoarse, fast talking, many defenses. Now she's saying he had a habit of helping himself to the petty cash box and staying late just to play games on the office computer since he had an office key. Now she's says he was like family... arrr, I'm giving up trying to follow her, especially as I don't see awarding this guy wages he claims he earned while admittedly cheating the taxpayer. As I fast forward I see defendant crying crocodile tears, but I just keep going because she's giving me a headache. At some point MM gets someone's phone, and I watch just long enough to hear her tell plaintiff she knows whatever he's saying is a complete made up lie... nope, not worth backing up to see what the lie is. Whoa, I get to the judgement and hear her tell defendant to pay the scammer $400 - not worth backing up to see what she found in the texts.
2. bad dog owners: everybody wants 5 grand, plaintiff because she has no sense and plaintiff because her 4 dogs get excited and attack each other. Plaintiff is walking her little yapping puppy by a fence where she knows 4 big dogs go crazy whenever they see her. The fence is a wrought iron type where the big dogs can stick their heads partway through the fence. Dummy yappy dog owner let's her puppy walk next to fence, where a big dog grabs it. Course no one can convince her that her dog would never have been hurt if she had half as much sense as the wrought iron fence post. Defendant's countersuit equally silly. She wants 5 grand because her dogs have turned on each other in the past when they get over excited when people walk bye. I'd like animal control to take both litigants dogs until they both get a lick of common sense.
3. fools being parted from their money and a too nice seller: fool #1, the plaintiff finds a 80's something rv on craigslist and thinks he's got a deal. He's in Florida, RVs is in Ohio, and he not only buys the thing sight unseen, he sends the seller money for new tires (thing probably had original tires as only 50,000 odd miles in its 30+ year life). Like I said, he thinks it's a great deal, only 50,000 mile and this guy in Ohio says it runs great. Thing is, Ohio seller dude could be telling the absolute truth. It might have run great the last time he used it, but I'd rather have an old vehicle that has 200,000 miles than a 30 year old car with 50,000 anyday - every gasket, every piece of rubber in the thing was probably dry rotted - everything that can leak is going to and vacuum? well there isn't any vacuum. Anywho, Florida dude flies up to Ohio to pick up his new ride - guess what, thing runs like crap. Now it's time for Ohio seller dude to foolishly agree to undo the deal and give back the money when he sells the clunker to some other fool. See, it's like that artist woman with the chameleon purple painting. If he had just said "you bought it as is, take it away," he would have been rid of the thing... but noooo, he testifies in court he agreed to give back the money. Now there's a little problem. The rv, which was being sold for $1200, now has new tires that belong to Florida dude, and nobody's buying the overpriced thing. It's a puzzler, MM wants to undo the deal, but somebody has to pay for the tires. Rough justice time, they split the cost.

[meowmommy]

57 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Unclean hands case: another of those plaintiffs coming on TV to tell the nation that they were scamming the unemployment and welfare system by working under the table, and the employer, defendant, owes wages. ,

My unemployment just ran out last week and I have no options.  No legal ones, anyway.  This case made me mad.

And finally MM policed herself--she's very quick to jump on someone who doesn't call her Judge or Your Honor, yet she frequently calls litigants sweetheart and other less-than-adult names.  Today she caught herself chastising the defendant and realized that she herself had called him babycakes.  

Is it me or does MM's hair get a shade lighter with each episode?

[califred]

Who the hell buys a 30+ year old RV without seeing it.  ????   

[meowmommy]

21 minutes ago, califred said:

Who the hell buys a 30+ year old RV without seeing it.  ????   

Fixed.

[SRTouch]

29 minutes ago, califred said:

Who the hell buys a 30+ year old RV without seeing it.  ????   

Somebody with money looking for a project - definitely not someone planning to fly up and drive the thing 16 hours from Ohio to Florida. 

[califred]

Well I wouldn't buy a brand new one either.  Also for $1100 you have to assume it needs help.

