The People's Court - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

7 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I remember him laughing at the way Levin would stand on a box so as not to be such a shortass. Is there anyone who didn't love Judge Wapner?

Maybe Tom Cruise in Rain Man?

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Maybe Tom Cruise in Rain Man?

Hey, maybe Harv would let Tom stand on his box - aren't they both about the same height? ↕

[arejay]

Yeah, Sewing Lessons plaintiff would have made me stabby, too.  

[SRTouch]

1. sewing lessons or business investment: very iffy plaintiff who can't seem to get her facts together. As I understood her, she wanted to learn to sew, so bought a machine from defendant, and wanted defendant to teach her everything about the machine for $15 an hour. In early days, things are peachy, and while chatting defendant mentions she'd really like to rent space so she could set up a classroom and have people come to her instead of going to people's houses to have classes. Like I said, things are good, and plaintiff either loans the defendant money to set up classroom - or decides to go invest in a joint venture and pay for the classroom space, depending on version you want to believe. Hmmm both sides seem to agree part of the return for the $1400 plaintiff supplied was future class time - 15 bucks an hour sounds like that must be one heck of a complicated $145 sewing machine. After a couple more sessions, plaintiff says defendant started getting irritated at her and getting verbally abusive... could be true, after just a few minutes of her testimony I was ready to snap at her, and that's just listening, not trying to teach her to work a machine. Don't know what the heck the true relationship was, doesn't sound like someone paying for lessons or a partnership - more like plaintiff gave money to defendant then became her chauffeur and servant. Anyway a parting of the ways, and plaintiff wants her money back. MM's ruling makes everybody mad. She decides plaintiff paid in advance for almost 100 hours of lessons. As she says this plaintiff is making good faces and defendant trying to argue - case was boring but after 20 minutes I'm ROTFL when she says she's not Dr Phil, and this is a simple contract case. 
2. kicked out of sober living home: plaintiff gets out of hoosegow, and old friend let's him move in and manage a sober living house (back in the day they abused together, but both claim they've been sober for a long time guess plaintiff is now just a thug, not a substance abusing ingredients thug). After a year the old friend, the defendant, hears stuff he doesn't like about the way p is running things - accusations of scrimming, refusing to take mandatory drug screening, etc), fires him and brings in new manager. Problem is p gets in a huff and leaves stuff at the house which he says is missing. Best part of case is when MM finds out p is suing for the missing items even though d is letting him live in house rent free. Verdict for defendant - along with strong urging to evict the dude.
3. Dude suing paralegal who helped him find a lawyer:  whoa, first thought, they cleaned up homeless dude, gave him new duds, but couldn't get him to comb his hair. Well, maybe not homeless - he supposedly owns land in Jamaica, but I fast forwarded through the case when I couldn't make sense of the testimony even with closed captioning.

Edited February 27, 2017 by SRTouch
Spelling

[patty1h]

The plaintiff in the sewing machine case (Bonnie) seemed like a headache.  First, that she wants to learn to sew for therapeutic reasons makes her sound like she has a "problem" that she was working through, which is usually no fun for people who have to deal with those issues.  Then she says she called the defendant (Cindy) and demanded she come to her house and show her how to thread the machine - really control freaky.  This sounds like since she got the idea that since she "invested" with Cindy that she can boss her around.  Then her nitpicking about "abuse" she endured - a lot of tiny things like Cindy being critical of her driving, not helping her thread the machine, the way Cindy sighed "Bonnie!" when they were discussing returning some keys.  Talk about make a mountain out of a molehill.

Bonnie was wound tight and let out a rant of teenager-ish hurt feelings spewed  in the hall with Doug - yikes.  And what was going on with her mouth?

Edited February 27, 2017 by patty1h
Put in the right name for the plaintiff

[meowmommy]

36 minutes ago, patty1h said:

First, that she wants to learn to sew for therapeutic reasons makes her sound like she has a "problem" that she was working through

Cindy was wound tight and let out a rant of teenager-ish hurt feelings spewed  in the hall with Doug - yikes.  And what was going on with her mouth?

I think you're talking about Bonnie, the plaintiff.  And I noticed the same thing; it was as if her mouth was the only part of her face that worked, if you don't count the constant eyerolling.  I was thinking her face was heavily Botoxed.  And since when is it a sewing machine instructor's job to provide "therapy"?

TPC needs to create a fund to provide teeth to litigants, since so few of them seem to have any.

As soon as I saw defendant #3, I thought, "Gus Fring!  Where's my pollo hermano?"

Nothing on Judge Wapner.  Grrr.  

Edited February 27, 2017 by meowmommy

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

sewing lessons or business investment: very iffy plaintiff who can't seem to get her facts together.

