The People's Court - General Discussion

[Brattinella]

32 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

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.

I hope someone in his life will get him some help.  Or just get him locked up. 

[Jamoche]

Alright! One of the "people on the street" trolled whats-his-face - Levin? - by going "sure, I wouldn't mind if my roomie flushed my mom's ashes down the toilet", and managed to keep a straight face until Levin wasn't looking at him.

[Eliza422]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

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.  

This was crazy! Could this have even been a real case? That girl could not be this stupid, could she?

[AngelaHunter]

35 minutes ago, Eliza422 said:

That girl could not be this stupid, could she?

Are you not a regular viewer?;) This was just medium stupid, compared to other stuff we've seen litigants do and say, and litigants much older than this person.

[califred]

I hope that guy tries to get that crazy ex roommate criminally charged.  He was insane.

 

The couple was crazy as well.  If someone new buys the land move your shit onto your own land.  

[AKA...CJ86]

Wow, that first case, to me at least was a snooze but the next two made up for it.

The car case, something just doesn't seem right with the plaintiff.  Especially after hearing she didn't follow up.  I think she's part of the scam and the case was another level against the defendant.  The attitude over MM's decision was just... off.  Or like everyone else here expressed, maybe she is stupid.  

So, the roommate case... did the defendant know about the mother's ashes before the plaintiff moved in.  I really missed that part... but if I learned that little tidbit of info while looking for a roomie, I quickly show the person the door, and thank God for giving me that info before making a mistake.  We need an update on that case STAT!  The plaintiff had issues and does need help, but he also needs to be held responsible for all the wrong he's done... 

[roseslg]

30 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Are you not a regular viewer?;) This was just medium stupid, compared to other stuff we've seen litigants do and say, and litigants much older than this person.

 This was a literal laugh out loud comment.  I had a "work from home" day today and this case alone was worth it.  

[Eliza422]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Are you not a regular viewer?;) This was just medium stupid, compared to other stuff we've seen litigants do and say, and litigants much older than this person.

Yeah, yeah, I know you are right....but like cyberjawa1986 said, there was just something off with the plaintiff that tweaked at me...oh well, she didn't get anything so no harm done, I guess.

[AngelaHunter]

DoctorK, here is yesterday's ep:

[DoctorK]

Thank you Angelahunter, my life would be less complete if I hadn't seen these!

[teebax]

21 hours ago, Jamoche said:

Alright! One of the "people on the street" trolled whats-his-face - Levin? - by going "sure, I wouldn't mind if my roomie flushed my mom's ashes down the toilet", and managed to keep a straight face until Levin wasn't looking at him.

That was my favorite part of a pretty good episode. The only thing better would be if someone actually punched Levin in his oh-so-punchable face. Did you guys know he's a lawyer? He almost never mentions it. (eyeroll)

[AZChristian]

34 minutes ago, teebax said:

 Did you guys know he's a lawyer? He almost never mentions it. (eyeroll)

Lawyer? He hardly knew 'er. (Sorry . . . Couldn't resist.)

[AngelaHunter]

59 minutes ago, teebax said:

Did you guys know he's a lawyer?

Yes, I knew that. Probably on the same level as the lawyers/ambulance chasers who advertise incessantly on TPC and JJ. He nearly derailed the OJ Simpson trial with his stupid gossipy lies. What a waste of oxygen that little troll is.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-16/news/mn-16170_1_search-warrant

Levin, stick to having your little minions rifle through Britney Spear's garbage and leave the law to real people.

Edited January 28, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[teebax]

He's been sticking in those "blank her, he hardly knew her" comments in the middle of episodes so they're harder to avoid. When I hear it I want to reach through my TV and choke him.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, teebax said:

When I hear it I want to reach through my TV and choke him

Maybe one day a rough, tough biker mama will be a litigant, hear him making his rude, nasty, crude, dumb and derogatory "jokes" aimed at women ("Biker? He hardly KNEW 'er!") and punch him right in his loose, flapping piehole - so hard his jaw will need wiring shut - on her way out. I would pay a fair sum to see that.

