The People's Court - General Discussion

[Brattinella]

We get lots of critters in our yards.  We love them!  The only ones we don't love are the feral cats.  They eat our critters.  Also I love the Tennessee Kites, except when THEY eat our critters.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

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.

Around here, people not only do not want any wild critters near them, but no plants that they didn't buy at the nursery. Queen Anne's Lace, dandelions, errant ferns, etc. - blast them with herbicides. No one knows or cares that the milkweed they destroy is the only food for the Monarch butterfly caterpillar. We didnt' pay that milkweed, so nuke it! Oh, the outcry when dumping gallons of poison into the soil was banned. No one should have to get off their asses and dig up dandelions.

The only rerun today that I didn't mind watching was the oily, badly-dyed and earring-ed "contractor" who casually confirms that, sure, he has "eight or nine" lawsuits against him. Doesn't everyone? Not his fault. Just ask his helpers who were cursed and chased off by plaintiff's alcoholic wife. Oh, wait - can't ask them. They're not here. Wonder why?

[Jamoche]

To the contractor whose story changed when she gave him The Look: "You folded like a cheap suit and all I did was change my eyebrows."

[AlleC17]

3 hours ago, Brattinella said:

We get lots of critters in our yards.  We love them!  The only ones we don't love are the feral cats.  They eat our critters.  Also I love the Tennessee Kites, except when THEY eat our critters.

The feral cats are easy to maintain though, so that they won't eat your critters (I don't like that aspect of any species either really) , and they are plenty cute too. It is just sad that there are so many discarded pets, left to breed and grow in large numbers.  *steps away from soap box*  Hope we get some interesting cases this week...there have been some really snoozers on tPC and JJ lately.

[AKA...CJ86]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The only rerun today that I didn't mind watching was the oily, badly-dyed and earring-ed "contractor" who casually confirms that, sure, he has "eight or nine" lawsuits against him. Doesn't everyone? Not his fault. Just ask his helpers who were cursed and chased off by plaintiff's alcoholic wife. Oh, wait - can't ask them. They're not here. Wonder why?

He is certainly trying to keep/maintain his youth, sad thing is nobody pointed out he's doing it by way of funhouse mirror.

[AngelaHunter]

I don't mind reruns, but I wish they wouldn't show such recent ones. The plaintiff in the ATV case, whose entire evidence was based on what some neighbour may or may not have said to him about def being a thief, got on my last nerve. I really dislike people like him - a sexist, loud-mouthed, dull-eyed and meat-headed palooka. I could easily see why he's divorced. I guess his wife woke up one day, looked at him and said to herself, "What the HELL was I thinking? I'm outta here!"

The woman who was a victim of "die-mestic violence", with her "they brung" and her "Samsum TV" irritated JM enormously while she tried to scam 1,000$ from the storage company for her TV, which was 35". No, it was 40". Or maybe it was 32". Whatever it was, her mom paid 1000$ ten years ago, so who knows.

The repeat of the couple renting the duplex - both of whom had voices like nails on a chalkboard - annoyed ME so much I had to turn them off.

I just wish that dog that Levin was enthralled with, as he lorded it over his dim-witted doorway fan club, had bit him on the ass when he turned around.

[shksabelle]

Spoiler

 

did she ACTUALLY say "brung"?

how do people make it to adulthood being that illiterate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'

'

'

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 6:58 PM, shksabelle said:

how do people make it to adulthood being that illiterate?

That's the question. I know that if any child in my school had spoken that way by first grade, they would have quickly been corrected. It's a mystery to me, just as it's a mystery why, in today's case of the purloined motorcyle, we heard about the "eiff or maybe the ninf" of the month. My husband is French and in that language they do not have "th" sounds, so it's difficult for him to say words that end with those letters. Why would it be difficult or impossible for someone whose mother tongue is English? I have no problem with it. Anyway, def. only "had went" out with plaintiff. They were not dating. If she said "He didn't honor the agreement" just one more time (and she got in an extra one in the hall) my ears would have started bleeding. Anyway, I don't know why she's upset over the motorcycle with the gas leak being in her apartment. According to the plaintiff, the helpful and versatile bike "fumigated" her place, so no worries about roaches or other pests.