Plaintiff was a little wacky, but def is dishonest and a user when she sees someone who can be used. Plaintiff thinks the world should be in touch with her feelings and her need for a theraputic outlet. Def says plaintiff (who doesn't even know how to thread a sewing machine) is her business partner and together they will give lessons. Anyway it comes down to plaintiff crying, "She was mean to me!" Sorry, but she's not your mother or your therapist and no one over the age of around 10 should be crying that anyone is mean to them. Def. is an opportunist who saw an easy mark and took it. The yammering in the hall? OMG, Doug just could not make her shut up or get rid of her!

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

kicked out of sober living home:

The nerve of some people. Plaintiff ("Hi, judge!" charged with assault and battery and who never saw fit to get some goddam teeth in the last 15 years) squats in the def's facility, paying nothing at all and has the hubris to sue him. See, the playstation, phone, etc in the pictures are some OTHER phone, playstation and Gucci jacket (Gee, I worked all my life and have no Gucci anything!) so def must have stolen his shit. Plaintiff? Get out. Now.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

TPC needs to create a fund to provide teeth to litigants, since so few of them seem to have any.

Let them buy their own teeth! Why should someone else pay for them? Anyone who can afford Gucci and upgraded I-Phones can buy his own choppers.

I couldn't understand what the elderly, dreadlocked Jamaican was yammering about, except that he was suing the wrong person. Def. merely gave him a name of a lawyer in Jamaica, so why should he have to pay when said lawyer screws up, or maybe lawyer didn't even screw up and plaintiff just had no legal claim to this land, since there is no paperwork of any kind? Yeah, I always send money to someone when I don't even know their name or address. What a waste of time, but I do admire JM's patience with this garbage.

Quote

Nothing on Judge Wapner.  Grrr.

There was a brief tribute, "In Loving Memory" at the beginning. It couldn't be any longer, since we needed to hear and see Levin, still with his face fungus. Levin would never give up one extra second of his screen time.

Edited February 27, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Pepper the Cat]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I think you're talking about Bonnie, the plaintiff.  And I noticed the same thing; it was as if her mouth was the only part of her face that worked, if you don't count the constant eyerolling.  I was thinking her face was heavily Botoxed.  And since when is it a sewing machine instructor's job to provide "therapy"?

TPC needs to create a fund to provide teeth to litigants, since so few of them seem to have any.

As soon as I saw defendant #3, I thought, "Gus Fring!  Where's my pollo hermano?"

Nothing on Judge Wapner.  Grrr.  

I saw a nice short memorium at the start of the show for Judge Wapner. 

[patty1h]

meowmommy, my local channel showed a tribute to Judge Wapner before the episode started.  It was a special screen - a shot of the title card saying "The People's Court" in black with gold letters.  Then they showed about 1 minute of clips from JW's past shows.   Maybe it was up to each individual station to air that clip.

Edited February 27, 2017 by patty1h

[Taeolas]

I saw the same In Memorium clip on the WBZ airing as well. They used the original TPC music as well for it. And a nice quote for both the show and the system it's based off of. 

That said, I hope they can do a longer memorial later on once they have more time to process it. 

[meowmommy]

45 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

There was a brief tribute, "In Loving Memory" at the beginning. It couldn't be any longer, since we needed to hear and see Levin, still with his face fungus. Levin would never give up one extra second of his screen time.

Maybe it was a local thing, because I didn't see that here.  I hope they do a tribute show with The Best of, hosted by (who else?) Doug.  Of course even the worst of Judge W would be better than the best Levin can put forth.

[califred]

It was on mine too!  I just started watching today's episode.

[Jamoche]

How dare the defendant charge a whole dollar to sew on a button! Well! Now we all know what kind of person she is! (The kind I could use for a half-dozen buttons on a coat.)

Yeah, if you're so baffled by your sewing machine that you can't RTFM to get the needle threaded, you need a much simpler form of therapy. I suggest banging your head against the wall. You might knock some sense into yourself, or knock yourself out. Either way, the people around you will be happier.

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

Yeah, if you're so baffled by your sewing machine that you can't RTFM to get the needle threaded, you need a much simpler form of therapy. I suggest banging your head against the wall. You might knock some sense into yourself, or knock yourself out. Either way, the people around you will be happier.

Okay, this made me burst out into weird laughter. I really needed that, since I can't find any strangers to give my money to in hopes that they'll really and truly care about my mental state.

[AKA...CJ86]

4 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Nothing on Judge Wapner.  Grrr.  

There was a quick "In Memory Of..." with a quick... again, really quick blink and you miss... montage of clips before the episode.  I missed the beginning of the first airing... and I always catch the later repeat, caught the repeat and saw it.