[SRTouch]

1. Slow motion road rage: this one is all about credibility. Listening to the stories, sounds like two different incidents with lots of he said/she said - little in common. Both sides claim they were perfectly calm, and the other driver wigged out, and was swerving and flipping them off. Hey, at least when MM calls him out the defendant admits he might have been partially in the wrong - not plaintiff, though, she maintains she did nothing wrong. Anyway, they're changing lanes back and forth, and end up clipping each other. Cops called, insurance claims, investigation where it's determined they're each 50% at fault. Now plaintiff in court wanting 5 grand while defendant is only asking for 500 bucks. Counterclaim is out, because defendant already accepted the insurance settlement. Her claim is a little different. She wants her deductible, rental car, diminished value, and $2500 in punitive damages because she says he hit her on purpose. MM throws out the punitive, but is more generous with placing blame, saying plaintiff was only 40% at fault. End result, plaintiff gets $1400 and change.
2. Oops - dog killing neighbor's cat case - ain't watching this stuff, but wonder why the hell Plaintiff brought his little girl to court to re-live her cats being mauled and killed
3. landlord suing over broken lease and lost rent - countersuit claims they moved because mold was making them sick: tenant claims mold was making daughter sick, so he broke lease - landlord wants charges for breaking the lease. Landlord sounds reasonable, but tenant is iffy, had to move because daughter got sick/has allergies/had surgery. I guess judge was just supposed to accept that, because he wanted to rush by those claims. MM had to back him up and ask questions. Not looking good for defendant, as plaintiff has text after text asking if anything is wrong, offering to recarpet, responding to complaint about thermostat and not getting an answer, on and on. Defendant has stack of his own texts - everybody presenting printed copies... any wonder why MM wants to see their phones, and hey didn't she look in the phones this time. Is this guy really saying mold caused the daughter to get her tonsils out? Inconclusive medical reports. Then pictures of the carpet pad with black stuff under it. Is that old spilled soda/juice/coffee or black mold? Who knows, no tests, just worthless picture of dirty pad/floor under the carpet - and remember landlord offering to replace the carpet and not getting a response. Medical report says daughter has allergies. They had, and still have a cat - one of the few times I say re-home your pet is when it is making your kid sick. OTOH, as a kid I had frequent tonsillitis, had the surgery and stopped getting sick. So, maybe allergies weren't causing her to be sick. Next bit that hurts defendant - landlord offered let him break the lease, and told him he would stop charging rent as soon as he rented the condo. Defendant already behind 1 month rent, and true to his word, landlord stopped charging rent when he rented the place two weeks after defendant moved. Ah, but turns out he can't charge those two weeks because defendant showed the condo to prospective tenants. In the end, plaintiff get the late fee of $78 (he already had the 1 month back rent because he has the deposit) - defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

[Brattinella]

1 minute ago, SRTouch said:

Oops - dog killing neighbor's cat case - ain't watching this stuff, but wonder why the hell Plaintiff brought his little girl to court to re-live her cats being mauled and killed

Ye Gods!  What a horror to put his child through that again!

[meowmommy]

22 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Oops - dog killing neighbor's cat case - ain't watching this stuff, but wonder why the hell Plaintiff brought his little girl to court to re-live her cats being mauled and killed

First of all, thanks for the heads-up so I know to skip past it.  What I really don't understand is how the producers pick such cases.  I guess there is a lowest common denominator that somehow finds entertainment value in watching other people agonize over their beloved pets, but to me they're the same cretins who would have visited and enjoyed Michael Vick's pits of hell.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Slow motion road rage:

Both of them were idiots. I bet twerpy defendant only got that aggressive when he saw he was dealing with an older woman alone. No way would he have given the finger and done a second cut-off had the driver been some big guy. At their ages, I doubt either of them learned anything from this.

I skipped 2nd case as soon as I heard "cat."

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

landlord suing over broken lease and lost rent

Wow. Landlord texted them constantly to ask if they wanted him to fix the thermostat or rip up the rugs and refinish the floors. No reply. Ever. Well, he texted "Markie(?)" who I notice didn't appear. Def's daughter needed her tonsils and adenoids removed - like a zillion other kids do - but somehow that was plaintiff's fault to the tune of a 5K bo-nanza.  "That's black mold! I say it is!" I have a hard time imagining mold growing anywhere the temp is a dry 100 degrees all the time. Just the usual - someone wanting something for nothing.

[Broderbits]

Not to excuse people who can't control their dogs, but here's a simple way to ensure your cat's safety: keep it indoors! There is absolutely no reason why cats need to roam outside. Don't want to clean the litter box? Then don't get a cat. 