Lady of the Perpetually Blocked Toilet: She looked so sweet and so nice, proving that appearances can be deceiving. Yes, plumbers charge outrageous fees, but she agreed to them in advance, so quit your bitching and find out who is blocking that toilet all time. I had a suspicion her silent daughter might know something about that.  I've been in my home 22 years and have not yet had that problem.

The last case: I get it. I always celebrate my significant other's release from prison by buying him a bunch of clothes I can't afford. "This is not over," she said in the hall. What did that mean? I worry for the store owner.

[DoctorK]

Quote

"This is not over," she said in the hall. What did that mean?

Well, if we are lucky she only means the same thing as another losing litigant on either JJ or PC who announced that she wasn't done, she was going to take her case to the Supreme Court. I am pretty sure most of the litigants cannot spell "binding arbitration", let alone understand the concept.

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, DoctorK said:

am pretty sure most of the litigants cannot spell "binding arbitration", let alone understand the concept.

As we saw yesterday, a businessman cannot spell "abandoned" = "A banded."

[SRTouch]

48 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

As we saw yesterday, a businessman cannot spell "abandoned" = "A banded."

Well, after seeing some of the autocorrect stuff I get, I can see that happening. Especially if he just did a quick proof read. Not saying that makes it right, after all, if I was sending a certified letter involving a big chunk of money, I hope I would have caught that. Not so sure autocorrect saves me any time. I type something, read it several times, post it, then immediately see something I missed and go back to edit the post.

[Brattinella]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Well, after seeing some of the autocorrect stuff I get, I can see that happening. Especially if he just did a quick proof read. Not saying that makes it right, after all, if I was sending a certified letter involving a big chunk of money, I hope I would have caught that. Not so sure autocorrect saves me any time. I type something, read it several times, post it, then immediately see something I missed and go back to edit the post.

I always have that turned off, so if you see me make a boo-boo, it is all my fault. :D

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I always have that turned off, so if you see me make a boo-boo, it is all my fault. :D

With a real keyboard it's off, but most of my posting here is on the touchscreen tablet - strictly one finger hunt and peck with the right hand while the left holds the tablet .?

Edited January 21, 2017 by SRTouch
Autocorrect correct

[AngelaHunter]

I just watched the repeat of "Joanie" Guerrero, 42-year old ridiculous, grifting, lying cougar, being sued by her teeny-tiny 26-year old toy-boyfriend, yet another ep that makes me feel so very good about the choices I've made in my life.

[SRTouch]