ETA:

Some my fellow PTV'ers already mentioned it.  Apologies.

Edited February 28, 2017 by CyberJawa1986
Edits and Stuff, Yo'!

[califred]

Why the Jamaican man thought he owned land or could sue someone he didn't pay is baffling.  I'm guessing he's upset he paid at all and things didn't go his way.

[AZChristian]

Just now, califred said:

Why the Jamaican man thought he owned land or could sue someone he didn't pay is baffling.  I'm guessing he's upset he paid at all and things didn't go his way.

And it sounds like he may have lost the property because he wasn't paying taxes on it.  I don't know about Jamaica, but here in the U. S. of A., once it's gone - it's GONE for good.

[maggiemae]

I just wish he would stop saying you have some documents to sign....it gets boring after the 11th time.

[teebax]

6 hours ago, Jamoche said:

How dare the defendant charge a whole dollar to sew on a button! Well! Now we all know what kind of person she is! (The kind I could use for a half-dozen buttons on a coat.)

Yeah, if you're so baffled by your sewing machine that you can't RTFM to get the needle threaded, you need a much simpler form of therapy. I suggest banging your head against the wall. You might knock some sense into yourself, or knock yourself out. Either way, the people around you will be happier.

Response of the day. Absolutely hilarious! 

[SRTouch]

23 minutes ago, maggiemae said:

I just wish he would stop saying you have some documents to sign....it gets boring after the 11th time.

Yeah, it does get sort of repetitious for us regular viewers. OTOH aparently, many of the litigants need someone to hand their hands as they navigate their way out of the courtrooms. I mean, idjits come out, see cameras on one side of the hallway, a dude standing there waiting with a microphone, and footprints painted on the floor... and they come out and stand on the footprints with their backs to the camera. I figure the reason Doug is standing there is so he can get them heading in the right direction, even then Douglas has to come back around and wave the really dimwitted folks around the corner .

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, Jamoche said:

 

Yeah, if you're so baffled by your sewing machine that you can't RTFM to get the needle threaded, you need a much simpler form of therapy. I suggest banging your head against the wall. You might knock some sense into yourself, or knock yourself out. Either way, the people around you will be happier.

Nah, what they need is a better manual. I read that and immediately thought of the origins of the Army PS Prevention Maintenance Monthly Manual. Seems back when so many folks were going into the military for the build up for WWII a dude by the name of Will Eisner got drafted. Yep one of the guys who made comic books and cartoons into popular art forms, ended up winning all kinds of awards, and has a prestigious Comic Award named after him. Anyway, every month, starting in the 50's up to and throughout my Army Career, we got pamphlet test every month with maintenance tips in the form of comic books (and it was mandatory that you kept a copy in the maintenance room). Don't know if they still have them, but think I'll ask my neighbor, an Army mechanic.

[maggiemae]

I suppose, but that was not necessary in the past.

[DoctorK]

SRTouch - http://dig.library.vcu.edu/cdm/search/collection/psm/searchterm/dope/field/all/mode/all/conn/and/order/title/ad/asc

I remember PS magazine, I had a summer job working for the Defense Printing Service which printed it in the late 60s. An ingenious (and often very funny) way to get critical information across.

[califred]

The People's Court Facebook page has a couple of clips of Judge Wapner.

[AngelaHunter]

Congratulations, Levin. I think you managed to scrape the true bottom of the barrel with the Storage Locker Caper.

We had plaintiff, who for some reason has had stuff in storage for 15 years. Listening to her speak was painful. Her "TVs" were missing. JM asks, "How many TVs?" "One." One is plural I guess. JM also couldn't take her "tookens" anymore and had to inform her that the word is "taken." She also had to ask her to lift a section of that horrendous raggedy-assed wig out her eyes. Still, plaintiff had eight pairs of Ugg boots, Louis Vuitton and Gucci bags - all miraculously totalling exactly 5K -  just stashed in her storage unit. She does have proof of that, but didn't bring it with her today. She could probably bring it next week.

Def is an unbelievably lowlife, low-rent Morticia Addams who, along with her "fiance" who didn't show up with her, is a thief and a liar. She just happened to have all plaintiff's belongings in her car and in her house (because plaintiff goes off and leaves her 5K of designer property and TVs in her unlocked unit) and is facing criminal charges. She didn't do anything wrong! She's a pillar of the community and was going to donate the bridesmaid's dress, etc. to charity and her fiance was going to destroy the TV(s) since that's his business. Honest, it's true! They were only in her house temporarily. Def is countersuing because she lost her job. She lost her job because she's a lowlife thief and liar, and whose fault is that? JM is disgusted with both and awards each of them zero.  I swear those two put me right off my dinner. I mean, I ate it but didn't enjoy it as I should have. I think I should sue someone.