[SRTouch]

1. chipmunk terror: elderly lady is terrified of rodents, and Alvin, Theodore and Simon have moved in with the whole gang. She gets ahold of defendant who says his company doesn't eradicate the little critters, but he'll do the job on the side. Sounds good to the lady, daughter of elderly lady took over for mom, she gets rid of the rodents and save a little money for her upcoming wedding. Ah, but our guy working on the sly can't seem to get rid of them. He comes back time after time, trying all different things, but not only isn't he getting rid of them, he's created mutant rodents who flock to taste his poison and are multiplying. Seems Chip and Dale have shown up with all their kinfolk. Lady has had enough. Original bargain price was under 2 hundred, but now, after his many return trips, she's out a grand and has more chipmunks than before. So, she calls the guy's company, and he ends up getting canned - oh, the guy was not only working on the side, but he was giving out paperwork with the company letterhead (probably on company time since I think MM cut him off as he was about to say all the receipts for the stuff he bought were in the company trunk when he was fired.) Turns out our defendant rules against himself, when MM asks what he thinks is going to happen he says he'll have to pay her back (guy gave a money back guarantee). MM agrees, and orders him to pay. When he gets outside, and Doug asks what he learned from the experience, he doesn't say he shouldn't use the boss' equipment and do side jobs on company time - no, what he learned is not to give guarentees.
2. car wreck: plaintiff has a long, drawn out story, but thankfully MM cuts her off. Seems she came out one morning back in 2015 to find her car gone. She call the cops and finds out it was wrecked and is in the defendant's impound lot. She says she couldn't get it out as it was part of a police investigation, seeing as how it was stolen and then wrecked. Well, she says nobody ever told her when the hold was lifted, and now there are big time impound fees, the DMV is after her, her license has been suspended because of the outstanding fees... it's a MESS! Course, once she finds out her license has been suspended she finally gets off her a$$ and, after a year and a half, finally goes looking for the car - a couple phone calls and she finds the car in lot where it's been since the wreck. The cops have been sending certified letters to the previous owner for some reason, plaintiff can't get her drivers license - and she drives a school bus - tow yard wants the thing out of their yard, but can't because they need a title to junk it... yep a mess. MM asks tow guy why they didn't just put it as an abandoned vehicle... uh, never hear a sensible answer, but they could probably make more with impound fees - but the tow company sent three folks to court, none with personal knowledge of anything. Answer we get is that they can't put it in as abandoned until the cops release it, and the cops aren't releasing it because they aren't getting answers from the mis-sent certified letters. And we're back to plaintiff doing diddly squat until her license is suspended, then once she is motivated things start to move. Arrrr, I'm so CONFUSED! MM finally decides these tow company reps don't have any answers, so she gets the owner on the phone. Geez, what a waste of time. Turns out the plaintiff's have everything needed to get the hold lifted, which will let the tow yard give them the paperwork which will let plaintiff get her license, while the tow yard junks the car. Oops, when we get out to the street Harv tells us plaintiff still hasn't got her license back. Something about the paperwork is still wrong, but we aren't told what the problem is. Hmmm could it be something about the title being messed up? I find it kind of odd that the cops were sending those letters to the previous owner, who just happens to be plaintiff's bf's baby mama - maybe the title is iffy.
3. safari refund denied: plaintiff paid for an African safari, but had to cancel because of a busted arm a week before departure. Now, she wants at least a partial refund on the $3000 she paid. Good grief, what's that the defendant is wearing around her neck?  A big old fish purse! Later on we see a picture of her, and she's wearing a different fish(?) maybe. Hmmm, lots of smiles back and forth between these litigants - guess it's better than when they stare each other down. Anyway, sounds like defendant just sort of puts these trips together in conjunction with buying trips for her real business, which sounds like an import export shop. When she's fixing to go she puts up a sign in the shop, and folks can sign up. Everybody wins since they can get good package deals, and defendant gets enough extra so she goes free. Well, everybody wins until something like this, where someone has to cancel, and nobody has travel insurance because defendant isn't a regular travel agent who sells the insurance. When plaintiff had to cancel, defendant actually refunded more than the extra bit of money from the plaintiff that went towards defendant's trip, but for some reason plaintiff wants back the whole amount, even though she could have bought insurance online. Case dismissed, and plaintiff mutters "I give up!" In hallterview she whines to Doug that she was willing to settle for $1000 of the $3000, and defendant only gave her $400. She's whining, even though the judge just finished telling her the defendant was under no legal obligation to return a penny. Seems some legal aid lawyer told her she had a case for getting back the whole $3000. Doug ends up just about having to tell her to leave as she's about to retry the case in the hall.

[DoctorK]

Quote

just happens to be plaintiff's bf's baby mama - maybe the title is iffy.

Bingo!

