The People's Court - General Discussion

AngelaHunter · April 25, 2017

13 minutes ago, Eliza422 said:

And had less personality than a mollusk

Having had a mollusk (a large apple snail to be exact) that did have personality, I have to concur with that opinion.

SRTouch · April 25, 2017

"A fool and her money are soon parted..." except this fool had to borrow the money to loan her "friend", since said friend couldn't pay her rent. To make matters even more absurd, they met at the hoosegow while visiting jailbirds. Oh, and they had only known each other a couple months when plaintiff borrowed money from her boss to give to defendant to save her from eviction - in fact, according to defendant, plaintiff didn't even know her name when she withdrew the first loan from the bank. Defendant's defense is the money exchange was never a loan, but instead was a gift since they were such good friends and exchanged rides to the big house. My guess is that plaintiff has "SUCKER!!!" tattooed on her forehead - hence the bangs. Geez, all I can think when defendant tries to explain away her signature is "REALLY, couldn't she come up with a story that makes a LITTLE sense?" Who knows, maybe the crazy story is true, as it makes as much sense as plaintiff loaning a grand to someone she doesn't know. Ah well, neither story makes any sense to me, plaintiff's case is purely circumstantial (no texts, nothing in writing except a signature with no IOU spelled out) so it hinges on credibility, and I don't find anybody all that credible. Then plaintiff's evidence showing her boss loaning her money to loan defendant is wocky. Why oh why present evidence that doesn't match your testimony and then try to say the evidence is wrong when the judge catches the discrepancy!? Guess it goes back to expecting judges to just accept what you're saying rather than reading the evidence you provide. I lean towards it being a loan, but not enough to order defendant to pay. MM sort of agrees, but decides to award plaintiff $365, the amount both sides agree was given, but not the additional $700 for which there is no evidence.
exes battle over the cable bill: these two have a son in common. Plaintiff says he agreed to put defendant's cable in his name, but she was supposed to pay. Says she paid the first few months, but then stopped paying. Defendant says dude hooked her up with cable so his son could use it, but has now remarried and is a deadbeat dad who doesn't even pay child support. Huh, didn't dude say the kid is 3yo - does he really need cable. And if kid is 3 now, he was only 2 during the period cable was on. I know, silly question, of course he needs cable, cable is probably her cheap babysitter. Really, though I now have satellite, for less than 1 month's cable bill they could get an antenna and probably get something on the tube. Even here, relatively small town with closest broadcast 30 miles away, I can get a dozen channels, including the three major networks and fox. In fact, when I tried out an antenna I received multiple PBS channels, and a couple channels devoted to kids' programming. Nah, right off the bat I'm leaning towards self help child support. If she's right about him not paying she needs to follow the rules and go through the courts, not self help. She really doesn't have a defense - she admits she was supposed to pay, admits not paying, with the excuse he isn't paying the court ordered support. Paints dude in a very bad light, and if true I'm hoping MM finds a way to limit the award when she loses. Hmmm, part of his damages is claim for lost work - not likely - and maybe only partial award for the actual bill - after all, his son did benefit from the cable, and he could have mitigated the damages by just paying the bill then pursuing her in small claims for the money. Doesn't really matter, though, as her defense crumbles on other fronts. First off, legally dude is not way behind on support because all this cable kerfuffle happened before he was ordered to pay. Second, part of the cable charges are because she moved and left equipment behind - even if the equipment is outdated crap that the provider is going to scrap, they're going to charge like it's the latest greatest stuff out there. She doesn't have a defense and MM tosses ridiculous lost wage claim, but awards full cable bill.
potential tenant wants back deposit: plaintiff made a deposit on place that her uncle was going to move into in a couple months. Uncle decided to move elsewhere, but she figures since defendant never supplied a lease defendant breached the contract, so wants the money back. Uh, why put down a deposit without a lease, especially a rental security where deposit are usually nonrefundable? Why, so he'd hold the place? Duh, isn't the reason those deposits are nonrefundable because landlord pulls the place off the market and gives up potentially renters. Course defendant has different story, but the biggy is that he only received notice they were not moving in 2 weeks before move in date. He says he was willing to give a partial refund, but plaintiff, her mommy, daddy, and her whole family kept calling demanding full refund, so he decided to keep it all. Now she's in court not only asking for full refund, but an extra $500 because she needed the refund to pay her bills, so she was late paying her bills. Hmmm, sounds like defendant dodged a bullet not renting to her, and turns out he decided to just sell instead of renting after this silliness. His biggest problem seems to be he and his wife were not on the same page, wife was "No problemo, course you can have deposit back!" And he wanted to keep part of it since he took it off the market for a month, and when she and her family demanded it all back he dug in his heels. If we leave out the wife's FB message, where she said plaintiff could get a refund, plaintiff loses. But.... does that message obligate defendant to return the money, and if it does, does she get the extra $500 because she relied on the promise to return the deposit when budgeting her bills? Nope, MM says he had no obligation to refund anything. So, even though wife said she'd get a refund, even though he initially offered partial refund, the laws says: nope, pound sand, no refund.

AngelaHunter · April 25, 2017

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

"A fool and her money are soon parted..."

JM, in essence: "I wouldn't brag about being a damned fool if I were you."

This case started off being so heartwarming: Plaintiff's criminal son and def's criminal hubby bonded in prison, so of course plaintiff thought she should start showering the amoral, grifting, giant hambeast (known as "Chelle") def with money. She has a big heart! That's just the kind of person she is! She does have video evidence of what she's claiming about the $700, but well - not with her. JM should just run down to her place of employment and ask the boss to show it to her. Okay, sure. Def wasn't even IN "the state of Buffalo" when this so-called loan occured. The way some people live their lives, honestly.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

exes battle over the cable bill:

The usual: Boyfriend/girlfriend play house, say, "Wouldn't it be fun to have a baby? You can be the daddy and I'll be the mommy and it will be so great! Let's hurry up and squirt out a kid while our parents are still young enough to take care of us/it!" Who knew that DirecTV is a necessity for a three-year old? I'm sure Mommy rarely watched it. Boring and dreary they were, as are all these playing-house idiots.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

potential tenant wants back deposit:

The nerve of the plaintiff! The very vocal plaintiff rents this place for her uncle, who mysteriously feels later that he needs to get out of town and can't move in (this is decided a couple weeks before the move-in date), so she expects the landlord to just eat a month's rent, She has her mommy and daddy phoning and harassing him, to demand the desposit back. Plaintiff feels she shouldn't have to adhere to the rules everyone else has to follow and it seems that even at her age, she doesn't know the meaning of a deposit. Sorry. Wrong, although in the hall she states she still feels she's right. Landlord didn't have to give her a cent or even promise to do so. Take a hike, shorty.