Second case: Two dumb, silly little girls want to play grownup and rent an apartment together. I don't know what happened since as soon as I heard that def (a college student whose speech is littered with "Like like like" and who says "Me and her went") got a loan to buy a puppy mill, designer dog, I hit the "FF" button. I just don't get why landlords rent to such idiotic babies (and it seems that 21-year olds are babies who should never leave Mommy, these days) probably knowing they'll get burned. Only good thing I can say is that plaintiff didn't want to live with some dubious character picked up on Craigslist. Probably the only smart thing she said.

Alpaca Jacket ruined at the cleaners: Ho-hum case, with plaintiff complaining that her four-year old jacket that she had dry cleaned is not exactly the same as it was when brand new.

Edited February 28, 2017 by AngelaHunter
I spelled "Vuitton" wrong. I have no Vuitton bags plus I'm drunk.

[meowmommy]

38 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

We had plaintiff, who for some reason has had stuff in storage for 15 years. Listening to her speak was painful. Her "TVs" were missing. JM asks, "How many TVs?" "One." One is plural I guess. JM also couldn't take her "tookens" anymore and had to inform her that the word is "taken." She also had to ask her to lift a section of that horrendous raggedy-assed wig out her eyes. Still, plaintiff had eight pairs of Ugg boots, Louis Vuitton and Gucci bags - all miraculously totalling exactly 5K -  just stashed in her storage unit. She does have proof of that, but didn't bring it with her today. She could probably bring it next week.

Def is an unbelievably lowlife, low-rent Morticia Addams who, along with her "fiance" who didn't show up with her, is a thief and a liar. She just happened to have all plaintiff's belongings in her car and in her house (because plaintiff goes off and leaves her 5K of designer property and TVs in her unlocked unit) and is facing criminal charges. She didn't do anything wrong! She's a pillar of the community and was going to donate the bridesmaid's dress, etc. to charity and her fiance was going to destroy the TV(s) since that's his business. Honest, it's true! They were only in her house temporarily. Def is countersuing because she lost her job. She lost her job because she's a lowlife thief and liar, and whose fault is that? JM is disgusted with both and awards each of them zero.  I swear those two put me right off my dinner. I mean, I ate it but didn't enjoy it as I should have. I think I should sue someone.

Make sure you include $5K for pain and suffering.

MM is always in her element when she gets to draw on her prosecutor experience.  In the dictionary, next to the word chutzpah is a picture of Ms. Morticia.  Unless the plaintiff was in arrears on her storage unit payments, I'm completely baffled by defendant's defense that the door was unlocked so she just took what was in there.  Plaintiff comes to court dressed like a homeless person, but she's got Gucci.  Uh huh.  The kind you get for a couple of bucks from a street vendor.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I'm completely baffled by defendant's defense that the door was unlocked so she just took what was in there.  

Oh, btw, I forgot that def. had a bunch of expensive Nikes, totally 540$ -in her car.  She had just bought them for her "finance" (har har!) and plaintiff snatched those when she took back her own stuff (minus all the invisible Guccis). Apparently the cop told her she should have thought about that when she stole (it wasn't stealing!) plaintiff's crap. These two liars/hustlers/scammers really deserve each other. I truly hope def. goes to jail. She deserves to be punished just for her chutzpah alone.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Second case: Two dumb, silly little girls want to play grownup and rent an apartment together. I don't know what happened since as soon as I heard that def (a college student whose speech is littered with "Like like like" and who says "Me and her went") got a loan to buy a puppy mill, designer dog, I hit the "FF" button.

I am slogging through it.  The expression, "Too stupid to live," comes to my mind.  Actually, MM told them both they were too incompetent to cross the street on their own.  Starving college students and they have to take out loans to buy a dog when, as MM points out, Sarah McLachlan keeps tugging at the heartstrings for the ASPCA.  I wondered who the hell was extending them credit?  MM used her "I wouldn't believe either of you if your tongue came notarized," so I thought she would throw them both out, but she gave the plaintiff $800 plus the payoff amount on the dog.

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 0:47 AM, maggiemae said:

I just wish he would stop saying you have some documents to sign....it gets boring after the 11th time.

It's just a very polite way of saying, "Please leave now. Go."

[DoctorK]

Oh my, did my eyes deceive me? Did the first case landlord defendant, before the case started, really take a crumpled (and apparently used) kleenex out of her purse, blow her nose into it, and then stuff it back into her purse?

P.S. Also please give your daughter some desperately needed advice on choosing her clothes, especially for a court (more or less) appearance. Thank goodness she didn't sit down while on camera.