[meowmommy]

19 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

Not to excuse people who can't control their dogs, but here's a simple way to ensure your cat's safety: keep it indoors! There is absolutely no reason why cats need to roam outside. Don't want to clean the litter box? Then don't get a cat. 

Thanks to SRTouch's heads-up, I didn't see the particulars of that case today, but I just want to mention I used to have an escape artist for a cat.  His mission in life was to be outside.  They forgot to tell us at the shelter when we were adopting him.  Hard as we tried to keep him in, he used every trick in the book to sneak out every chance he got.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Wow. Landlord texted them constantly to ask if they wanted him to fix the thermostat or rip up the rugs and refinish the floors. No reply. Ever. Well, he texted "Markie(?)" who I notice didn't appear. Def's daughter needed her tonsils and adenoids removed - like a zillion other kids do - but somehow that was plaintiff's fault to the tune of a 5K bo-nanza.  "That's black mold! I say it is!" I have a hard time imagining mold growing anywhere the temp is a dry 100 degrees all the time. Just the usual - someone wanting something for nothing.

As a nurse, I had to laugh when plaintiff responded to MM's question about proving the daughter had allergies.  Well, no, she doesn't actually have allergies, but she had to have a T&A.  And, Judge, the medical record proves she has allergies--see, look at the list of allergies.  The list of allergies in a medical record, 99.9% of the time, is whatever the patient says they are.  (I could be rich on the number of documented aspirin "allergies" I've seen put in medical records because aspirin upset someone's stomach.  That, friends, is not an allergy.  It's a side effect.)

Edited January 30, 2017 by meowmommy

[Broderbits]

24 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Thanks to SRTouch's heads-up, I didn't see the particulars of that case today, but I just want to mention I used to have an escape artist for a cat.  His mission in life was to be outside.  They forgot to tell us at the shelter when we were adopting him.  Hard as we tried to keep him in, he used every trick in the book to sneak out every chance he got.

I've had that kind of sneaky escape artist too; cat parents have to be vigilant! But I've also had an adopted feral kitten who, once he realized how good he had it indoors, would not go outside even when the door was wide open.

I only watched the beginning of that case to see if MM would ask that the little girl be taken outside the courtroom; surprised she didn't.

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

But I've also had an adopted feral kitten who, once he realized how good he had it indoors, would not go outside even when the door was wide open.

I don't know what happened in this case and do NOT want to know, but  have two ex-feral cats, momma and kitten (now 16 and 18!). Momma, who is still feral and thinks I'm the Cat Murderer, has no desire to step outside, but overaged kitten who was trapped at over 1 year old, cannot be kept in - well, not if I want to keep my sanity. Thus, if anything happens to him - hit by car, attacked by dog - its' MY fault and no one else's. You allow your pets to roam, you take that chance.

[califred]

The mans cat got out went into a fenced in yard (the dog owners have surveillance cameras ) and the cat owner was pissed bc his cat didn't survive the pit bulls.

 

he is super mad and wants to report them to animal control in his hallterview.  The dog was in its own fenced in yard.

Angela Hunter...  this man didn't grasp he was responsible once the cat was out of his yard.

[meowmommy]

6 minutes ago, califred said:

The mans cat got out went into a fenced in yard (the dog owners have surveillance cameras ) and the cat owner was pissed bc his cat didn't survive the pit bulls.

he is super mad and wants to report them to animal control in his hallterview.  The dog was in its own fenced in yard.

Trying to un-read this...

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, califred said:

this man didn't grasp he was responsible once the cat was out of his yard.

This is why I don't watch cases with animals. I just know I'm going to get big-time pissed off and it's not good for my health.

[SRTouch]