 

On chipmunk terrorism, the result was exactly correct but did it occur to anyone that maybe grandma needs some help for her phobia? That might produce a permanent solution rather than a yearly chipmunk eradication program.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

chipmunk terror:

As soon as I realized where this was going I had to turn it off. It put me right off my dinner. I wanted to slap both those stupid women. Of course they can't find any exterminators willing to kill chipmunks, one of the most charming and harmless of all wild animals. There is no reputable company who would be willing to do this. It may even be illegal although I haven't checked on it, and anyone willing to do this is scum. My friend has a large population of these dear little animals on her property and when I go there, we delight in sitting in her yard and feeding them peanuts by hand. If someone doesn't want one living creature anywhere near them, go live on the 31st floor of an apartment building. This upset me greatly.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

car wreck: plaintiff has a long, drawn out story

OMG. The dumb-ness we saw here made my own IQ drop several points, I'm sure. Yeah, leave your trashed car in someone's lot for a year, then expect them to pay you the retail value of it. Whatever.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

safari refund denied: 

 A-GAY-tha was a delightful person - as an aside, I had a friend named Evelyn who hated that old-fashioned name and insisted it was really "Eve-lyn". Nope, sorry it was not. Anyway, that little "idear" troll plaintiff had one hell of a nerve, saying in the hall that she was so very reasonable, only expecting the def. to give her 1,000$ back, when she deserved not a single penny. Travel insurance? Well, she's heard of it, but nobody took her by the hand and explained how and why to get it, so she never bothered to get any. I'm just sorry def, with her kooky fish purse, gave her anything at all.

[meowmommy]

Unless you live behind a moat or carpet bomb the neighborhood, how on earth do you prevent chipmunks from coming in your yard?  And if the solution is to kill all the ones who cross your property line, for me, at least, a yard full of dead chipmunks would be infinitely more horrifying than a yard full of live chipmunks.

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

As soon as I realized where this was going I had to turn it off. It put me right off my dinner. I wanted to slap both those stupid women. Of course they can't find any exterminators willing to kill chipmunks, one of the most charming and harmless of all wild animals. There is no reputable company who would be willing to do this. It may even be illegal although I haven't checked on it, and anyone willing to do this is scum.

Substitute "I'm afraid of cats" or "I'm afraid of dogs" and imagine this same case.  Eek.

Edited January 12, 2017 by meowmommy

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Substitute "I'm afraid of cats" or "I'm afraid of dogs" and imagine this same case.  Eek.

Or squirrels, etc. I live in a very suburban area. We all have large, wooded properties and on mine there are raccoons, skunks, groundhogs, large toads, chipmunks and garter snakes. Hey, they annoy me sometimes (especially the skunks) and destroy some of my plants,  so kill them all! Saturate the soil with poison so I'm not inconvenienced. Yes, I've always had to keep my dogs and cats in after dark so they wouldn't kill/get killed by the wildlife. My reasoning is that if I want to live here, I must get along with and respect all the animals that were here before I was and who have the right to live.

[Jamoche]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

On chipmunk terrorism, the result was exactly correct but did it occur to anyone that maybe grandma needs some help for her phobia? That might produce a permanent solution rather than a yearly chipmunk eradication program.

Or move to a place without a yard? 

[Eliza422]

It is illegal to kill wild animals. Chipmunks are wild animals, and no exterminator is going to do anything about them (legally, anyway). You would have to contact a wildlife specialist who will do live trapping - but considering it is chipmunks, good luck catching them all.

i had birds nesting in my air vent, and if there had been eggs I would have had to wait until they were hatched and gone to do anything - and all I could do was exclude them by blocking the vent. Not that I wanted to kill them! 

The exterminator guy was breaking the law by doing what he was doing, which is probably part of why he was fired by his company.

[SRTouch]

17 minutes ago, Eliza422 said:

It is illegal to kill wild animals. Chipmunks are wild animals, and no exterminator is going to do anything about them (legally, anyway). You would have to contact a wildlife specialist who will do live trapping - but considering it is chipmunks, good luck catching them all.

i had birds nesting in my air vent, and if there had been eggs I would have had to wait until they were hatched and gone to do anything - and all I could do was exclude them by blocking the vent. Not that I wanted to kill them! 

The exterminator guy was breaking the law by doing what he was doing, which is probably part of why he was fired by his company.