Edited March 1, 2017 by DoctorK
add shallow fashion comment

[SRTouch]

1. tenant vs former landlord: preview clips show MM repeatedly telling defendant landlord to "stop... Stop... STOP!" as she continually interrupts plaintiff's testimony. Ah, how I hate loud rude people, and love to see them shut down in court (something JJ excels at). And WTF did defendant's witness think they were going? Looks like she has on a sweater and forgot her pants... hey, I'm  a guy, and I like sexy young women in sexy outfits, but this girl in a too-tight, short clingy outfit should not be in court dressed like that... or anywhere else for that matter, at least until she loses a few pounds. Big plus-sized girls can look sexy as hell... but not in too tight clingy outfits that show emphasize fat - at least not sexy to me, but guess there's all kinds of tastes. Watch the angle, camera dudes, no way she can sit without major up skirt displays. And, why is she even here? She didn't say anything. On to case - tenant lived in place for a year before landlord bought the place. At the time, he was on month to month basis. Once she took over, she wants to raise the rent and for him to sign a lease. He refuses to sign the lease because he's had bad experiences with upstairs neighbor's being noisy on uninsulated hardwood flooring, so he decides to move out after being there for 3 years (with wife, kid and dog). Problem is he never goes through the right process, giving notice and everything, just verbally. It's easy to see the problem, both these litigants are going to say and do what's in their heads, and the rest of us have to make allowances. Already mentioned the problem MM had with defendant, now she is repeatedly asking plaintiff when he gave notice and he keeps on with what he wants to say instead of answering, and he isn't shy about trying to talk over MM. Actually, his picture show place in reasonable shape, but admits carpet was ripped and smelled of wet dog - but hey he lived there three years and this doesn't look like expensive carpet when new. Sooo... never really gave notice and carpet needs replacing. How much should he be on the hook for? And how does landlord expect to keep the $2600 deposit, plus get additional $3000 (their state max) in a countersuit? Apparently, she's hung up on the no notice and wants multiple month's rest even though he never signed a lease and was month to month. (Oh, and now that she gets to talk I learn she's a loud lady with an accent, so maybe not so rude - but still loud and annoying and gives me a headache.) Of course, come to find out she wants him to share the reno cost as she went in and put in hardwood floors, painted everywhere, new stove, etc. Yeah, he has to pay for any damage above normal wear and tear, but not renovate the place. Rough justice time - plaintiff gets nothing - defendant gets $685.
2. loan non-payment: plaintiff says he loaned $200 to defendant, the son of a long time friend, to pay back storage unit fees, and hasn't been repaid. Ah, storage units - I rented them a couple times during my Army career, but learned it was a waste as I ended up paying more in rent than my junk was worth. First thought, another ungrateful kid not accepting adult responsibilities. Ah, but the "friend" and plaintiff were once a couple, and mom is is court to say it only became a loan when she rebuffed his advances, and that he even threatened to show her kids nasty pictures of her. Not only does he look bad there, but even if the dirty picture thing is a lie, by his own testimony he's suing the wrong person. He says loaned her money, but sent it in the son's name. At best, as MM says, he would sue both, but instead his lawsuit is against the son, not the mom who he says promised to pay back the money. Mom says, it was originally a gift, but she promises to repay when he wanted it back when she rebuffed him. Then, when he threatened to show the pictures, she withdrew the repayment offer (probably suggested he perform a few impossible physical acts on himself). I find the whole thing disgusting, only one who might be okay is defendant, who looks neat and presentable and doesn't say enough to make me dislike him. MM decides to end things when big bad mama puts her hand on her hip and starts talking to plaintiff directly, telling him to "Bring it!" So, judge tells him he's suing the wrong person. In a nice move, she dismisses case against son, and convinces mom to let her decide if it was a loan or gift, then wham, it was a loan, pay the man. Another case that I wonder just how serious they were... I think they were just here scamming for the money. I have a friend who was on Springer a couple times, and this played out like the scripts choices they sent him to choose from.
3. no good deed... etc etc:  story is plaintiff got evicted, and defendant let him sleep on the couch. After a couple nights, defendant's roomie/mom wanted him gone, so he left, leaving behind some of his stuff. Well, stuff went missing, plaintiff wants defendant to buy new stuff because she didn't secure it. Plaintiff is unemployed 22 who apparently sits around playing video games expecting others to feed and house him, and eventually he wants to go back to school. Defendant apparently is just a nice person who works at a video store, met him when he was 19, and was someone he hit up for a place to sleep. Thing is her life is pretty much a mess, too. Apparently, she lives with her mom and her kid, and let's gamers/homeless dudes she meets at work come bunk on the couch. Mom is also a mess, and attempts to suicide. Another gamer/store acquaintance/homeless couch surfer, Steve, comes over to offer morale support when mom attempts suicide, and then ends up ripping her off during the night when she let's him sleep on the couch - not only stealing her stuff, but some of plaintiff's stuff that he left behind filling two closets or maybe piled in the living room. Good grief, where do these people come from? No police report, no evidence of a rip off, nothing to show the mysterious Steve ever visited, heck, nothing showing these games even exist. Case dismissed... sad case, especially when you think about the defendant's daughter growing up surrounded by these people.