hey, new numbskulls

1. utility trailer kerfuffle: strange case with the plaintiff buying an old trailer for $700 and now saying he wants $6201 (strange amount - up from $1400 after being amended just before court). Not to be outdone in the frivolous case race, defendant has a countersuit for $1800 in storage fees because he says plaintiff never towed away he trailer (must not have had time to amend his claim.) Yep, 8 grand in lawsuits over a $700 trailer - oh, and it seems plaintiff spent over a month in the hoosegow over the kerfuffle. Anyway, plaintiff's story is he was doing some work for his niece's husband's brother when he noticed a trailer that would be perfect for his landscape business - well except it needed a wiring harness and lights to be street legal. Says the niece's husband's brother, henceforth known as defendant, agreed to pay, so after plaintiff gave defendant $700 they set out for Auto Zone to get the parts and defendant was supposed to wire the trailer. Little comedic by-play as the plaintiff says defendant tried to hide the transaction from gf, defendant looks puzzled, and MM says the gf, who is present in court, is nodding that it sounds like something defendant would pull. After all my extensive training from watching court tv, I don't believe much of anything coming from plaintiff. Obviously rehearsed, backs up and restates words of his story when MM interrupts to ask a question, trouble maintainin eye contact etc. Back to the case... they buy the stuff at the parts store, but on the way back to the trailer plaintiff says defendant made a liquor run - well sure, he had $700 burning a hole in his pocket that he needed to spend before the gf found out - stop for meat, the work project turned into a BBQ. Time goes by, weels later plaintiff is tired of the excuses of why the trailer lights haven't been fixed, he asks for his money back. Lots of back and forth, guy never has the money, time passes. Next winter, plaintiff, who landscapes in the summer and does snow removal in the winter, is plowing defendant's driveway and hit his truck. Ah, the big blow up - kerfuffle, plaintiff insists it was an accident, defendant says no way, it was intentional. (Time out while defendant's gf gets scolded by MM for yelling from her chair, defendant acts like plaintiff is telling an unbelievable lie - plaintiff thanks MM for scolding gf and MM snaps back "Don't thank me!") Finally get to hear from defendant. His story is that he was asleep, it was 3am, when plaintiff came over and hit his truck. Oh boy, not liking this bobble headed dude. He brought pictures of the damage - though I don't remember that being part of the case and plaintiff already admitted to hitting the truck. Anyway, I guess it comes in because the relationship keeps deterioratingetting until restraining orders are taken out and plaintiff gets arrested for violating the order - oh and defendant says the trailer had been fixed long prior, the plaintiff just never came to get it. Oh wait, plaintiff argues he WASN'T arrested for the restraining order - oh no, he says he had an old DUI, and after he accidently hit the truck the defendant called the cops and reported he was drunk while he was driving around plowing snow. MM cuts through that real quick by asking what the charges were when he was arrested - nothing about alcohol, he was arrested for stalking, intimidation and harassment. Wow, these guys are all over the place, as now defendant says that yes, he did report plaintiff for drunk driving, but that was a different incident, not when his truck was hit. Geez, these guys are such a mess I'm not sure what the case is about. MM decides she needs to see something official with the charges, plaintiff says he has it, he looks but can't find it. More mudslinging, these guys have forgotten all about the trailer, plaintiff getting a little hot here in court and starts raising his voice. Insists he was not drunk and he was arrested solely on defendant's complaint. Nope, MM says, you aren't arrested on a complaint unless the arresting cop thinks there's a basis for the complaint. Plaintiff is another one who thinks that the fact the charges were eventually dismissed means he gets to sue the person who made the complaint - uh no, a cops and the DA thought enough of the complaint to lock you up. Ah well, this case is 30 minutes old, so MM gets back to the trailer. Turns out the trailer sat on defendant's property for 2 years after he was paid for it. He finally sold it a second time for $500. So why, asks MM does he think he should get to keep the $700 he was originally paid, plus $500 for selling someone else's trailer, and to top it off, sue for an additional $1800 in storage fees when he unilaterally picked an amount out of the air to charge for storage. Another little by-play where defendant admits to a long ago DUI, plaintiff asks MM to look at defendant's record and she responds maybe she should look at both litigants records. Nah, times up, time to rule. On this mess of charges and countercharges and no evidence. Really, the only way to rule is that defendant shouldn't keep the money for selling the trailer twice. I would have made him pay the original $700, but instead she orders he give the $500 from the second sale. Plaintiff still wants to continue the feud, arguing with the judge as she rules, interrupting her, about in a yelling match as she stands to leave. After she's gone the idiot stands acting like a Judge Mathis litigant every they stand and yell at each other after the case is over and he leaves. Oh boy, I was wondering if poor Douglas could handle these two big dudes. 
2. former son in law car loan case: wow, three scary looking plaintiffs in this case. In better days plaintiff loaned defendant money to buy a car. Well, after a bitter breakup with the daughter, she wants back $2370.93 (another strange amount case). Actually pretty tired story, nothing new, only unusual part is how openly bitter they are to each other - and that's really not very unusual. Anyway, defendant moves in with controlling mom, adult daughter and 24yo step daughter. He needs a car, plaintiff fronts him money. Car is a piece of crap, mom loans him repair money. He blames mom for talking him into buying the junker, says nothing was private in the house, controlling mom has to be involved with any and everything going on. When you wade through the bitter breakup nonsense, defendant signed an IOU promising to pay $2000 plaintiff by a certain date. He figures that since his wife, her daughter, found the car, and it turned out to be such a lemon, he shouldn't have to pay. I'm thinking it's a marital debt. They're married, splitting up, let a divorce judge handle it. These folks are toxic to each other. Lots of anger and literal finger pointing during his testimony - if the little People's Court graphic wasn't on screen I'd think I was watching Divorce Court. He's on some rant about not wanting the 24yo to hear the case that had me scratching my head trying to make sense of. If that's not crazy enough, he actually starts in about how the little old lady coerced and strong armed him into buying the raggedy car that is still in the shop after paying 2 1/2 - 3 times what it's worth in repairs. Ok... I give up when we get to commercial and fast forward to the hallway. Turns out MM disagreed with my marital debt idea, she orders him to live ip to the signed IOU.
3. LANDLORD SUING TENANT OVER FALLEN FENCE: dreadlock landlord insists the tenant is supposed to repair the chainlink fence - which sounds like a new one on me. Did she hit it with her car or something? After the recent discussion about tenants living surrounded by their trash, I had to laugh when MM comments on the pictures of the fence with the trash nobody bothered to pick up before taking the pictures. Anyway, landlord says he noticed the fence leaning over and he wants tenant to pay $150 for repairs. He says when he noticed the fence and told her it needed to be fixed, she agreed to fix it, and did a Mickey mouse half a$$ed job.says her story at the time was some "car" backed into it. He says her lease says she has to repair "any" damage, not just damage she cause - so MM has Douglas bring up the lease. Over to the tenant, who says she didn't damage the fence. Her story is the vacant house next door had a sewer leak, and when the water company people came they dug a hole, which messed up the fence - not her fault. MM has trouble believing the tenant's story, but I can see it happening. Doesn't really matter, though. Despite plaintiff's idea that the tenant should pay if someone else damaged a fence, MM isn't buying it. She brings plaintiff up to try to point out how he thinks the fence was damaged on the pictures. Nope not buying. Seems his story has changed since he wrote his complaint, always a bad sign. Has anyone here tried to "pull" up a chainlink post that has been set in concrete. I have, using a front end loader. Nope, failed to prove his case. Dismissed.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