SRTouch · April 26, 2017

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The very vocal plaintiff rents this place for her uncle, who mysteriously feels later that he needs to get out of town and can't move in (this is decided a couple weeks before the move-in date), so she expects the landlord to just eat a month's rent, She has her mommy and daddy phoning and harassing him, to demand the desposit back. Plaintiff feels she shouldn't have to adhere to the rules everyone else has to follow and it seems that even at her age, she doesn't know the meaning of a deposit. Sorry. Wrong, although in the hall she states she still feels she's right. Landlord didn't have to give her a cent or even promise to do so. Take a hike, shorty.

Noticed she brought along the next generation. Guess she wanted to daughter to watch the judge rule in her favor - since her family should be able to just ignore the rules the rest of the world follows when renting a place. Didn't work as expected, though.

patty1h · April 26, 2017

You ever see a couple and you tilt your head and wonder "how did THEY get together?". That's how I felt during the case of couple suing the son for a loan for his bachelor party/wedding. He looked like the type you have to pry a conversation out of and she seemed perky and verbal. He looked stoic and moody and she looked bubbly and personable. I presume that their relationship may be factored on OTHER things (wink wink nudge nudge).

AngelaHunter · April 26, 2017

The first case, with the piles of utter junk left in former boyfriend's garage: I always find it interesting when we see the old and new squeeze. Seems obvious that Karen does have a "type".

JM to Karen: "So you just left him all the stuff (piles of useless junk) that you didn't care about anymore?"

Karen (who appeared to have had her very long ringlets freshly dyed and curled. Ladies, don't do the ringlets. Just don't.): "Yes."

26 minutes ago, patty1h said:

You ever see a couple and you tilt your head and wonder "how did THEY get together?". That's how I felt during the case of couple suing the son for a loan for his bachelor party/wedding.

What I focused on was this woman taking two thousand dollars from her child's college fund to give it to the def so he could get some lap dances and who knows what else in Vegas, where he felt the need to go for a bachelor party. Sure, I'd do that! JM seemed to take great joy in reading those disgusting, stupid FB posts.

The last case: I nearly had to turn this off. Plaintiff, who gets 3 DUIs (but doesn't feel he has a drinking problem), can't get insurance so commits insurance fraud because of course his license is suspended, seemed drunk even here. He keeps getting arrested and thrown in the slammer so asks def. to pay his insurance with his benefit card since he had to register the car in her name even though she's homeless. Can you pay insurance with food stamps? If def was going to siphon off money from his benefit card, she should have taken the opportunity to get some bottom teeth. I really wanted to hear from plaintiff's witness, Shaka Zulu.