1. bad car deal: geez, scary looking plaintiff says defendant sold her a vehicle he not only knew had problem, but tried to hide those problem and put a fake inspection sticker on the clunker. Not sure exactly what look plaintiff was going for, maybe trying to hang onto her youth, but her face looks like one of those bad botox/plastic surgery pictures, then the short dress, pink hair ribbon, yellow necklace. Defendant says she drove the thing for months, then when she complained he took back the vehicle and refunded a grand. Ah, but she says she paid $2800 plus a trade in clunker, then paid him hundreds when it broke down (he was her long time mechanic who just happened to have a vehicle for sale when her 97 whoopty bit the dust). Finally, after numerous problems with the junker, she takes it to get a second opinion. New mechanic says she was robbed, it's not only a pile of crap, but dangerous to drive. Then something about dude showing badges to intimidate her when she went to complain - not sure what that was as I went to get a cup of joe, but d8dn'the she claim he was her long time mechanic, so why would he be flashing a badge?  Evidently, the fake ID  got the cops involved, but by this time I was about over listening (and watching cockeyed plaintiff) so started jumping ahead. Evidently, she admits they negotiated and she accepted the grand and gave the vehicle and title back. She denies signing any sort of settlement, but defendant (who hadn't said anything yet) says she signed the settlement when she signed junker back to him. Time out while MM spanks dude for bringing a copy and not the original. Oops, now that dude is talking he gets on a roll as he tears apart plaintiff's story - her dates are wrong as evidenced by date on title, the signed document she claims not to have signed, yet MM says it's her signature, then a car fax with safety inspections on the vehicle going back years. Then, after settling and signing a settlement agreement saying the deal was closed, she continues to ask for more monry, eventually suing him. MM is not shy about telling plaintiff she doesn't believe her. Now the countersuite. After a big kerfuffle about not returning the rest of the purchase price, dude's vehicle is vandalized. Really no proof, and dude even says it was her bf, not her. So, no go on countersuite. Original suite is out for either of two reasons. 1, it was as is sale, so he really didn't have to return any money. 2, he did return a grand, as part of a settlement deal.
2. DJ wants to be paid $150 after working the event: plaintiff says he's still owed money after the party, but defendant says he did a terrible job, didn't play the requested music, and guests splint because music sucker big time. Surprise, plaintiff actually has a contract. Even before the event there's disagreement over money. Contract says payment due when he arrives, defendant says he'll be paid after the event based upon the money raised. Lots of dancing from defendant when MM asks why the money wasn't available as per contract. Case is over in my mind, defendant breached the contract from the get go, and ever since has been coming up with excuses as to why he doesn't pay as he agreed. Little aside: what's up with people throwing themselves a birthday party and then charging a fee to let people come in the door? According to DJ dude, there were over a hundred people waiting to get in the door and hour and a half after the party started. Anyway, MM continues to go through the motions to fill out the time, but figure the fat lady has sung her song and is out getting in her car to head to IHOP. WHOA, MM switches up on me and rules for the defendant, saying in his filing plaintiff pretty much admits he didn't play the music on the Playlist because he wasn't paid before the party, and he left early. Sooo, I guess both sides breached the contract, plaintiff received partial payment, but Defendant doeen'the have to pay in full.
3. possible tenant changes her mind and wants back deposit:  ah, the ever popular "I changed my mind" type case. Oh boy, plaintiff is shopping for an apartment on March 30, and wants it available April 1. On March 30 she gives defendant the deposit, yet continues to shop around and decides to take a different apartment the next day. On April 1st he receives a text saying she found a different place, so she wants the deposit.he says by that point he had taken it off the market and it was now too late to rent for the month of April, so no way does he refund the deposit. Now we're getting different versions as each side tries to convince judge their side is right. Defendant says tells her she has to pay April rent unless he finds a renter fast, but he'll refund the extra $350 (she had paid 1 month rent plus $350). MM says, yeah, that's all he owes since the apartment didn'the rent until May 1st. Defendant pays $350.

[Broderbits]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Not sure exactly what look plaintiff was going for, maybe trying to hang onto her youth, but her face looks like one of those bad botox/plastic surgery pictures, then the short dress, pink hair ribbon, yellow necklace

She looks like that hag, KelleyAnne Conway! Looks like 2 different people did her eye make-up, one for each eye, and both had vision problems.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bad car deal: geez, scary looking plaintiff

Honestly - were there auditions for a  remake of "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" going on? The too-short skirt, the tons of hair extensions and the pink bow weren't enough? Guess not, because Laura, who seemed to be on the wrong side of 60, not only lives with her mommy but needed 84-year old mom to buy her an old beater car. Heart-rending, it was, that her dearly departed Daddy's priceless heirloom to his darling daughter was some old '97 beat up POS van. He made her promise while he was on his deathbed that she would never EVER get rid of it. I'm sure def. would have done anything to get this loonytoon out of his life.