kerfuffle: strange case with the plaintiff buying an old trailer for $700 and now saying he wants $6201

Listening to the Motel 6 resident with his big mouth and horrible grammar hurt my ears, but I did enjoy JM subtly mocking him by repeating, "You weren't going there NO MORE." All of them spoke this way, but he was the worst, right down to his "nuttin'".

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

former son in law car loan case: wow, three scary looking plaintiffs in this case.

Scary, yes. Goofy daughter with HER horrid grammar was desperate enough to marry def. who seems to be a bonified lunatic, whipping out his money for some weird reason. He's a loser whose testimony was so garbled I'm not sure if I understood it, but it involved an old beater "ImpalER" that, no matter how old and how beaten up, def - a mature man  - could not buy on his own but needed his mother-in-law to subsidize for him. Now 500$ beater is up to 3K in repairs, and it's all everyone else's fault for "coercing" and forcing him into all this mess, since obviously he has no brain or common sense of his own. Litigants - it's very easy to look up "coercion" online and realize that it does NOT apply to family members urgings. Where do they get this shit? The best example of coercion, short and sweet, is in the Godfather when the bandleader is given a paper to sign and told that "either his signature or his brains will be on the contract." THAT is coercion.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

LANDLORD SUING TENANT OVER FALLEN FENCE:

Hee! JM got a little dig in there too, with her repetition of "CEE-ment" (makes me think of the Beverly Hillbillies and their "CEE-ment pond") but of course plaintiff never picked up on it.

Edited January 23, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[meowmommy]

Did defendant #2, in his zeal to protect his stepdaughter's virgin ears from dog knows what, forget the part where the proceedings are broadcast on national television?

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Did defendant #2, in his zeal to protect his stepdaughter's virgin ears from dog knows what,

And her 24-year old virgin ears, but yes, he seems to think that national television is somehow "private."

[Megan]

Mr. Carlson, his Mother in Law, soon to ex wife and step daughter all seemed to somehow be from somewhere in between 1976 and 1984.

And duh it's private because it says so on legal tender.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Megan

[NYGirl]

Ok..today we dealt with idiots in all 3 cases!

1.  Woman says eh..no damage and takes off after her son damages soft spoken polite plaintiff's car.  Hit and run.

2.  Idiots who say they don't like wedding pictures because the artistic element is way over their heads.

3.  Landlord who said he gave deposit back by putting it under his mat even though it was made out to and endorsed by a completely different tenant.

I lost brain cells during this hour.  I kid you not.  I was slack jawed at the end.

Edited January 24, 2017 by NYGirl

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

Woman says eh..no damage and takes off after her son damages soft spoken polite plaintiff's car.  Hit and run.

Pretty outrageous. "Oh, it's just a little dent. Quitcherbitchin' and suck it up!" Plaintiff was only asking for a measly 500$-odd dollars and not trying to clean up with pain and suffering, lost wages and all that crap.  JM was right - def. looked very young (and very blank). I think that's a benefit of having a completely empty head and - at 40 - having a mommy and daddy who answer for your messes, just as she answers for her baby's screw-ups.  I noticed that said baby, who caused all this trouble, didn't have the balls to show up.