SRTouch · April 26, 2017

exes battle over garage of crap: plaintiff claims ex gf moved out and left a bunch of stuff in his garage. Sooo... after three years he decides to charge her storage fees and rent a dumpster to haul it away. Defendant says, hold on, that junk is still there because ex bf was an a$$ and refused to let her come and get it. Now, she's moved on, but dummy is still hung on on the past and is suing her after 3 years cause he wants her (she brought latest squeeze to court to rub it in plaintiff's face that he's yesterday's news). Ok, I'm old fashioned enough that I have a pretty low opinion of both sides as plaintiff tells his story. Apparently, back when these two were a couple, her then marriage was on the rocks and she was going through a divorce. Due to the divorce, her house was being sold, so she was looking to hold a garage sale and downsize. Her soon-to-be ex husband wanted some of his things she was selling, so got the cops to shut down the garage sale. Instead of letting dude claim his stuff, today's litigants move the stuff to plaintiff's place and plan another garage sale. Lots of folks have messy divorces, and we don't KNOW that plaintiff and defendant had an affair resulting in a wrecked marriage, but like I said, I'm old fashioned enough to frown on the way they acted. Anyway, junk gets hidden from ex hubby and the planned sale never happens because they don't want him showing up to make a scene. Geez, why not let the dude have the crap instead of having the garage packed full for years? Part of plaintiff's claim is that he wants $500 to trash it - ever think of calling ex hubby and let him pick up whatever they were hiding? Heck, some of that crap is the kid's toys, bikes, etc - could be prized childhood memories (not to mention old toys can sometimes be worth money). Couple years go by, garage still full of junk when plaintiff catches defendant cheating, they break up. Now he wants the stuff gone, but she has a never ending list of excuses why she can't move it out - her version is he refused to let her get it. He says he sends her a text telling her remove the crap or pay $25 a week storage - no reply. Uh, dude that doesn't sound like an enforceable contract - and you're suing for $1500 in storage fees? MM is asking why he didn't just set a deadline, get the crap out or it will be considered abandoned and hauled to the dump. Finally defendant tells her side - which makes as little sense as his. Their breakup was caused by his "jealousy issues" but she never cheated on him. (Well, whether these two had an affair which ended her marriage or not, they sure hooked up fast to conspire against her hubby. Her body language as she protests she wasn't cheating, and the way she brought up HIS ex-wife, sort of screamed liar liar to me.) Anyway, I can believe plaintiff about that list of excuses he says she had about not moving the crap - she starts in on the list when MM asks why she left it after the breakup. Can't believe I'm still watching this yawn-fest, and the DVR says it's only been on 13 minutes. Plaintiff shows some pix if crap piled in garage - yep, mountain of crap without even a way to walk through. Really, three years of that mess? MM agrees about the boring case not being worth wasting time, she calls it at 14 minutes - about twice as long as it was worth. Dude gets nothing for his unilateral storage fees, but does get $500 to get rid of the crap. That was actually the only laugh of this case. MM gives the plaintiff crap about not having any proof about what a dumpster rental would cost. Then defendant pipes up, she checked rental prices and found one WAY cheaper. MM looks at defendant's evidence - yeah cheaper alright, but TINY, like 3x3cu feet. That sort of clinched the idea that $500 would be a decent price for something big enough to haul the stuff to the dump. (Anybody ever watch the show where guys haul crap away free, but make their money by getting to keep stuff they find? Sure, 99.9% of that stuff is probably trash, but there might be some hidden treasures.)
'rents want back money spent on son's wedding: I have a feeling step mom is the driving force behind this case. Son needs a couple grand to provide his bride the wedding they want. Dad and step mom take a couple grand out of her daughter's college fund, but insist it was a loan and now want it back. Son's defense is to throw dirt on the old folks - says the money was for his bachelor party, not the wedding, and that Pops volunteered the money because he had been a deadbeat dad. Claims the lawsuit is because Dad's new wife is upset she wasn't included in a family photo. Ah dude, that doesn't work when step mommy had you sign a promissory note - doesn't matter what the money was spent on, if you signed an IOU you have to pay - doesn't matter if you promissed to pay a stranger, step mommy, or daddy. Dude really doesn't have a defense and the case would be over except MM enjoys giving up the backstory. Yep, we hear him try to claim the signature shouldn't count, Pops should have given him the money just because that's what dads do. New wife noticeably absent, he says she wants nothing to do with the family spat, didn't know about the loan or what he spent the money on - batchelor party trip to Vegas. More this guy, the son, talks, the worse he sounds. Admits it was a loan, but has to keep harping on how Pops was absentee dad. Sounds bitter and jealous that Dad wants to be in the grandkid's life. Even praises step Mom for causing Pops to want to mend fences, but apparently doesn't think that should mean he should honor his debt and return his step sister's college money. One thing he has partially right, a family portrait did cause a big family kerfuffle. Doesn't sound like the cause was the picture, though. Instead, his biological mom posted an old pic with dad in it to Facebook. No biggy, except others in the family started chiming in talking about step mom - see rest of family are black and step mommy is white. Seems the posts turned into racial comments, and wouldn't ya know, somehow someway comments get back to step mom. Sooo, a picture is sort of the cause of the lawsuit. Suit may not have been filed as the old folks were willing to work out a payment plan when dude failed to abide by the promissory note terms, but then ungrateful son failed to live up to the new agreement. With the nasty, profane, hateful posts, they're done and demand repayment. Really, all that has nothing to do with the case. Sonny boy owes the debt, hasn't paid as agreed, time to pay up. Guess we have some time to burn after the previous case, because MM explores the messy relationship between Pops and Sonny - really both of them sound bitter and clueless, especially Sonny. Once we're back on schedule, quick lecture and ruling. One thing, though, at the end I decide it WAS NOT step Mom causing the suit. According to MM she was pretty childish in the text war, but Sonny Boy and Pops were just plain ridiculous in their failjure to "man up" and establish some kind of adult relationship.
friend didn't take care of business! plaintiff let defendant handle things while in was in the big house. She was supposed to take care of his car, but ending up getting a bunch of parking tickets and the car was impounded, costing him almost 4 grand instead of just taking care of his car. Huh, defendant is countersuing $1700 - partly for the parking tickets? Are these tickets she paid for the jailbird? Should be easy, check the timeline to see when the tickets were received and determine who had the car at the time. Anybody else get the feeling jailbird spends lots of time on courtroom dockets. He really should practice his delivery in front of a mirror though, and try to work on eye contact. Ah well, little bit of insurance fraud going on here. Dude says it was his car, he has title, but he can't get insurance (suspended license for 2 DUIs at the time and another since then) - so, asks friend to register car and insure it under her name. Ok, sounds like a "dirty hands" case. Funny how as MM explains the insurance fraud the defendant us nodding like she totally agrees - Lady, you're as guilty as he is, so why should you win your countersuit when you were scamming, too. Anyhoo, he gets picked up for parole violation and spend time in jail. She comes to pick up his wallet so she can keep making those fraudulent insurance payments. She provides us with a chuckle when she says he wanted her to sell his food stamps to pay the insurance - a felony she says, not like she wasn't already scamming the insurance company. Lol and behold, she finds the food stamps, welfare card, and a debit card in the wallet, so time to go shopping. He gets out of jail and finds his car impounded and $500 charges on the card. Time for another DUI - back to jail he goes - but, no, when asked he doesn't see a problem, no rehab needed. Really, sounds like there should be a PA when he gets out so everybody else can stay off the streets. This time, while he's locked up the car gets a flat, so she can't play musical parking to avoid parking tickets. Instead of finding a way to get the tire changed, she let's the thing rack up tickets until it gets impounded. Ironically, since because of the insurance scam the car is registered in her name, so they came after her and end up suspending her license - ah, poetic justice. Nobody gets anything having to do with the car, but she does have to repay the $500 she "borrowed" from his debit card without his knowledge.

AngelaHunter · April 26, 2017

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

. Lol and behold, she finds the food stamps, welfare card, and a debit card in the wallet, so time to go shopping.

OMG. Hahahaha!