Edited March 1, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[arejay]

Today's parade of crazies.....Yikes!

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

1. tenant vs former landlord: preview clips show MM repeatedly telling defendant landlord to "stop... Stop... STOP!" as she continually interrupts plaintiff's testimony. Ah, how I hate loud rude people, and love to see them shut down in court (something JJ excels at). And WTF did defendant's witness think they were going? Looks like she has on a sweater and forgot her pants... hey, I'm  a guy, and I like sex you women in sexy outfits, but this girl in a too-tight, short clingy outfit should not be in court dressed like that... or anywhere else for that matter, at least until she loses a few pounds. Watch the angle, camera dudes, no way she can sit without major up skirt displays.

OMG, I thought I had thunder thighs...not on the worst day I ever had would I have ever worn something like that.  I'm not a guy, but I can't imagine that outfit on that girl could ever be considered sexy.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

And WTF did defendant's witness think they were going? Looks like she has on a sweater and forgot her pants...

OMG. I actually to pause and look at her. Holy... that short sweater thing she was wearing? At least 5 sizes too small - so tight it showed her belly button in horrifying relief. Unreal. Defendant seemed to be physically unable to shut up. I'm glad JM gave her a tongue-lashing, for all the good it did. Awful, awful people on both sides. Plaintiff was asked at least 6 times when he gave notice he was moving but refused to answer. He also seems to have a limited vocabulary, since the only word he knows for "urinated" is "pissed." Classy!

Levin? "That's what you get for cutting the rug." Not only are your jokes dumb, but they're even older than you are and not one - especially not your gaggle of idiots outside - gets them.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

plaintiff says he loaned $200 to defendant, the son of a long time friend,

Another one for the "unreal" category. Defendant was a foul-mouthed, loud, ignorant ghastly beast who didn't seem to know where she was. I don't even want to think about her nude pictures. She announces that she has  a new car and plaintiff (try keeping your tongue in your mouth. Ugh!) rides a bicycle, yet she had to scrounge 200$ from him? Not sure why that makes her feel superior.  Maybe she should have asked her sonny-boy for the measly 200$?

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

no good deed... etc etc: 

Where, oh where was this bunch of misfits dredged up? I know we see this kind of thing all the time, but I don't get it. Plaintiff has never worked in his life, ends up couch-surfing and living in shelters, yet somehow has 30 video games, a playstation and a cellphone. I really need to find out the secret, so I too can have every toy I want when I have no money at all. I don't know who took/stole/sold what, and I was so appalled at these people (def. has a child??) I really don't care.

Edited March 1, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1. And WTF did defendant's witness think they were going? Looks like she has on a sweater and forgot her pants...

The above comments are perfect in describing the witness but when I saw the dark boots and chunky thighs rubbing together I immediately went into "Angela mode" and thought about the time and effort said witness put into choosing that get-up.  How much planning do you think when into the creation of that ensemble? 

Did she map out the particulars in a journal?  Did she create a flowchart?  How many hours surfing on the internet for just the right combination of pleather, shiny L'eggs hose and a polyester sweater that hugged her enormous butt?  Couple that with all the people she notified to let them know that she'd be on TEEVEE and to watch her debut. 

And the real kick in the head is that after all that planning and strategizing....she still forgot her pants!

Edited March 1, 2017 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I immediately went into "Angela mode" and thought about the time and effort said witness put into choosing that get-up. 

Are you "disrespecting" me? But now that you mention it, yeah, def's daughter must have put that thing on, looked in the mirror and thought, "Oh, yeah. This is just the outfit to adequately display my considerable charms for national TeeVee. Maybe I'll get my own reality show!" The mind, it boggles.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Are you "disrespecting" me? But now that you mention it, yeah, def's daughter must have put that thing on, looked in the mirror and thought, "Oh, yeah. This is just the outfit to adequately display my considerable charms for national TeeVee. Maybe I'll get my own reality show!" The mind, it boggles.

LOL!!  Never...I meant me.  Remember my name is Angela.