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

DJ wants to be paid $150 after working the event: 

This was so boring I kept zoning out. The only thing of interest to me (aside from the incredible length of the fake eyelashes on the def's witness) is that I was wondering how many people throw a huge birthday bash for themselves and charge money for those who wish to attend. He was charging money, wasn't he? I can't be sure. Is this something new? Clueless I am to the trends of the young and foolish.

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

possible tenant changes her mind and wants back deposit:

The plaintiff seemed so put-together, intelligent and well spoken. Therefore it was an unpleasant surprise to find out she's not only one of the Overly-Entitled, but seems to think there's something charming about that. No. No, there isn't.

[AZChristian]

45 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

This was so boring I kept zoning out. The only thing of interest to me (aside from the incredible length of the fake eyelashes on the def's witness) is that I was wondering how many people throw a huge birthday bash for themselves and charge money for those who wish to attend. He was charging money, wasn't he? I can't be sure. Is this something new? Clueless I am to the trends of the young and foolish.

These are the same type of people (and I've worked with some of them) who throw themselves an anniversary party and the invitation (e-mail, because it's free) includes a list of places they have gift registries.

And these folks were NOT young.  Just socially inept, apparently

[ElleMo]

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

These are the same type of people (and I've worked with some of them) who throw themselves an anniversary party and the invitation (e-mail, because it's free) includes a list of places they have gift registries.

And these folks were NOT young.  Just socially inept, apparently

[arejay]

Scary looking plaintiff looked like Baby Jane's Yorkie. I am going to hell.

[SRTouch]

1. they stole my glasses ?!  Dude takes off his glasses at the hair salon, then has a fit when nobody can find them after his hair cut. Hey, I totally get being upset - I have to put my glasses back on to see the mirror after my haircut, but this guy is pretty unreasonable. Anybody who has footed the bill for prescription glasses knows they ain't cheap, which is why I agreed with MM when she scolded him for putting them on a table. Way to much chance of somebody picking them up or knocking them off the table - doesn't have to be someone stealing them, could be granny left her glasses and tells 5yo kiddo to go get them, and he goes to the wrong table and grabs the wrong glasses. Now, in that scenario, I'd hope granny would have come back or called, but they could be reading glasses and it may be days before she realises she has someone else's and not even remember how she got this pair. Anyway, dude has a conniption fit, creates a major scene, then goes to yelp and Facebook and trashes the salon - to the point where MM says she would have ruled he slandered the salon had there been a countersuit. Actually, kind of funny how the self righteous plaintiff looked shocked when his case started going south. And, oh boy, as soon as you get caught saying one thing in your filing and having to admit you may not have remembered it right - well case closed. Here, plaintiff wrote online and in his filing that salon lost/stole his glasses, then left him to find him own way home half blind. Oops, defendant and his two witnesses all say they offered to call his wife, or even drive him so he could get home safely - and he admits that yeah, he sort of remembers the offer, but didn't want to leave his car and have to come back for it later. His parting shot in the hallterview was a whine about how he didn't have a chance to answer the "lies" from the defendants. Uh dude, by that time you had zero credibility, and besides, you would have lost based on your own testimony. Oh, and again, Doug Llewelyn cut right to the heart of the matter, when he opens with, "I have to say, you sounded very unreasonable...." heck, used to be I'd fast forward through the hallterviews, now they're sometimes the highlight of the case. Then dude says he checked with a lawyer and was told it wasn't slander. Hey, dude, no matter what you say you can find a lawyer willing to argue it wasn't slander. But, the lawyer isn't who decides if something is slanderous or not.
2. tenant suing his slumlord: plaintiff suing because his apartment is rodent infested and has a leaky roof. Ok, lots of times I think JJ jumps on the "JUST MOVE!!" too early, but this time landlord says she WANTS him gone, and he won't leave... not only that, she argues she fixed the leaky roof ASAP, and when she tried to send an exterminator for the mice dude wouldn't let them in. Ah, section 8 sometimes makes it hard to move - but they also serve as another resource to make a landlord maintain the property. As least here, the section 8 should be all over the landlord if he/she refused to fix the roof or do something about a mouse infestation.  And this guy is saying the roof leaked when he moved in, and leaked the whole 27 months he was there - uh not the way section 8 works 'round here. Ok, this guy is full of it, now the question is whether two ton momma landlord is really a slumlord. She says the first leaky roof complaint was in Sept, she put a temporary patch in Oct, but there was a delay getting a professional out because she was chasing the contractor who had recently put on a new roof (eventually she took him to court). In March complaint again, and she brought in a different contractor who put tar on the roof. (Not sure about this defendant - seems every time she's asked something she starts digging through her papers, but don't know if she finds the answer or if that's a stall technique.) Eventually, he complains again, she is told she needs a new roof, can't afford it so another patch job. So, instead of making needed repairs, she makes makeshift temporary repairs that last a short time, then fail. Hmmm, from the testimony everyone, including MM, is surprised section 8 is still paying rent on the leaking place if the guy us really making these complaints - and he does have paperwork showing multiple complaints of the leaky roof. Defendant's answer is section 8 wouldn't have paid if his complaints were justified, and MM says maybe they shouldn't have, but here's the paperwork where he repeatedly complained, they repeatedly inspected, and repeatedly fined the landlord for a leaky roof. Also, repeated requests to "'aMOVE!", but he's still waiting section 8 approval to move. Sounds like there may be a problem with section 8. Ok, I think we've established the leaky roof, but what about the damage claim. He wants $300 for ruined curtains, and shows a laughable picture of curtains nailed over the window. Then a little something, $20, for linens, and $35 a month for living in the apartment. Countersuit is for two months rent when he stopped paying his share because of the problems (he freely admits it, and even supplies the amount), her ridiculous claim that he should pay her fines when she failed inspections. Sort of surprising, after defendant is done she has managed to rehabilitate the plaintiff to the point I agree with MM when she let's him slide on the rent he withheld after living with a leaky roof for two years, and MM agrees to grant him the rent rebate he's asking for of $35 a month while he had the leaky roof. The real culprit seems to be a lazy so and so in section 8 who kept paying rent and hasn't let him transfer. Again, The highlight for me is when Doug calls Plaintiff out when she tries a cover up in the hallterview - "nah, lady, we saw the evidence, you were NOT prepared!" She even gets a little sheepish look when he calls he out.
3. 16yo truck blow up: didn't watch this one, except enough to know plaintiff wants $5,000 because his 16yo truck blew a head gasket after defendant worked on it. Sorry, dude, I too once had a beloved old truck - after a certain point you have to admit it'll cost more to fix than makes sense - unless of course your dieing daddy gave it to you on his deathbed - oh, wait, she junked daddy's truck and bought a replacement junker. Like I said, didn't watch case, but fast forwarded and defendant is first out of courtroom with plaintiff gets awarded $800 of the 5 grand he wanted. 