SRTouch · April 27, 2017

roommate nonsense: plaintiff in the case rented a room from defendant. From her perspective, things were hunky dory in the beginning - then the defendant had the gall to move in her bf without discussing it first. Not like it was actually her apartment where the plaintiff was renting a room or anything. Plaintiff was month to month, so I agree it would have been nice to give her a heads up and time to look for a new place - but don't see that as a requirement. I DO wonder what the defendant's lease had to say about subletting and moving in additional folks. Really though, not sure why plaintiff even brings it up, since they all three peacefully shared the apartment for a year before there were problems. Ah, the defendant, her lease, and the relationship with the real landlord. Plaintiff says the real problem came when defendant got into a dispute with the landlord - defendant actually went to court in another case with the landlord. Apparently, at least according to plaintiff, defendant was months behind with the rent, and landlord cut off the hot water and heat (a no no, of course, since then defendant can rightly claim harrassment and testify in court against the landlord that he was making the place unliveable). So, defendant heats up water in a pot for personal hygiene - but leaves a ring around the pot. And, the kerfuffle begins. Bf gets upset - tells defendant - and after 2 1/2 years they suddenly "feel some type a way about it" (MM has to ask for translation). Defendant tells her she needs to leave, plaintiff says ok, give me my security deposit, defendant grabs a crowbar... they end up on tv. Course this is the cue for MM to ask the defendant WTH. Defendant is very animated, she doesn't even own a crowbar, it was a selfie stick she was swinging. (Trying to figure out what cartoon character defendant reminds me of. Funny bowl-style hair with matching hand towel on top (sort of Wilma Flintstone with bangs) - big dangling earrings framing her gap toothed face, lots of cleavage to display her heavy necklace and some of her tats.) Her testimony is comic relief. She "does" this, but wasn't trying to go there, she was getting ready to swing the stick when bf stepped in the middle. Good thing, too, these are two hefty gals - he must be one brave dude as it looks like Douglas will need reinforcements if they go after each other. Anyway, after the kerfuffle, plaintiff moves - but still demands her security. Defendant says no way, damage to room after her two plus years of month to month tenancy. Hmmm, back to that lease - is she able to sublet - even if she can sublet, can she collect rent on a room in an apartment where she hasn't paid HER landlord in months - even if she can charge rent, can she expect to collect when there is no heat or hot water? Once defendant starts, MM can't find the off button. MM asks a question, camera shifts to plaintiff, defendant still yammering away answering the question then trying to talk over the judge and ask plaintiff tiff her own questions. We get crazy explanation of their rental agreement - need a white board and flow chart as I have no idea what they're saying. Was this a month to month where she paid weekly, bi-weekly, or what? Nobody can agree on what the $750 she paid to move in was - a deposit, rent, maybe a combination if the two. Both offer up written evidence, but the evidence was apparently written by semi literate people and MM has trouble making heads or tails of it. Heck, defendant even admits signing the receipt which says "security," but says it wasn't really for security. I'm getting a headache listening to defendant yammer away her nonsense "yeah, I signed it, but it doesn't mean what I wrote." Then she "un-admits" what she said earlier in her testimony - yep comic relief, but really annoying. Again, MM tries to talk to pkaintiff, defendant keeps yapping, and we get a rare Douglas comment when he tells her to shut it, the judge doesn't need her to help ask questions. 'Nother commercial break with preview clip of animated defendant talking about plaintiff "jungle gymmin" in the "baffrom" breaking the mirror has me reaching for the remote. Wth, DVR says 20 minutes, so I stick it out to the bitter end. Geez, when we get to the supposed damage to the apartment defendant shows us a picture of the pot she says plaintiff took her bath in, what, wash it and use it to cook food in - no way judge, that's just nasty! This is a banner day for Douglas. Not only did he get to speak up to try to stop the yammer (didn't seem to slow her down), but now defendant is explaining the nasty pot photo to him as he struggles to keep from laughing. (Poor guy needs a gun on his hip like Sonja.) Then she wants money for scratches in the floor that her landlord may, sometime in the future, want her to pay for. MM gives up and rules over the continued yammer. Not sure how she broke it down, cause I gave up, too, and zipped out to Doug. Plaintiff awarded $400 of the $750 she was seeking, but I zipped past hallterview as she continued to her theatrics after losing.
new year party disaster: plaintiff went to defendant's new years bash, and someone stole her coat. Now, this isn't a group of friends gathering, but a $30,000 commercial bash, pay to get in, lots of drinking, security, yada yada. Defendant admits things got out of hand, and about 25 people all rushed the coat check to claim their coats - so sorry, coat check was free, not his problem. Uh, dude, if you charge guests to attend, have security and provide a coat check, in my book you're on the hook as a reasonable person could expect their coat to still be there when they decide to leave. Not sure if I would leave a designer coat worth that big money in a coat check even where there's security, but then I'm a cheap old dude who normally wears overalls. Apparently this coat has to be special ordered from London, just purchased as a gift for job well done at college. Lots and lots of people attended the party, and major cats when it was time to leave and line was backed up at the coat check. Apparently, more people than expected, taking too long, folks got tired of waiting and rushed in and grabbed what they could - leaving quite of people unable to find their property. Not sure what defense the dude could mount, but the lame "it was free so not my problem" defense doesn't fly. Oh, dude, it does not help to introduce your witness as "one of the coat check staff." Anyway, when folks started leaving at 1am, one of the coat racks collapsed. Dude is picking up the costs and recharging them, and a few folks are having a hissy fit (uh, sounds like something the promoted should have maybe expected when a big crowd are ready to leave after a night of partying.) He calls for security - no answer - texts - nobody comes - so, the brainac leaves the coat check station with 1 other dude (Max, who was smart enough not to show up in court) with all the drunks clamoring to hurry up, while he goes looking for security - it takes a LONG time for security to arrive and stop the madness. Geez, hope this isn't this guy's regular gig, cause I sure wouldn't hire him in the future. Ah, last ditch defense, can plaintiff prove her coat was in coat check? Oh, dude, first a lame a$$ defense, now just blame stupid a$$ defense - everybody watching believes her coat was there - stop with the silly arguing and pay. Dude acts surprised he lost, but really dude, there's a reason promoters buy insurance for events (and venues demand insurance before providing space for events). Only possible way I see he wouldn't be liable is if he had posted that management was not responsible for property left in the coat check. Even there I would hold him at least partially liable - especially as he had staff manning the station.
tablet damaged while at the repair shop: from the intro, sounds like same theory prevails. Plaintiff left her property with a commercial establishment, through neglect her property is damaged, establishment is liable (hey, it's a bailment - a few more court TV episodes and I'll be ready for the bar - either that or I'll go looney toons after one too many illiterates). We know this has to be a quicky after the extra time on silly roommate case. Defendant's intro says he fixed the tablet as he was supposed to, she picked it up, weeks later she decides it's damaged - who knows how many times she dropped it after picking it up, but it was fine when it left his place. Course she goes first as plaintiff, and testifies it was clearly damaged WHEN she picked it up. Hmmm, maybe another misleading introduction. Yep, intro all wrong. Defendant says the screen was broken when it came in (she just finished saying it WAS NOT). Someone is telling a whopper - and defendant has the invoice which was written when the tablet came in. Uh, if there were two problems when it came in, both were supposed repaired, why is the screen still busted? Could it be this lady has a habit of dropping it? Maybe time to invest in a quality cover. Ah, defendant dude is caught trying to pull one over on the judge. That invoice he claims to have - well she says she's seen a copy, but wants the original. Oh yeh, the original, he has the original. He hands Douglas two sheets of paper stapled together. Once again we see MM actually LOOK at evidence she's handed. She rips the two stapled sheets apart, tosses it down, and says, "this is a copy, once again, I need the original!" This whole time yahoo is over looking through his papers, and he admits he must not have the original. Hard to claim that as an honest mistake, she made a point of saying she had seen a copy and needed the orginal. If he really thought he handed her the original, wouldn't he have asked to check that what he just handed her was a copy? Nah, not only a lie, but kind of insulting to expect the judge to not check/spot another copy. Dude, your defense just took a nosedive. Oh, dear, part of what he handed in IS original, just not the part about the condition of the item when it came in and what was to be fixed - even worse for his tanking case. Case is over, but enough time remains for MM to tell defendant she is 10 times as offended over the obvious manufactured evidence than she would have been if he had shown up with NO evidence. Dude just keeps trying to muddle through - just shut it, bite the bullets and give her the $269. Ah, defendant can claim a bit of a win - he ONLY has to pay $255, so he saved himself $14 by appearing on TV. Oh, and it came out during testimony you that she had been a customer for awhile, this was the fourth time she had come in, and probably the last.