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

 Idiots who say they don't like wedding pictures

I'm always a little bemused at people who move to a new country and seem to instinctively know how to sue people for stupidities to try and get a boe-nanza and *free* stuff, like the plaintiff with her foot fetish. Def. was reasonable, articulate, polite and professional - such a rarity here I think I need to save this for when I think there is no hope for the world. BTW, I have a wedding photo of just my and my husband's hands, and even one that doesn't show the front of the wedding cake. I guess we should have sued for all our money back. Doing so may have ruined our memories of our wedding, but hey - free stuff!

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

Landlord who said he gave deposit back by putting it under his mat

I don't know what his story is, but the word "smarmy" came to mind. I hope he wasn't under the impression that kissing up to JM, "It's a treat and and honor to appear before you, blah blah," was going to win him any points. Aside from that, I don't know why he offered plaintiff one dime back  when plaintiff is a grown man who needs HIS mommy to fight his battles for him (and I believed def. when he said she went nuts on him over the phone).  Plaintiff  was so slow-thinking I could almost hear the rusty wheels clanking and grinding in his head and whose answers and complaints that he "never got no payments for nothing" were painful to listen to. Def. was right about one thing: Plaintiff needs to grow up, get a pair and cut the strings to Mama Bear.

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

I lost brain cells during this hour.  I kid you not.

You're not the only one. The only saving grace was plaintiff in the first case, who in addition to being clear and pleasant, came beautifully dressed, as noted by Doug In the Hall.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

The only saving grace was plaintiff in the first case, who in addition to being clear and pleasant, came beautifully dressed, as noted by Doug In the Hall.

And speaking of dressing - he sure gave 40-who-looked-20 a dressing down of her irresponsible behavior.  (Like how I did that there?)

And AngelaHunter, I'm already thinking about Friday's sidecars.  I'll send one your way in a frosted martini glass.  After this week, we might need a pitcher each!

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

And speaking of dressing - he sure gave 40-who-looked-20 a dressing down of her irresponsible behavior.  (Like how I did that there?)

... and during said dressing down (yes, I like the way you did that!) she remained as blank and dopey as she was during the case. No one can say she's not consistent. Either she was on drugs or is just dumb as a fencepost.

ETA: The Sidecars? I'm in, and I promise that no matter how drunk I get I won't throw a lamp at your head or punch holes in your walls.

Edited January 24, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[patty1h]

Another spoiled bride who didn't get everything perfect on HER day wants her money back.   Court shows + Bridezilla entitlement = my elevated blood pressure.

Nitpick - TPC needs a better proofreader for their previews.  The title card for tomorrow's show read "tuxedo tussel".

[califred]

Send a sidecar or three my way too please.

 

 

i was trying to figure out why they thought their car insurance would pay for the cart damage.  Also I absolutely don't think he got in her face and scared her.

[meowmommy]

Wedding photographer should have allowed them to use her name and her company's name, because everything about her case advertised their professionalism.  I think people would want to use her company after seeing the pictures and hearing how the junior photographer went the extra mile for the whiny, entitled plaintiff.

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Pretty outrageous. "Oh, it's just a little dent. Quitcherbitchin' and suck it up!" Plaintiff was only asking for a measly 500$-odd dollars and not trying to clean up with pain and suffering, lost wages and all that crap.  JM was right - def. looked very young (and very blank). I think that's a benefit of having a completely empty head and - at 40 - having a mommy and daddy who answer for your messes, just as she answers for her baby's screw-ups.  I noticed that said baby, who caused all this trouble, didn't have the balls to show up.

Mom DID look younger than 40. In the beginning I'm thought the son was a youngster, then we find out he's legally an adult at 18. Actually, I think it was mom/grandma who trained the dim 40yo and the 18yo son. When asked, dad/gramps said he would have paid up, but granny was all about the excuses, and how it was the victim of the 18yo's carelessness who was at fault for not getting paid. Hey, lady, your two snowflake's were at fault, and the only reason the kid found them was he was quick to whip out his phone and use it for something besides dirty pictures. The little mini-rant from MM went right over both the 40yo and her mom, and dad just kept his mouth shut because he knew they'do jump him if he said anything.