Edited February 2, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[patty1h]

Dumb Section 8 tenant asked for $300 for his "antique curtains".  Curtains?  Come on dude, you should have picked something more believable to be an antique.  I was totally entranced by his sateen gold pimp suit.   It looked straight out of the 80's and was probably more of an antique than his curtains.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Dumb Section 8 tenant asked for $300 for his "antique curtains".  Curtains?  Come on dude, you should have picked something more believable to be an antique.  I was totally entranced by his sateen gold pimp suit.

Getting his rent paid by strangers isn't enough. He wants a whole bunch of money to compensate him for the terrible, awful, inhuman conditions under which he's been forced, like a prisoner, to live (and still lives there!) It would take dynamite to get him out, as intolerable as the place is. I thought his outfit looked like gold lame lounging pyjamas. Antique curtains, nailed to the wall? Sorry, but some Walmart curtains your mother gave you back in 1994 aren't antique, worth 300$. They're just rags. Agree if he wanted to scam a few extra bucks he should have scraped something else. I must say, it's impressive how Sec8 workers are so very free and easy with other peoples' hard-earned money.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

they stole my glasses ?!

Hey, where did you get that little glasses thingy? "I love my staff!" Right? Here I thought he was wearing a toupee cut in the latest douchebag style that hasn't looked good since Julius Caesar. I see why his wife had such a sour expression. Was he chewing gum? If not I don't want to know what was going on with his mouth. Funny how the only thing he didn't remember was def. offering to drive him home. If he talked to a lawyer (which I doubt) who told him that publicly referring to anyone as a druggie, even with a (?) at the end isn't slander (actually liable)it must have been a lawyer he found on Craigslist. I must say, though, that def girl who thinks it's funny to lose your glasses needs a dressing down.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Like I said, didn't watch case, but fast forwarded and defendant is first out of courtroom with plaintiff gets arrested $800 of the 5 grand he wanted. 