Edited April 27, 2017 by SRTouch

Omega Mu · April 27, 2017

I love all of your commentary! My husband watches regularly, so I've been reading him these summaries. I have a quick question that has been bothering us, and perhaps the answer has come up at some point: Whenever a plaintiff or defendant says they're on disability, JM always asks what the disability is. Do you really have to answer that question in court (let alone on national TV)? How is it anyone's business if it has no relevance to the case? Wouldn't the ADA or HIPAA disallow that line of questioning?

AngelaHunter · April 27, 2017

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

roommate nonsense:

I don't know about you all, but when I'm "jungle-jimmin' in people baffroom" I'm very careful not to break the mirror. When I take a shower in someone's pot, I always make sure I scrub it out thoroughly. I had to shower in a pot because my landlord didn't feel like paying the electric bill. However, I"m not sure I'd trust crackheads to do my housekeeping, even if I pay them 40$. Honestly, I don't know why the audience was laughing at this. It's more pathetic and disgusting than amusing. Ugh. The trash level was off the scale. Loved the mouthy defendant's parting words in the hall, that plaintiff really needs to elevate herself until she reaches the def. exhalted level of... something or other.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

new year party disaster:

Just gotta say - I found that coat to be super-ugly (at least in the pic that JM showed), but maybe it's pretty in person. The def who failed to safeguard plaintiff's property was unbelieveable. Even in the hall, he was saying he's not responsible legally, because he knows the law better than does JM. I guess he thinks JM got her law degree from some online scam pop-up. I hope everyone else who lost their coats because of him does sue him and wins.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tablet damaged while at the repair shop:

Def. was infuriating.

JM: "Do you have the original receipt and not the copy you submitted?"

Def: "Yes. Here. This is the original."

JM: "This is another copy!!"

Def: "Oh. Yes. I don't have the original." In the hall, he informs Doug that he does indeed have it, but it's in his office. Of course. He never though he would need it. He also thought he was much more clever than JM.

I was actually embarassed for him. What a petty, stupid A-hole he was - willing to make a fool of himself and adversely advertise his business rather than pay 170-odd dollars for his screw-up.

Hockeymom · April 27, 2017

Jungle Gymming? That's new. You learn something every day!

Edited April 27, 2017 by Hockeymom
Wording

AngelaHunter · April 27, 2017

1 hour ago, Omega Mu said:

Whenever a plaintiff or defendant says they're on disability, JM always asks what the disability is. Do you really have to answer that question in court (let alone on national TV)? How is it anyone's business if it has no relevance to the case? Wouldn't the ADA or HIPAA disallow that line of questioning?

To me, and of course I'm not a lawyer nor do I claim to be knowledgeable in the law, I feel that the answer may go towards proving that litigant may be someone who is a professional at working the system, and gives insight to what kind of person this is. In small claims court where the judge often has to go on intuition on who is telling the telling the truth and who is lying, this could be a telling point.

ElleMo · April 28, 2017

4 hours ago, Omega Mu said:

I love all of your commentary! My husband watches regularly, so I've been reading him these summaries. I have a quick question that has been bothering us, and perhaps the answer has come up at some point: Whenever a plaintiff or defendant says they're on disability, JM always asks what the disability is. Do you really have to answer that question in court (let alone on national TV)? How is it anyone's business if it has no relevance to the case? Wouldn't the ADA or HIPAA disallow that line of questioning?

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

To me, and of course I'm not a lawyer nor do I claim to be knowledgeable in the law, I feel that the answer may go towards proving that litigant may be someone who is a professional at working the system, and gives insight to what kind of person this is. In small claims court where the judge often has to go on intuition on who is telling the telling the truth and who is lying, this could be a telling point.

Plus this is entertainment, so I am sure they signed some sort of release acknowledging that they might be asked personal information. Of course they could refuse, but the majority of the people are not savvy enough to know this. Hell, people admit to fraud and all sorts of illegal things on this show and don't think it is a big deal.

AngelaHunter · April 28, 2017

46 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

Of course they could refuse,

A lot of the time they do refuse - I've certainly seen them do it on JJ - when asked what they were in jail or on parole for. We hear so many people admit to drunk driving, domestic violence or drug possession that when someone refuses to say what they did, I'm sure everyone thinks it must be murder, rape or some other heinous crime.

Jamoche · April 28, 2017

35 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

A lot of the time they do refuse - I've certainly seen them do it on JJ - when asked what they were in jail or on parole for. We hear so many people admit to drunk driving, domestic violence or drug possession that when someone refuses to say what they did, I'm sure everyone thinks it must be murder, rape or some other heinous crime.

Or littering :)

DoctorK · April 28, 2017

Quote

Wouldn't the ADA or HIPAA disallow that line of questioning?

I don't know about ADA but I dealt with data systems covered by HIPAA. HIPAA applies to organizations providing medical services to patients, the data has to be protected and isolated from provider's general network (I had to deal with both HIPAA and classified stuff in the same organization, a real pain in the ass). The patient can release anything they want to, but in a binding arbitration I think they can refuse to provide HIPAA type info. Of course, the arbitrator (i.e., JJ, JM) can draw any inference they want from that.