And the funny thing is I thought about that when I was setting the table and thought maybe I should come back and clarify things...then, I poured the wine and the rest is history.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

...then, I poured the wine and the rest is history.

Okay, I just have to make this disclaimer: If there are errors in my posts it's because I generously pour the wine while watching this show, which seems to be the only way I can get through it these days.  Glad to hear you weren't disrespecting me. Otherwise, I may have had to challenge you to fight me.

Edited March 1, 2017 by AngelaHunter
Hmm..wine errors. Again.

[meowmommy]

15 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, I just have to make this disclaimer: If there are errors in my posts it's because I generously pour the wine while watching this show, which seems to be the only way I can get through it these days.  Glad to hear you weren't disrespecting me. Otherwise, I may have had to challenge you to fight me.

I'm buying the popcorn for the PPV!

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Another one for the "unreal" category. Defendant was a foul-mouthed, loud, ignorant ghastly beast who didn't seem to know where she was. I don't even want to think about her nude pictures. She announces that she has  a new car and plaintiff (try keeping your tongue in your mouth. Ugh!) rides a bicycle, yet she had to scrounge 200$ from him? Not sure why that makes her feel superior.  Maybe she should have asked her sonny-boy for the measly 200$?

If this case was real, I just can't imagine any mother saying the things she said with her son standing right next to her.  My mother would have died if she weren't dead already.

[Broderbits]

33 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

If this case was real, I just can't imagine any mother saying the things she said with her son standing right next to her.  My mother would have died if she weren't dead already.

Those of us with sons need to keep this piece of video handy in case we are ever accused of being inappropriate; that woman was the Queen of Inappropriate. The poor guy kept looking at the floor, probably wishing for a hole to open up and swallow him.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

If this case was real, I just can't imagine any mother saying the things she said with her son standing right next to her.  My mother would have died if she weren't dead already.

Mine too. I don't know what all the bleeped words spewing out of her like vomit were (I have a feeling those words are the only way she knows to express herself. I was shocked JM let it pass) but I'm just glad we didn't have to hear them. And oh - I didn't believe for a minute plaintiff sneakily took pics of her while she was sleeping in the nude. I'm sure she posed in ways that would shock the internet porn community. Shit, now I just grossed myself out.

Edited March 2, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[califred]

I watched the episodes but missed the sweater "dress" will go find it on YouTube!

[califred]

Oh my another couple of inches of fabric would have been beneficial.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Oh my another couple of inches of fabric would have been beneficial.

Oh my another couple of feet of fabric would have been beneficial. Fixed it for you.

[AZChristian]

Sometimes I want to walk up to total strangers who are in VERY tight clothes, give them a look of wide-eyed grandmotherly innocence, smile and say, "Wow.  So you're an 'inney.'  What a coincidence.  So am I."

[califred]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Sometimes I want to walk up to total strangers who are in VERY tight clothes, give them a look of wide-eyed grandmotherly innocence, smile and say, "Wow.  So you're an 'inney.'  What a coincidence.  So am I."

Omg I'd die laughing if I were with you when you did that ?

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Oh my another couple of feet of fabric would have been beneficial. Fixed it for you.

Heh. I was  going to say yards.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Glad to hear you weren't disrespecting me. Otherwise, I may have had to challenge you to fight me.

LOL.

How many kerfuffles that we see on these court shows do you suppose started with a challenge? 

Word on the street is that a large segment of the litigation population likes to bicker-backer.

[SRTouch]