I watched it, and frankly I was surprised that motor-mouthed plaintiff got even 800$, based on conjecture from some guy on the phone who says maybe, maybe not, I might, etc. 16 year old vehicles with nearly 200K miles on them have been known to break down, "Chinese parts" or not. Surprise! And if some idiot is willing to pour thousands of dollars into it, that's his perogative and his problem, but what do I know?

[meowmommy]

When I worked in the hospital, if a patient left their glasses/dentures/whatever on their dinner tray/in the bedsheets/anywhere and they were lost, somehow we were always to blame and we always got stuck having to replace them, regardless of age or condition or how they were lost.  Of course everyone thinks hospitals have huge reserves to pay for these things (they don't).  And that patients have no personal responsibility for anything.  (Which is why if they go home and choose not to comply with their medical regime and end up back in the hospital, it's also the hospital's fault.  But I digress.)

OTOH, I was surprised at how little these expensive glasses cost the plaintiff.  Even with insurance, they're usually way more expensive than he was asking for, and if he'd used insurance to pay for them, he would have to pay full price until his plan would let him get a new pair.

49 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Here I thought he was wearing a toupee cut in the latest douchebag style that hasn't looked good since Julius Caesar. I see why his wife had such a sour expression.

I thought he was channeling his inner Fred Armisen.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I thought he was channeling his inner Fred Armisen.

I had to look him up, but you are so right! The resemblance is uncanny.

Concerning the case: I understand how some lowlife might steal a pair of designer sunglasses, but plain, horn-rimmed prescription glasses I just don't get. Who on earth would want those?

[Broderbits]

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

 I was totally entranced by his sateen gold pimp suit.   It looked straight out of the 80's and was probably more of an antique than his curtains.

It actually looked like it was made from curtains!

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

It actually looked like it was made from curtains!

 

"I saw it in the window and I just couldn't resist."

[AngelaHunter]

I mentioned this show to my brother and he said he thinks TPC and JJ are fake, using actors with made-up stories. I told him no, because not even the best science fiction writers could come up with these whacky characters or their zany cases.

[NYGirl]

There are some court shows...I'm looking at you Judge Ross...that do use actors and fake stories.  You can read the disclaimer at the end.

But it's so obvious that it isn't even funny.  I laugh when I watch it..the litigants are so OTT

[AZChristian]

Look at it this way.  Judge Ross and the other "actor" shows have litigants without an abundance of face, neck and chest tats (with low-cut tops).  So it's possible to determine using this criteria.  If there are lots of tats that would keep actors from getting roles, THOSE litigants are real.  

[Eliza422]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I mentioned this show to my brother and he said he thinks TPC and JJ are fake, using actors with made-up stories. I told him no, because not even the best science fiction writers could come up with these whacky characters or their zany cases.

I don't think central casting has infinite numbers of slatterns and layabouts on their payroll...

[arejay]

"My husband is away" = "My husband is in jail".    Anyone else?

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, arejay said:

My husband is away" = "My husband is in jail".    Anyone else?

Or, "He had to go out of town." Urgent business trip, I guess. Oh, wait. He doesn't work.

55 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

There are some court shows...I'm looking at you Judge Ross...that do use actors and fake stories.

I caught "Divorce Court" once at someone's house (not my viewing choice) and the participants were so obviously actors - bad actors - it was laughable.

[SRTouch]

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I had to look him up, but you are so right! The resemblance is uncanny.

Concerning the case: I understand how some lowlife might steal a pair of designer sunglasses, but plain, horn-rimmed prescription glasses I just don't get. Who on earth would want those?

Why, klepto druggies of course. ? No, truth is some folks will steal pretty much anything. Years ago some yahoo broke my truck window, and all he stole was a 99 cent clock velcroed  to the dash.

[meowmommy]

50 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I caught "Divorce Court" once at someone's house (not my viewing choice) and the participants were so obviously actors - bad actors - it was laughable.

AFAIK, Divorce Court has never made a secret that they are reenactments using actors.

I don't think the litigants in TPC are actors, but I would not put it past any of these people to collude and make up a case so they can get on TeeVee and make a little scratch on the side.

It's a shame that the defendant in the first case today has no dishes, thus forcing her to plate her scrambled eggs on top of her head.