SRTouch · April 28, 2017

IRS tax scam family: According to the intro, this case is about which of these litigants scammed the other while scamming the IRS - oh and some back rent while living together getting tats - lots of ink with this crew. As I understand the testimony, plaintiff lived with her aunt, the defendant, and never paid anything toward the household expenses. They each accuse the other of scamming the IRS - stealing SSN, claiming each other's deductions, etc. And, now that they're on the outs, aunts wants retraction rent and contributions to house expenses. Have to say, right off the bat I'm find defendant auntie's credibility circling the drain - claims to have raised the plaintiff since birth, but when questioned turns out her mother, plaintiff's grandma, took in the newborn plaintiff to raise, defendant was 14. Sounds more like an older sister relationship than the picture I had of her raising her niece. Plaintiff's story is she went to auntie for help filing her taxes. Says auntie filled out the forms, adding extra deduction claiming cousins (auntie's daughter). Sorry, last I heard you still sign the form verifying the info, so by your testimony you got them DIRTY HANDS. Hope you're not expecting the court to award you money you were received by committing tax fraud. Ah, Auntie is zero little more savy, she denies the whole "filling out the forms" story. Plaintiff says Auntie was padding plaintiff's deductions, then had the refunds deposit into aunt's bank account, and auntie kept the money. Ok, maybe if she's really REALLY naive, trusting, and unsophisticated, she MAYBE was unaware of the scam and was duped - I don't believe it, but will listen a while longer before flushing her version. Not that it matters much if she is looking for the refund - which she admits to now knowing is bogus... course maybe she wants to return the fraudulently obtained money and file a revised return. Now, over the auntie - the one who, at the age of 14, took in the plaintiff to raise. That was strike one, then she admits not filing her own taxes, and of course the she is with the cross necklace dangling outside her shirt over her heart. Well, at least she can speak properly even if she could use some help with her courtroom attire. Her story is that plaintiff lived with her for 9 months rent free (her and her kid), was able to get the cousins' SSN to perform that fraud, fraudulently claimed auntie's house - as head of household? - and auntie knew nothing about the money in her account. Her explanation is her bf had his refunds deposited in her account, so she just figured he got a really big refund. Her version makes about as much as plaintiff's as far as the tax money. Then she also has the rent and expenses she wants reimbursed, supposedly $350 monthly rent for the nine months of room and board, new phone, use of a car and the car maintenance yada yada. Course, when MM asks for any proof, she says she didn't know she needed it - who knew? Riiiiight! They're still on good terms when plaintiff moves out, plaintiff still calling her "Mom," and in fact she supposedly bought her the phone after the move - guess she can't get a government phone. To be fair, auntie says her mom died of cancer 15 years ago - so, at when she was about 21 and plaintiff was 7 she may well have become the mom. Certainly more sympathetic towards her as she talks about how plaintiff has "ripped" the 4yo away from the family. Ho boy, FAMILY - hot button topic with MM. Even more with a little girl who spent a quarter of her life living with folks she thought of as grandma and aunts and uncle - and then MM asks if the girl asks to see mee maw and plaintiff says no - yep, now I'm ready to award something on the countersuit even with very little evidence. Nope, I hear nothing here to award thousands of bucks to either side, but something for mee maw even if not thousands. Ok, I get that the refund should go back to plaintiff, but let's send a copy of the tape to IRS and see if they can get some of the taxpayers money back as everybody agrees there was tax fraud committed. On the countersuit, nothing for rent (even though it galls me to let plaintiff live for free, I can see lots of people letting an almost daughter and her child move in without rent when it appears they'really getting by on child support) but MM is pretty generous when she awards money for damages and maintenance for the '98 heap that is falling apart (really! Anybody catch that the girl supposedly drove it 9 months, and claimed others drove it, but MM made her pay for oil changes. Something tells me the normal way this heap gets an oil change is when enough leaks out and they add a couple quarts. Not worth rewinding to check, but did I hear she wanted pkaintiff to pay for three (?) Oil changes? Well yeah, I know in the old days they recommended oil changes every three months, but really?)
crazy BABY DADDY (only wrote that to poke fun at the recent baby daddy/mama/bump thread): story here is that plaintiff's ex goes a little nuts over new bf and smashes plaintiff's windows - two years after they were a thing. Well, he says he doesn't want plaintiff back, he just gets mad when her bf tries to steal his position as baby girl's daddy. Now that I can get behind, fighting to stay in his kid's life... but breaking the windows in the house isn't going to save his place in her life. That will lead to restraining orders and restricted visitation because of violent tendencies - and rightly so. Course he says he didn't break the windows, and in fact was attacked by the bf in plaintiff's front yard and hospitalized. Ah well, a numbered person, Earl Vinson III. So, he's answering the $350 suit for broken windows with a $3500 countersuit. Just as sometimes I think people should have to pass classes before they get a dog, this is a case where these parents need a have their parenthood revoked. One 5yo child in common, of course she has more, but this girl is her youngest. Defendant has only met the bf a couple times, apparently always during scheduled visitation exchanges, and each time plaintiff claims he was verbally aggressive and threatened violence. Yeah, just what every 5 yo needs to see, daddy threatening mommy and "her man." Mommy actually sounds kind of proud of "her man" stepping up to defend her honor in front of the girl. Like I said, revoke their mommy/daddy license. So, daddy brings daughter home after scheduled visit, starts bad mouthing mommy and her man, it gets physical, fists fly. Mommy says her man "got the better of him," and as daddy gets up off the ground he says he's going to come back and shoot up her place. Oh dear, all the smirking and eye rolling makes me want to see Douglas go give him another a$$ beating. Course she didn't report the incident/threat to the cops, noooo bf might get in trouble, so instead she gathers up her kids in their jammies, jumps in the car, and goes into hiding. Next morning she returns home to find broken windows. Over to defendant and from the get-go MM ain't buying it. Dude, all that time mommy was testifying, your expressions were telegraphing your feelings and attitude, and the judge was watching. Sure, in a criminal case you'd get off, but this is civil court where the bar is a little lower. Mommy may not be June Cleaver, but so far you're your own worst enemy. Not buying the innocent sneak attack story, and the more I hear the more I want to shield the daughter, and her half siblings, from the adults in this tragedy. Geez, sometime after the incident, he invents a weapon and a version to make his beating more palatable. Problem is, mommy has the police report from when he reported the incident and it differs widely from today's testimony. Have to add the bit about being hospitalized takes a dive, too. Ok, he was hospitalized from 8pm to 2am - uh sounds more like he went to the ER, waited a few hours, was treated and released. Seeking medical treatment IS NOT being hospitalized! Course, he didn't bring medical records to court - no reason the judge might want to read about his injuries, an account of what caused the injuries or the doctor's observations, that stuff doesn't matter, he just wants the bill paid. Really enough circumstantial evidence has been shown for plaintiff to win her case - well she hasn't shown repair costs/estimates but her pictures are enough for me. His case is going nowhere where with me. We don't know if his injuries were from mutual combat or a sneaky pipe wielding bf. Anyway, even if it was a sneak attack, why sue mommy instead of the attacker? Did she conspire with dastardly bf to blindside daddy? Nope, I believe her version over his. Her damage claim has obvious flaws, so she won'the get what she wants, but she'll get the broken windows money, $175. I loved how MM said he had no case against plaintiff when she says defendant got whooped. Final thought is I feel sorry for the kids, and hope they don't follow the example of the adults in their lives. We learn in hallterview they're currently in family court. If nothing else, I hope future exchanges are mandated to a neutral location where the adults can be restricted and monitored.
'Nother tax case: this one has defendant to not filing taxes for years. He goes to plaintiffs for help getting straight, they get him up to date and even get some refunds, but now dude won't pay their $650 fee. (Anybody else get a chuckle when defendant comes through the door? WTH is that dude wearing? And, WTH did he even find that jacket and pants?) Anyway, defendant says he changed his mind about getting plaintiff's help. He did go to them, gave them his records, then changed his mind. He claims they refused to return his paperwork, causing additional penalties, so he wants $2,999. Talk about widely different versions, he either got a refund or rented up paying penalties. Once again somebody is fibbing, and I would think proof should be easy to present to the court. Plaintiff's case kind of iffy, but I can buy that when the defendant was bringing in his records piecemeal so it was hard to estimate how much time his case would take. Still, seems like they could have a rate, a percentage, a rate per hour, or a flat fee. MM is less than impressed with what they hand in and the lack of a contract. But, listening to defendant and his lackadaisical attitude, I'm siding with plaintiff. Well, except I believe plaintiff dude held onto defendant's records when he refused to pay the fees - heck they admit that they hold your records and don't file until you pay the fee. Uh, that sounds wrong, especially if that isn't in a contract before the customer gives you his records, and... no contract here. Not even verbal contract in my eyes, because they don't tell you the fee until they have your records. Nobody gets anything.