I have a feeling this varies according to jurisdiction. Not only would the local animal population density come in, but also possible diseases in the local population. One of the dudes on the street mentioned that chipmunks in Yosemite have some bubonic plague fleas - and that's true for other areas in California and Colorado ground squirrels and chipmunks. Not a big number, I think a dozen or so human cases in the last year or so, but the numbers are climbing and the affected rodent populations are spending. I remember 30 years or so ago it was pretty much just ground squirrels around Paso Robles - we were warned to stay away from them when we trained Army Reservists down that way at Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts.

[Broderbits]

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

 A-GAY-tha was a delightful person

I beg to differ; she was much too studiously "quirky" for me, just the kind of person I avoid IRL and do not find amusing on tv (Zooey Deschanel, I'm looking at you). 

But I do agree that chipmunks are delightful! That woman should be living in a high-rise if she's so afraid of wildlife, not trying to kill everything that moves.

[momtoall]

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I live in a very suburban area. We all have large, wooded properties and on mine there are raccoons, skunks, groundhogs, large toads, chipmunks and garter snakes.

I've lived in some large cities in Michigan and Texas.  We had all the above living near, including deer (in Michigan) and possums.  We learned to co-exist.  Of course, no one have a phobia about the wildlife.

[SRTouch]

22 minutes ago, momtoall said:

I've lived in some large cities in Michigan and Texas.  We had all the above living near, including deer (in Michigan) and possums.  We learned to co-exist.  Of course, no one have a phobia about the wildlife.

Don't forget those pesky coyotes. I have a big field on one side and then 2 pastures, which is why my cats became inside kitties.

[OhioSongbird]

I live on 4 acres in the country (2 are woods and the surrounding properties have more woods and acres of farm land) and we get everything here.  Deer, chipmunks, coyotes, foxes, skunks, squirrels, coons, possums (one come up on our deck everyday to eat the leftover cat food we put out for our 2 ferals) and anything else on 4 legs.  I love it.  Grew up in the country and then spent 25 yrs in a medium sized city before moving out here in 2000.  Even in the city we had chips, possums, coons, etc.  It would never occur to me to eradicate chipmunks as someone else said they are little, cute harmless darlings.  Didn't know it was illegal to kill wildlife in some states.  Unless it's deer season.

The guy should have gotten fired for doing side work with company stuff.  Not cool......

[SRTouch]

1. all time worse tenant/ and the landlord who makes MM's year: plaintiff is an out of state landlord who has been letting the tenant get away with murder for years. Says defendant owes thousands over and above the 5 grand, but he decides to come back from New Mexico? and settle up. They sign a settlement where tenant pays some of what he owes, landlord agrees to forgive the rest, let him stay in the rental, and no lawsuits. And this is where he makes the judge's year. Plaintiff freely admits he signed the settlement - but he came to the settlement table with a pen using invisible ink. Even though there's no signed settlement, MM breaks the news that there is a valid verbal agreement, and asks to keep the settlement with the invisible ink as a souvenir. Obnoxious tenant tries to avoid his responsibilities under the lease, but the judge has him read the lease out loud, though he tries to leave out the key words. In the end everybody's case is tossed, but the judge tells landlord that he has the right to Evict the deadbeat the first time he doesn't live up to the letter of the lease. When they get in the hallway, deadbeat (a open mouth breather with cannibal teeth) says he's moving out anyway.
2. old college friendship ends over $202: silly case. 2 old college friends in Philly? reconnect and decide to go on a road trip to Georgia, pick up a third friend, then on to Florida. This women had lost contact over the years, and sounds like they no longer had much in common. One is scraping by waiting on disability to come through, so the other fronts her the money. Once they get to Georgia, they stay at friend #3 for a couple days until she's off work. This is where the problems start. Disability girl wants to sit in the bedroom watching court TV  (ok, just tv, I added the court). The other one, the one with money, has to be busy, so she decides to give #3's house a top to bottom cleaning. May be the salt of the earth, but I would be a little put off if, while I was at work, my out of state guest decided to clean my house. And, it's not enough she's cleaning house, she's nagging #2 to get up and help. Kerfuffle with #2 paying back half the front money and distancing herself for the rest of the trip. Hurt feelings all around, and when everybody gets home #2 decides she just ain't gonna pay back the money for the miserable trip. Ah, but text messages do her in, because they show #1 trying hard to work out a payment plan, #2 treating the front money as a loan, and actually already repaying half.  
3. bad roommate tenant deal: in this case two couples are sharing an apartment. Defendant knows enough to know she could be on the hook because she kicked out the other couple, so she tries to claim they were never tenants, just people she let stay there who sometimes kicked in a little to help cover expenses. Under questioning we learn the little something is $350 (?) every month, and MM says that sounds like rent to her. Anyway, silly childish fight, which may or may not have been physical, butcher knives, assault, a disappeared letter saying get out, lots of charges and countercharges but no evidence, and a ridiculous claim. Defendant's supposedly gave plaintiffs a letter saying leave, and they left. MM interpreted the letter as a 30 day notice, so she says the fact that plaintiffs left immediately is on them, they weren't illegally evicted they left when they received the 30 day notice, so any storage fees are on the plaintiff. The really silly part of the claim is that plaintiffs want every penny they paid for rent during their months long stay to be refunded. Nope, not happening. Defendant starts to clap even she finds out the case us dismissed, and MM jumps on her, tells her not to clap, nobody is a winner. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Broderbits said:

I beg to differ; she was much too studiously "quirky" for me, just the kind of person I avoid IRL and do not find amusing on tv (Zooey Deschanel, I'm looking at you). 

I found A-GAY-tha highly amusing and kooky, although I wouldn't want her in my life.

8 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

all time worse tenant/ and the landlord who makes MM's year: 

A little comic relief with the Slackjaw of the Decade (Century?) Well, yes, the bill rose to 46K in the last four years or so, but he just ignored it all, since he was busy and really couldn't be bothered dealing with it. Invisible ink? I remember using that when I was about 10 years old. Unfortunately, unlike the def. we didn't have any internet to tell us how to make it reappear. Whack-a-doodles, both of them, and plaintiff's female companion in the hall looked like a Hootchie-Cootchie dancer from a bygone era, working in a really down-scale club. Who told her that a red, slinky, sequined, low-cut gown was just the thing for daytime courtroom drama? Good lord...

13 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

bad roommate tenant deal: 

I to quit this one. Baby mammas, illegal renting, butcher knives, bad attitudes, choking - opt me out. I did enjoy the def's shrug and eyeroll, followed by "I guess" when JM asked her if having tentants who pay rent is not renting out the room. Her husband could do nothing about her abuse at the plaintiff's hands because he has to be good. On parole or something. I'm so glad I don't live this way.

[ElleMo]

On 1/12/2017 at 2:46 PM, SRTouch said:

I find it kind of odd that the cops were sending those letters to the previous owner, who just happens to be plaintiff's bf's baby mama - maybe the title is iffy.

 

As soon as they mentioned that the plates were from another state (Virginia) I knew exactly what happened.  I was too lazy to rewind to find out exactly where this happened, but I recall hearing town names that sounded like Long Island, NY.  New York has very high insurance rates, especially NYC, Long Island and Westchester.  Other state’s insurances are lower so some people will register their car in another state and buy insurance from that state.  Definitely a scam;  if not outright illegal to do, I am sure they are committing fraud by not telling the insurance co. that the car will be driven mostly out of state and they are using an address that is not their permanent address. But I guess it is good that they at least have some type or insurance???  My guess is that her name and the boyfriend’s babymama  (where the letters were being sent) were both on the title so there could be an out of state address used. And of course, Babymama probably wanted nothing to do with any of this and didn't forward the letters. 

My old Brooklyn neighborhood was what they called a two-fare zone. Subway was not nearby; you had to take a bus.  There were a lot of vans who would stop along the same route as the bus and charge a quarter or so less and take people to the subway.  None of them had NY plates; they were all from southern States.

Maybe someone figured out their little scam and that is why she is still having problems with her license.. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I to quit this one. Baby mammas, illegal renting, butcher knives, bad attitudes, choking - opt me out. I did enjoy the def's shrug and eyeroll, followed by "I guess" when JM asked her if having tentants who pay rent is not renting out the room. Her husband could do nothing about her abuse at the plaintiff's hands because he has to be good. On parole or something. I'm so glad I don't live this way.

Yeppers.  It's Friday and I'm cranky from an extra overload of work this week so I'll go right into my observation about the above case.

Why are there so many people renting a room with other people?  I don't ever remember hearing of able-bodied adults renting a room in a condo.  Able-bodied adults abled enough to have unprotected sex and create a new person.  Again, when did this happen?  College kids, college grads and young people starting out I can understand, but couples renting a room, sharing a bathroom, kitchen and probably a couch is so far out of my league.  I don't get it. 