[arejay]

I imagine the whiny bride was on her way to her next court appearance for the low-speed, minor-impact, negligible damage auto accident she had 1 year and 11 1/2 months ago. 

[wallysmommy]

I didn't get the smarmy landlord vibe as much as the stupid vibe from the plaintiff.  I was waiting for MM to yell "Not 'Basically'!  Just tell me what happened!" 

Wedding photo fiasco -- As someone who is involved in planning two weddings this year, I was so annoyed by the plaintiff and her neck brace, that she wasn't even wearing correctly.  Guarantee there's a lawsuit sitting in some local court for personal injury, pain and suffering, loss of wages, alienation of affection, and on and on an on.  

[AKA...CJ86]

All I can say is I'm happy I'd get MM's approval for a decent human being.  I guess I missed the age of the son in the cart case but I thinking it was a kid, but the son was eighteen.  I don't recall ever being a teenager and just push or shove carts and que sera, que sera, whatever will be...  

I'm also totally with arejay, the bride in the photo case was prepped and set for her next court appearance for the minor fender-bender... where she's probably at fault.

Edited January 25, 2017 by CyberJawa1986
ETA: Stupid autocorrect. It's Que Sera, Que Sera...

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, wallysmommy said:

I was so annoyed by the plaintiff and her neck brace, that she wasn't even wearing correctly.

It's really hard to wear a neck brace correctly when you, like basically, have no neck to speak of. That brace should have been cut down to about 1" in height.

46 minutes ago, CyberJawa1986 said:

 I guess I missed the age of the son in the cart case but I thinking it was a kid, but the son was eighteen.

Yeah, and probably sitting at home sucking this thumb or playing video games while he lets his Momma go and take the lambasting for him.

[meowmommy]

I'm all for Simon and Garfunkel references, but Levin made his so obscure I doubt ten people will understand it.

3rd case:  WTF with all the filler about whether or not they're divorced and whether she knew she was divorced?  He drove through a red light, pay the damn ticket.  Case over in ten seconds.

Edited January 26, 2017 by meowmommy

[Eliza422]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I'm all for Simon and Garfunkel references, but Levin made his so obscure I doubt ten people will understand it.

3rd case:  WTF with all the filler about whether or not they're divorced and whether she knew she was divorced?  He drove through a red light, pay the damn ticket.  Case over in ten seconds.

He made an S & G reference? What was it? 

[meowmommy]

19 minutes ago, Eliza422 said:

He made an S & G reference? What was it? 

In the intro to the dog case, he paraphrased the line, "I am just a poor boy, and my story's seldom told," from S/G's The Boxer.

Proving my point.  :)

Edited January 26, 2017 by meowmommy

[califred]

I get that it's the principle but the thought of suing someone for $80 is beyond me.  

 

How did she she not know she's been divorced for 11 years???

[ElleMo]

2 hours ago, califred said:

I get that it's the principle but the thought of suing someone for $80 is beyond me.  

 

How did she she not know she's been divorced for 11 years???

She was a piece of work.  It was her mother's funeral and she should have paid the ticket.  It may not be legal, but it is a common practice.  She obviously needs to move on.

I don't believe she didn't know she was divorced.   And can you even do that?  At some point, don't both of them have to speak to a judge or mediator? 

[AlleC17]

16 hours ago, meowmommy said:

In the intro to the dog case, he paraphrased the line, "I am just a poor boy, and my story's seldom told," from S/G's The Boxer.

Proving my point.  :)

I FF through that so missed it, but was not quick enough with my remote on the 'Boxer?  He hardly knew her!' crap.  Grrrrrrrr.  lol

[patty1h]

Check out the audience during the case of the naive actress who wanted payment for rehearsals, etc. (I would have been put off as soon as I saw that it was required that I buy a bottle of perfume from the guy).  Anyhoo, look for the absolutely cherubic guy over the plaintiff's right shoulder; he has pale skin and pink cheeks.  What a unicorn.

Edited January 26, 2017 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Check out the audience during the case of the naive actress

I don't care how naive Precious is. I don't care about the case. I adored Precious because she's that rare, almost mythical litigant who spoke proper English. I wept with joy. Precious, I love you and sing your praises. You deserve far better and I hope you go far in your chosen field. Keep up the good work!  I did enjoy hearing that wine is a remedy for stomach ailments. Personally, I've always felt it to be the remedy for just about anything that ails one.