AngelaHunter · April 28, 2017

36 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

IRS tax scam family: According to the intro, this case is about which of these litigants scammed the other while scamming the IRS - oh and some back rent while living together getting tats - lots of ink with this crew.

Oh, trashy, trashy! This family likes to start having babies really young and yeah, getting lots of tats instead of learning to speak English properly. Plaintiff had no idea def was adding her bunch of kids to the tax return forms. Yeah, sure. Def doesn't bother filing tax returns herself, so is it possible she added her kids to plaintiff's returns, and maybe made a deal to share the refunds? JM was very low-key when advising the plaintiff's new hubby. JJ would have told him, rightfully, to "butt out." "I hope you die of cancer!" "I hope you have a miscarriage!" So distasteful were they that I had no interest in who won.

41 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

crazy BABY DADDY

Earnest the Third, his former baby mamma and her new squeeze seem to have no problem fighting and cursing in front of a 5-year old. Instead of learning to behave like responsible adults, let's have a baby! What the heck did Earnest III have around his neck? So sordid and dreary this case was I was hoping neither would get anything.

44 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

He goes to plaintiffs for help getting straight, they get him up to date and even get some refunds, but now dude won't pay their $650 fee.

IMO, 650$ seems mighty high to me, even for three years. I'm pretty sure def isn't the CEO of a major corporation, has extensive holdings, multiple child support/alimony payment or is collecting dividends from a large and diversified stock portfolio. He seems kind of young for all that. My tax person charges me 60$ to do my returns and - I could be wrong - but I'm pretty sure mine are more involved than are the defendant's. Anyway, it was enjoyable hearing a case with litigants who weren't beating the crap out of each other, scamming the taxpayers or speaking in mangled English.

SRTouch · May 1, 2017

modern day sharecroppers: not really, but that's what popped in my head listening to the intro. Plaintiffs rented a garden plot from defendant, planning to raise vegetables to sell at the local farmers market. They claim they planted the crops only to have defendant steal the harvest - so they want him to pay them 5 grand in lost profits. Defendant says they were laughable as farmers, didn't know what they were doing, wanted him to tend the crops, and by harvest time they had given up, so little to nothing to harvest anyway. He's filed a 5 grand countersuit, saying when they abandoned their garden they owed rent. Wow, anybody else spot the problem with Oliver and Lisa Douglas' plan. Theme to Green Acres should be playing in the background! These folks have never farmed, but figure they'll put some seeds in the ground - let mother nature do the work and reap the profits. Sure, folks do DO that, but lots of know how and work goes on before they turn a profit. No small farmers ever go bankrupt, do they? At the start, defendant is helping with advice - but by the end they feel he's micromanaging their operation. And, to be honest, although they may not have been farmers, they talk like they know what they wanted to do. Plaintiff is talking about the lease, says they wanted out of the lease mid-summer and defendant agreed to let them out. Ah, what we're really talking here is renegotiating the lease. They had been leaving on the property and living the life. Now they're only going to come tend the garden a couple days a week, and according to defendant they expected him to take care of things like irrgiation (and what about the chicks she was complaining he wanted fed 4 times a day?) Anyway, the renegotiated lease is the problem as they differ so widely on what the new agreement was. So... they agree what the original lease was, but not the amended terms - I say they revert to the original where they were obligated through November. Plaintiffs claim when they came back for the two days a week in the new agreement defendant banned them. Well, defendant says, that's because they were taking stuff that wasn't theirs (apparently he was still raising and selling flowers, and they were taking truckloads of needed compost) and they were constantly yelling, screaming and cussing him out. MM is sort of out of her comfort zone on this one, so has to take a recess to figure out things about organic farming and such. Oh, and plaintiffs came up with some common law thing where when a sharecroppers plants seeds they can't just be kicked out until they can harvest. Well, after her research MM comes back out and rejects the common law argument - plaintiff's case dismissed. Countersuit is also tossed. Here defendant sent one email too many - he emailed he wasn't going after them for the remainder of the lease, so he can't change his mind and sue. I don't know if I buy that, he said he wouldn't sue if they did such and such - they didn't so he should be able to collect (course there may be more emails I don'the know about). Guess the biggy for dismissing the countersuit is that after the kerfuffle he banned them from the property. Can't collect rent if you refuse them access.
tenant case: plaintiff claims defendant illegally locked him out, keeping all his valuable stuff, so wants $3600. Defendant says, hold on, dude rented an apartment and was storing furniture and crap stacked on top of each other, so when dude was arrested and stopped paying rent he changed the locks - so he wants $3400 in unpaid rent and damages. Ah, countersuit sounds like a slam dunk. Dude was arrested Feb 1, and when his representatives showed up to haul away his crap the second week of February landlord had changed locks. Oh, and no dispute that rent was up to date and nothing owed for February. Uh-huh, slow your roll Mr landlord, no rent after a lockout and he gets his stuff. Defendant says plaintiff and his witnesses are lying, locks werected eventually changed, but not until April, so a couple months after the arrest and no rent being paid (he brought along the maintenance dude who changed the locks). Quite the difference in versions. According to Maintenance man, when he went to check the place in March a woman was living there. Says he went back the next day and place was empty except for trash and the kitchen table. When asked, plaintiff says his children's mother was living there. Hmmm, so much for sending guys to move everything out the second week of February and finding the licks changed - and defendant's witness is testifying he changed the locks he month earlier than he just testified. (Side note: plaintiff claims some "program" pays his rent, so he lives rent free. Geez, I want that program, this guy says he had "good" stuff, like a TV in his fridge door.) Wow, defendant has pictures, and I agree it doesn't look like anyone lived there. Plaintiff excuse, well, he had moved out of a house, which is why so much of the stuff in the pictures is shrink wrapped and just piled up - uh, he was there from Sept to Feb and the washer and dryer are still wrapped up and couches are stacked on top of each other. Ding ding ding, I'm with MM, this guy had a little more going on than just a fight that got him locked up for 8 months - and I'd really like to know more about this mysterious program that pays his rent. Don't just live how he acts so surprised that the judge would find all this suspicious. Nothing he's saying makes sense, and the more he says the more I figure he's running some scam - which is really funny because he's the one who brought the suit. At least when asked who the woman living there was, he said his children's mother instead of baby mama. Now defendant speaks up. I was ready to slam him for changing the locks too fast, but he's brought letters the plaintiff sent while locked up. Uh, he writes he is breaking the lease, but has all his stuff, oh, by the way, he knows there's some wall damage, yada yada. Dude he just forget those letters which blows his case out of the water? So, plaintiff's case is tossed. Now the countersuit. I'll just ignore the date discrepancy between him and his witness. Ah, but then he admits he wants double rent. He wants plaintiff to pay rent, even after new tenant has moved in and is paying rent. He gets some of his damage claim, but it still works out that he kept more in the the deposit than he should have withheld. He has to return a couple hundred.
homeowner vs contractor: plaintiff hired contractor for a job, paid a deposit, but then the contractor wanted money for things left out of the contract - just little things like windows, who needs windows, anyway. Contractor, defendant, says deposit is nonrefundable, so since plaintiff canceled he gets nothing back. Plaintiff not only wants back what he gave the defendant, he wants wasted time money. Hmmm, if I understand plaintiff right, what we're talking here us NOT a deposit like the intro talked about. Noooo, he paid the contractor $500 to prepare plans/estimate. Hey, that's two very different things, but plaintiff is using the words interchangably. When I hear that homeowners should get several estimates, even for a big remodel like this one where they're talking $172,000, I don't expect to have to pay each contractor $500 for their estimate. OTOH, for plans, as in a blueprint, $500 is cheap, especially if we're talking engineering plans where they're messing with loads bearing walls, etc. So, I'm not sure WTH we're talking about here. Listening to defendant doesn'the help much. He claims he talked the job over with plaintiff several times before preparing a written estimate. He says the first time was a free estimate, but he kept getting called back for additional discussions, so finally he decided he's spending too much time for this to be a free estimate. He says plaintiff agreed to pay for the written estimate. Once he provided the written estimate, the $172,000 had grown $30-40,000, the plaintiff's wife's health was questionable, so he backs out and says maybe next year, can I get back the "deposit". Defendant writes back, sorry about the wife, uh no, deposit is nonrefundable... and here we are in court. Sorry, dude, contractor has me convinced this was not your normal estimate and he should be compensated for the 5 or 6, hours long conversations and his work and time. MM agrees, case dismissed.