Edited February 2, 2017 by meowmommy

[SRTouch]

1. room rental case: plaintiff suing ex-tenant who trashed her home after renting a room. Ah, a cautionary tale for me, as I have a room for rent.

   8 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

   It's a shame that the defendant in the first case today has no dishes, thus forcing her to plate her scrambled eggs on top of her head.

   I just wanted them to kill the lights so I could see if her hair glows in the dark. Silly plaintiff sublets her spare bedroom, accepts partial payment, and let's new tenant move in before doing any sort of paperwork or back ground check. The room was rented as single occupancy, but this turns into a mom and her baby. Baby daddy stays overnight the first night, and other nights she's off working as a stripper and escort while brother is supposed to care for the baby. Problem is, bro is a terrible babysitter who leaves baby crying while he heads out to smoke. Plaintiff is upset with frequent quests, strangers coming in and out with keys to her place, leaving the doors open where her dog can get out, smoking etc. Kerfuffle where her husband (who is "away" - probably on some super secret government assignment) "has concerns". Defendant is there for a very short time, never finishes the paperwork for moving in or shows proof of employment, never finishes paying the first month's rent - hey, bad tenants can slip through, but this plaintiff essentially let a complete stranger move in with not even the simplest precautions. Now, smug little defendant gets a chance to talk while plaintiff looks for texts on her phone - before she finishes her first sentence I know I wouldn't want her around - course didn't really need her to say anything, her smug look and head bobs while plaintiff was talking pretty much made up my mind. Wow, I think she's the first to actually pick her nose on court TV. I'm thinking plaintiff was lucky to get rid of her, even if she caused damage and left owing rent - oh, and if MM asked if plaintiff was allowed by HER lease to sublet a room I missed it. And, another wow, defendant called 911 and was recorded telling the operator that if the cops didn't hurry and get there she was going to beat up plaintiff (called because of kerfuffle between plaintiff and defendant's witness/brother). Plaintiff has the tape, and in addition to the threat to beat the plaintiff there's some racist stuff on the tape for MM to spank little miss theatrics with. Hey, second act, after the 911 tape, plaintiff has video of the kerfuffle after the 911 call and before the cops get there. Video was mainly with bro, but catches their argument turn physical when he punches her. Unfortunately, by the time he does she has her hand on him keeping him off her, so it could be argued she touched him first, so no arrest. Well, the rent owed portion is over, defendant admits she never paid the rent, but feels justified in not paying because she left after 6 days. Ah, more laughs with the damage portion, but some harder questions about why, if plaintiff was legitimately concerned for the baby, she waited to report potential neglect until the tenants left. Ah, more nose picking. Anyway, plaintiff tiff wins, but of course not want she wanted. Can't belirve we wasted so much time on this case. Final question, maybe not politically correct, but I would not be too impressed with this girl at a strip club - not that I have a lot if strip club experience.

2. family drama: ah, this is where MM shines, MM just can't handle family fight cases. This time mom moves in with daughter, becomes fill time babysitter, kerfuffle, now daughter want granny to pay for the phone contract she took out for granny. Daughter says she was paying mom's bills, mom was NOT providing child care, but was living there with daughter and 7yo grandkid. Course granny has a totally different story. She says before she moved in, the 7yo had spent the previous summer at granny's place in Florida while mom was partying and getting in a wreck while drunk. Well, after a while mom comes down, too, but Panama City at granny's is booooring, so she moves to Orlando. Granny says mom asked her to move to Orlando to live with her and the kid so she could take care of the kid. So, granny gives up her 2 jobs to move in as full time babysitter, and asks for daughter to help with her bills since she lost her Panama City jobs. Now nobody is working, granny is the unpaid nanny while mom is living of lawsuit settlements and partying and taking trips - oh and mommy's live in bf is there leaching off that settlement money, too. Ah, this is why JJ banned cell cases. Lots of back and forth about the contract that really makes no sense, but actually happens when you have one of these rent to own phones and want to switch carriers. I zone out and fast forward through commercial and don't stop and rewind when the commercial ends. Guess granny loses, as she's first out, but I don't think even Doug can help this case, so just keep on zipping through to the end.

Edited February 2, 2017 by SRTouch
Posted before I was ready

[iwasish]

I thought someone sprayed silly string on her head.

[Brattinella]

Dang!  Anyone got a screen shot?