The wizened wharf-rat Momma suing soon-to-be-ex SIL: "He was in his car with a hooker, getting a blowjob!" That was stellar! Simply stellar. After seeing the def. I sympathized. Who else besides someone he pays would want to have physical contact of any kind with him? Oh. Well,  plaintiff's daughter (who couldn't show up because she had to care for all the offspring she popped out with this less-than-appealing character) obviously enjoyed a lot of contact with him. His story was so believable. It took him ten hours to travel from NJ to Brooklyn. Damned traffic is just so bad. Anyway, he urgently needed a conference with his ex about their ten-year old - at 4:00a.m. Makes sense. Anyway, he ran a red light in MIL's car and got T-boned but it wasn't his fault that he doesn't know how to drive in winter conditions! Momma and daughter were looking for "Daddy Warbucks" and a "White Knight". They certainly struck out.

Hoarding case:  Being a landlord is hell. You never know if a tenant is actually a nutty hoarder, as was plaintiff in this case. She was so confused she thought she was supposed to sit in JM's seat, but I guess she's just not used to all that open space anrd became disoriented. She had the usual flat hoarder affect, in that the horrendous conditions in her place (and that she hung all her clothes in the common areas of the building) were no big deal. Yes, landlord informed her that no additional major appliances could be used in the unit, but plaintiff had all this meat, see, so she needed to plug in the extra freezer so all the electricity "chipped out" and the maggots? Oh, well, SHE never saw them. I loved the landlord nearly as much as I loved Precious. She made sense, spoke well and stated her defense very clearly.

I also enjoyed JM's reminiscing about how her long-ago landlord complained about her underpants being left on the floor, and how he was a dirty old man!

Today was  a Good Day.

[teebax]

The landlord in the last case was one of my favorite litigants ever. She knew her stuff, was prepared, and spoke well. 

I did not like MM''s dismissal of the fire code issues. The defendant was absolutely right about our litigious society. If there'd been a fire, and there certainly could have been one with that tenant, thet landlord would've been sued. No doubt about it. 

BTW , long time no see. I'm home sick from work and got to watch an episode for a change. Hi, everybody!

Edited January 26, 2017 by teebax

[Broderbits]

The last case landlord was fabulous, and she really rocked that dress! I totally agreed with her about the fire safety issues too; just because you rent a place doesn't give you the right to burn it down. Plus the landlord's insurance company might not pay if there are safety violations.

[AngelaHunter]

57 minutes ago, teebax said:

I did not like MM''s dismissal of the fire code issues.

I didn't either. Apparently there was someone living above (or below?) the hoarder and had there been a fire in that mess (which apparently included a propane tank!) the other tenants probably would have sued the landlord for allowing such conditions to remain and landlord may not have been able to collect anything from her insurance company since we know ins. companies are always looking with a magnifying glass for anything that would excuse them for paying a dime.

I was just so excited to see TWO well-spoken, reasonable, intelligent litigants in one show that I wanted them to win no matter what.

Nice to see you, Teebax, although sorry it's illness that brings you here. :(

Edited January 26, 2017 by AngelaHunter
Goofs due to my wine cure.

[ElleMo]

4 hours ago, Broderbits said:

The last case landlord was fabulous, and she really rocked that dress! I totally agreed with her about the fire safety issues too; just because you rent a place doesn't give you the right to burn it down. Plus the landlord's insurance company might not pay if there are safety violations.

JM's comment about the furniture in front of the window was strange.  Basically, it's OK for plaintiff to put herself in danger??  But there is the potential for other people to get hurt as well. Such as firemen who might get stuck in the apartment and with the window being blocked not be able to get out. Or any guest she may have over who are crazy enough to walk in there.

In the end, she chastised the plaintiff because she had overloaded the electricity that could cause an electrical spark and plenty of tinder to make it a rip roaring fire. So that was good.

And with the other case: The car at 4 a.m. in Sunset Park makes me think he was with a hooker too. I love how when the plaintiff was asked if she were trying to break them up she emphatically says yes

[Eliza422]

11 hours ago, Broderbits said:

The last case landlord was fabulous, and she really rocked that dress! I totally agreed with her about the fire safety issues too; just because you rent a place doesn't give you the right to burn it down. Plus the landlord's insurance company might not pay if there are safety violations.