The couple in this case seemed pretty able-bodied to me.  She worked.  I didn't catch if he did or didn't but I still don't get it.  And on the other side of the coin, I wouldn't want anyone to share my kitchen, couch or bathroom with me.  If I couldn't afford my house I'd move to something I could afford.  So much drama, knives, shouting, pushing.  Yeah, that's what I want after an overload of work. 

And for the record I am not rich.  I have a tiny house and a husband who works too.  I just don't understand the choices people make...in my work I hear about bad choices all the time and that's part and parcel of the job but the couple who are scrounging to find a roof over their head baffles me.

And now, I will retire to make a pitcher of sidecars.  Happy Friday.

[AngelaHunter]

22 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Why are there so many people renting a room with other people?  I don't ever remember hearing of able-bodied adults renting a room in a condo.  Able-bodied adults abled enough to have unprotected sex and create a new person.  Again, when did this happen?  College kids, college grads and young people starting out I can understand, but couples renting a room, sharing a bathroom, kitchen and probably a couch is so far out of my league.  I don't get it.

I"ve been puzzling over this forever, or least since I started watching court shows. I never knew of anyone in my life - not friends, family or co-workers -  who thought it was a good idea to start having kids when they couldn't afford even the humblest of abodes of their own and who have to huddle in one room of someone else's apartment. It's difficult enough (for me anyway) to live with someone I love and to whom I'm married, never mind with a whole bunch of near-strangers or total strangers from CL.  Maybe it's just me, but I could never do this even when I was very young and single. I took a cheap apartment on my own and never considered living with anyone.

In this case, the plaintiffs didn't want to move in with defs but they were talked into it. Yeah, if someone I kind of knew said, "Move in to my house!" I'd feel I had no choice, I guess.

I understand the people collecting the rent: I know on this show we've seen a ton of people in Sec8 housing renting out every available square foot of their places, turning the taxpayers' involuntary donations into for-profit schemes. Nice.

ETA:

Quote

And now, I will retire to make a pitcher of sidecars. 

I just looked that up. Can you pass me one of those please? I don't think I drank enough earlier.

Edited January 13, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[meowmommy]

$46K for water in four years????  That's almost $1000 a month.  My water bill is $15 a month.  Is this Perrier coming through the taps?

[califred]

My water bills are about $100 a month, if you use no water where I live you still pay $45 for 2 months.  It would still take forever to get to over 40k.  Plus the city my house is in would have turned off your water long before that.

 

the red evening gown that needed a foundation garment was an interesting choice for court.

[Broderbits]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

It's difficult enough (for me anyway) to live with someone I love and to whom I'm married, never mind with a whole bunch of near-strangers or total strangers from CL

Amen!! I wouldn't buy a car from CL, much less seek a roommate there.

[NYCFree]

I'm in NYC and they do not turn off water here.  What they do, is put a lien on your house, at some point they will simply force a sale and get their money.  Absentee landlord is running a huge risk in not being on top of that.  I also don't think they will allow a non-owner to have a water bill in their name. They wouldn't be able to go after the property if a tenant didn't pay. My water bill for a single family home in the Bronx is $800-$900 a year, paid quarterly.

I loved the disappearing ink case and Judge MM's reaction to it.

[SRTouch]

10 hours ago, NYCFree said:

I'm in NYC and they do not turn off water here.  What they do, is put a lien on your house, at some point they will simply force a sale and get their money.  Absentee landlord is running a huge risk in not being on top of that.  I also don't think they will allow a non-owner to have a water bill in their name. They wouldn't be able to go after the property if a tenant didn't pay. My water bill for a single family home in the Bronx is $800-$900 a year, paid quarterly.

I loved the disappearing ink case and Judge MM's reaction to it.

Interesting, not sure why they'd do it that way... maybe a hold over from days gone bye before individual meters. I think if I were a landlord I'd pay the bill and pass the cost along to the tenant. Why take the chance of losing my property if I get a court TV type tenant who doesn'the pay his/her bills?

Thinking about it, the water and sewer system for NYC  is really on a whole different world as compared to my town.

[NYCFree]

12 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Interesting, not sure why they'd do it that way... maybe a hold over from days gone bye before individual meters. I think if I were a landlord I'd pay the bill and pass the cost along to the tenant. Why take the chance of losing my property if I get a court TV type tenant who doesn'the pay his/her bills?