1. bad breakup: age old story - dude gets caught cheating, gf trashes his stuff while kicking him out. Only thing new from the olden days, now instead of the cheater slinking off in disgrace, they come on Court TV and tell the world what scuzballs they are, and want somebody to pay for their crap - and of course, everybody deserves something extra for emotional distress and/or pain and suffering. Oh, dude, if you're going to cheat figure out how to hide stuff on your phone. These two weren't living together, but were exclusive (at least she thought so) and knew each other's phone passwords. So, he has a history of cheating and leaves his phone where she can snoop - she snoops - finds suspicious text from "Kevin" - dials up "Kevin" - some girl answers "Hi Honey" - busted big time and MM lets America know what she thinks of his "talking to" sexy sounding "Kevin" - big kerfuffle. (Hmmm, I wonder if "talking" with someone can cause pregnancy like "conversating" does? I'm wondering because I obviously got the abridged birds and bees talk as a lot of babies are arriving with no one ever dating or being in a relationship.) She gives him five minutes to get any of his stuff out of her house (remember he doesn't live there) and sends him packing. After he leaves she collects a couple bags of his crap and throws it out, telling him if he wants it he can dumpster dive. Now he wants $2300 for all the valuable stuff he supposedly lost, or she decided to keep. Ok, she's legally wrong for trashing the crap, but I'm on her side and hope MM makes dude prove every bit of value for any award damage. Problem is she's not shy about stating she trashed the stuff, and sent a text saying she was going to take a hammer to his play station. Like I said, she's not the least bit shy about it, he doesn't have the texts, but she's happy to provide them - shy? Heck she's proud of her actions! MM is a lot more generous than I would have been - guess she is more concerned with the legality - and awards cheater dude (who BTW was sending laughing emotes during the text war to egg her on) $1500.
2. busted dream of Web based business: right off reminds me of the Big Bang episode where the brainiacs help Penny sell craft online - but in this version Fat Albert has swallowed the four geniuses. Plaintiff hires defendant to set up a site for her. Defendant says he told her it would be a 6-8 week process, and while he would help design and make the links work, there was information and steps she had to provide. Once again, what should be simple contract case... so where's the contract. Holes in everybody's evidence, lots of flapping gums but not a lot of sense being made. My favorite was plaintiff saying when I called no one answered, and then they told me... ok I know she didn't say they never answered, but it struck me funny. Anyway, plaintiff paid $250 deposit without a clear understanding of what dude was going to dude and now wants more than she paid refunded. Dude countersuit because he says he did work for which she never paid. Again, where's the contract, there's a mix of text and verbal correspondence, but no comprehensive record of what was asked for and provided (or not provided, as the case may be). Dude may be a great graphic/Web designer, but is lousy businessman and sounds a lot like a scammer. Plaintiff is unrealistic, and even in court when asked what she wants to sell she answers she sells any and everything that is an accessory. She's already gotten a partial refund, is just out the $250 deposit, but she wants more. She admits getting something back from her credit card company, admits he did the work, admits he sent he some product, but she wants to keep what he sent, keep the refund, and wants back the deposit? Nobody gets anything, though it sounded like MM though dude had a case for fighting the refund that wasn't part of his countersuit. I was left with feeling this was just free PR  for the girl, though she didn't get her url on air, but she got to say her business name out there.
3. tow case: plaintiff suing because he parked in a permitted area without a permit and got towed. He's arguing something about the tow company not following required procedures. Course the tow dude says he did follow procedure, was called by property owner, went through police as required, and towed the car. Offhand, I can only remember one time where car owner had a case, and that time the case would have been against the cops not the tow company. Have to sort of feel for the plaintiff. He had a permit for his car in the public housing complex lot, but was driving an unpermitted loaner while his was in the shop. So, not much money, he has a repair bill, and now a tow charge on top of that. But, like MM immediately points out, he could have gotten a temporary permit. Tow guy was just doing his job - for which he has all the evidence proving he was hired to do. In sort of a twist for this case, apparently there's a second company in the area with a similar name. So, plaintiff went after the other, even taking them to court in the past, but this company apparently follows the rules - just similar name. Plaintiff is out of gas in this case, dismissed.

Edited March 3, 2017 by SRTouch
"Not" not "no"

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

age old story - dude gets caught cheating,

OMG - Trash City. Def. is a 43-year old woman who carries on like a bitchy high school girl, going into fits of jealousy and destroying propery. I'm sure that otherwise she's a fine example for her 17-year old daughter. Lady, I suggest you find someone your own age to play with and not a 25 year old (which he was when he became her toy boy). I don't get why JM was so hard on him. He's single (and we know there are hordes of desperate women who would think he's a prize, believe it or not). Def. is just his way over-aged girlfriend and he can find someone else if he wants to.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

busted dream of Web based business:

What a relief this case was. Both litigants  acted like civilized human beings, spoke properly, didn't scream or curse and didn't end up in physical altercations or busting up each other's stuff. Plaintiff is 21 years old and thinks she knows everything. That's totally normal - didn't we all at that age? -  and she'll learn about the dealings of the business world as she goes on. Def. seemed like a really nice guy who didn't understand how he was expected to create a website for her to sell her stuff when she never sent him pictures of her stuff. "I should have," she admits. Anyway, even though neither got anything,  this case was such a nice change of pace from the usual.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tow case: plaintiff suing because he parked in a permitted area without a permit and got towed.

Is public housing like Sec8? Not sure why I ask since I really don't understand how that  works. Anyway, plaintiff seems to want to supplement whatever his income is by suing tow companies. Yes, he was parked illegally since his loaner had no permit, but the tow company should have somehow divined that was his car and not towed it. It's not up to him to make sure he has some sort of permit in the car that he parked there, knowing full well he had no permit. He might be better off pawning that ton of gold hanging around his neck if he needs extra $$. Loved that Doug mentioned the bling. I love Doug.