Omg, I fell on love with that landlord! So beautiful and elegant and intelligent - and finally we have a landlord who knows the law and can properly manage property. 

 

Judge Milian should watch a few episodes of hoarders to see the damage done by hoards, and all the fines and citations people get from city authorities because of the hazards and such.

 

i can't believe she downplayed the hazards so much, that was crazy!

[teebax]

7 hours ago, Eliza422 said:

Omg, I fell on love with that landlord! So beautiful and elegant and intelligent - and finally we have a landlord who knows the law and can properly manage property. 

 

Judge Milian should watch a few episodes of hoarders to see the damage done by hoards, and all the fines and citations people get from city authorities because of the hazards and such.

 

i can't believe she downplayed the hazards so much, that was crazy!

Yeah, her leaving her panties on the floor of her law school apartment wasn't even close to the same as that mess the nasty plaintiff had created. You can't block a freaking window and overload circuits. My father wasn't a firefighter, like the defendant's was, but that's just common sense!

[momtoall]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

My father wasn't a firefighter, like the defendant's was, but that's just common sense!

Exactly!!  Good to read your post teebax, feel better!!

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, Eliza422 said:

Judge Milian should watch a few episodes of hoarders to see the damage done by hoards,

I don't think she, or JJ, know what hoarders are and appear not to understand what a severe problem this is. I never knew either until I saw them on that show.

I didn't get all of the first case, but the defendant and her mute husband (I guess he can never get a word in edgewise) seemed like the neighbours from Hell. The paper in the desk was from her son's school, but she has no idea it was there and doesn't prove the desk was hers! It's been there for eons - actually maybe a year - but that means nothing!

And then we had a lunatic, who, when accused of throwing someone's ashes down a toilet didn't deny it, but merely said, "There's no proof." He really appeared to be mentally ill and no matter what horrific accusations were hurled at him, his expression never changed. Def did slap him and punch him and grab him by the throat and pepper spray him, but I have a hard time imagining that he had not a single clue that his friend, the plaintiff,  was such a vile and potentially dangerous nutcase, although I could be wrong. JM was incensed and ordered the maximum judgment for the def.

Are students getting dumber or what? Girl who bought a car for 600$ from some guys in front of a building saw the "Check Engine" light on, and the beater was actually smoking, but that didn't stop her from buying it and the friends she brought with her must have agreed it was a good purchase. She wants her money back but sadly is suing the wrong guy. Even if he were the right guy, who the hell thinks they're getting a great car for 600$? She's young, so I hope she at least learned something from this.  

[DoctorK]

I am feeling deprived, several times lately my PC on Fridays has been replaced by two half hour random filler shows, one some wildlife thing and the other something completely random. No idea why they are doing this unless they really don't like me anymore.

[Brattinella]

39 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

And then we had a lunatic, who, when accused of throwing someone's ashes down a toilet didn't deny it, but merely said, "There's no proof." He really appeared to be mentally ill and no matter what horrific accusations were hurled at him, his expression never changed. Def did slap him and punch him and grab him by the throat and pepper spray him, but I have a hard time imagining that he had not a single clue that his friend, the plaintiff,  was such a vile and potentially dangerous nutcase, although I could be wrong. JM was incensed and ordered the maximum judgment for the def.

I got to see the entirety of this episode, and it was pretty great.  This lunatic who threw his room-mate's MOM's ashes down the toilet with the cat shit and litter was absolutely deadpan.  He also, after his room-mate finally wised up and evicted him, he contracted a locksmith to come and make him a key, and break down the door.  When he got in, he peed on the guy's bed and trashed the house and hurt his dogs!  I have never seen MM so mad as she was at this guy, and I don't blame her.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I got to see the entirety of this episode, and it was pretty great.  This lunatic who threw his room-mate's MOM's ashes down the toilet with the cat shit and litter was absolutely deadpan.  He also, after his room-mate finally wised up and evicted him, he contracted a locksmith to come and make him a key, and break down the door.  When he got in, he peed on the guy's bed and trashed the house and hurt his dogs!  I have never seen MM so mad as she was at this guy, and I don't blame her.

My professional opinion?  He's seriously ill.   I'd do my best to disappear from his life and never even mention his name again. 

A bunny-boiler for sure.