Thinking about it, the water and sewer system for NYC  is really on a whole different world as compared to my town.

I guess they do it because the majority of housing units in NYC are multi-unit, either apartment, condo or co-op.  The officials couldn't punish the tenants because the landlord didn't pay the water bill. If they sell the property, the tenants aren't hurt by the transaction. There is only one water meter per building as far as I know. For condos or co-ops, there is a monthly maintenance fee that covers things like water and taxes. NYC is a bizarre entity of Byzantine rules and regulations.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, NYCFree said:

I guess they do it because the majority of housing units in NYC are multi-unit, either apartment, condo or co-op.  The officials couldn't punish the tenants because the landlord didn't pay the water bill. If they sell the property, the tenants aren't hurt by the transaction. There is only one water meter per building as far as I know. For condos or co-ops, there is a monthly maintenance fee that covers things like water and taxes. NYC is a bizarre entity of Byzantine rules and regulations.

Yep, like I said, the infrastructure where I live is totally different. My town can only claim to be over 100,000 by counting soldiers on post. Off hand, I can only come up with four multi story housing units with elevators (not counting motels/hotels. Anyone from NYC would bust out laughing when they hear us talk about our dorm towers and the high rise assisted living - maybe the tallest a whopping 6 stories. In fact those are our skyscrapers.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Yep, like I said, the infrastructure where I live is totally different. My town can only claim to be over 100,000 by counting soldiers on post. Off hand, I can only come up with four multi story housing units with elevators (not counting motels/hotels. Anyone from NYC would bust out laughing when they hear us talk about our dorm towers and the high rise assisted living - maybe the tallest a whopping 6 stories. In fact those are our skyscrapers.

Same here. I don't know how many are on base here, but we live in a very small town.  Hey, are you getting ice?  Keeping my fingers crossed we only keep it at a "trace".

[SRTouch]

13 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Same here. I don't know how many are on base here, but we live in a very small town.  Hey, are you getting ice?  Keeping my fingers crossed we only keep it at a "trace".

No ice now. First thing this morning when I went out no ice on the deck, but handicap ramp slicker than - well slick.  I have an event to go to at 6pm... so I figure it'll really come down about 630 ?

[AlleC17]

On 1/12/2017 at 11:49 AM, meowmommy said:

Unless you live behind a moat or carpet bomb the neighborhood, how on earth do you prevent chipmunks from coming in your yard?  And if the solution is to kill all the ones who cross your property line, for me, at least, a yard full of dead chipmunks would be infinitely more horrifying than a yard full of live chipmunks.

Substitute "I'm afraid of cats" or "I'm afraid of dogs" and imagine this same case.  Eek.

I was glad they came back in greater numbers than ever.  There are no chippers in Hawaii, and I miss the little critters.  They are cute.

On 1/13/2017 at 9:12 AM, Broderbits said:

I beg to differ; she was much too studiously "quirky" for me, just the kind of person I avoid IRL and do not find amusing on tv (Zooey Deschanel, I'm looking at you). 

But I do agree that chipmunks are delightful! That woman should be living in a high-rise if she's so afraid of wildlife, not trying to kill everything that moves.

I agree:  the way she flaunted that dumb purse, begging for a comment about it made me want to slap her.  lol

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

the way she flaunted that dumb purse, begging for a comment about it made me want to slap her.  lol

Just think... on a plane next to her on the way over to Africa, same lodgings, meals, excursions, etc for 10 days, then coming home on the same plane. Would that be covered by travel insurance?

[WhitneyWhit]

Catching up on the new episodes and I loathed the chipmunk women. I was especially infuriated when they said they had an "infestation" of chipmunks when no, they were outside, AKA, the chipmunks natural habitat.

[SRTouch]

9 hours ago, WhitneyWhit said:

Catching up on the new episodes and I loathed the chipmunk women. I was especially infuriated when they said they had an "infestation" of chipmunks when no, they were outside, AKA, the chipmunks natural habitat.

So, there was an infestation of nutty old ladies and their daughters. Don't you just love folks who want to live with the trees and grass of a green belt area, but have a conniption fit if they see the critters of a healthy ecosystem.  Then there's idiots who move to the country and complain about the farm/dairy which was there for generations before some developer came along.