AngelaHunter · May 1, 2017

Quote

modern day sharecroppers:

We had an actual "Farmer Brown!" Awesome. I don't know who did what to whom, but I'm pretty sure farming isn't something to be taken on with a whim, with a 2-month old baby in arms. I believed Farmer Brown (I just like writing that) when he said they didn't even know enough to stake the tomato plants and let them fall on the ground. But live and learn I guess. No harm in that. The part I liked is the plaintiffs breaking their binding lease because Farmer Brown wanted to "micro-manage" but then they sent emails, instructing him to water and care for whatever plants that somehow survived their farming attempts.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tenant case:

This wasn't nearly as much fun and is the kind of case I really hate. Quandu, dripping in bling and attitude, informs JM that he thinks it's "classy" for him to have a fridge with a TV in the door, to which she rightfully responds (paraphrased) "I might first want to get a place where strangers aren't being forced to pay my rent." (Personally I've worked my whole life, never got incarcerated yet still don't have a fridge with a TV in it)He pays NO rent? Why? Quandu seemed perfectly able-bodied to me but for some reason, the working population has to kick in to cover his entire rent. Anyway, it's normal to have all kinds of major appliances stacked up and shrink-wrapped in your apartment, isn't it? No, of course nothing is illegal about that. Anyway, Quandu gets incarcerated and leaves his baby momma in the apartment. She didn't take any of his stuff or the fridge door with the TV in it, because his baby momma is honest as the day is long and wouldn't do such a thing. I totally believed everything the def. and his witness said. What a relief it must be to have Quandu and his gang out of his property.

Quote

homeowner vs contractor:

While I felt bad for plaintiff, who is in a horrible situation, I don't get why anyone feels that a professional person should work for free for them. I bet plaintiff never worked for free. I know I never did. I too think that 500$ is cheap for all those consultations and estimates provided.

SRTouch · May 2, 2017

geez, nother fool parting with their money: didn't make it all the way through this one. Plaintiff just KEEPS throwing money down the drain known as the defendant. Sad woman, living in a shelter, yet giving defendant thousands in dribs and drabs from the little she has - which comes from her children's social security checks. MM blasts her for giving away the money the taxpayers are giving her to support her kids. Defendant is a scammer who needed, among other things, bail money for a robbery/theft charge - oh and $100 pair of boots. When we go to commercial we hear her preaching her nonsense and she calls MM "sweetheart". MM does NOT find that charming, and corrects yappy defendant. Unfortunately, defendant barely misses a best, quick apology and charges "sweetheart" to "your honor" and continues her story... which I choose to skip and zip to the hall. Ok, maybe I'm a little cranky this morning since I closed the store last night and haven't finished my first cup of joe - the producers must have liked defendant's antics as the case ran long.
rescue dog attack: plaintiffs adopt a dog at the shelter. When they take it home it attacks another family dog, so they return it to the shelter. Now they want back the adoption fee. Also, appears they're upset that the shelter put the dog back online for adoption. Didn't watch, must have been a short one since we're back on schedule - oh, and plaintiff got back their money as shelter folks admit they goofed when they guessed the breed. Not sure why it even matters, just call the dog a mutt - little mutt, medium, or large mutt - and make sure potential adopters know how to introduce a new to the established dogs (and or other family, children, cats, ducks, etc.) The good thing is the puppy found a home, and new owner came to court to say he's a great dog and everybody is thrilled with the new addition.
'vette bumper cars: plaintiff claims defendant clipped his 'vette, accepted responsibility and said she'd pay. But then her dad, a former cop, got involved and now she says plaintiff caused the wreck. Not exactly your typical he said/she said, as according to intro plaintiff recorded the conversation at the scene with an app on his phone. (Douglas gets a laugh - as he sets up the toy cars on the board he drops one, and quips "another accident.") Of course, when they get their turns to play with the models on the board they have very different versions. But, both agree the collision occurs when she comes into his lane - the main difference is she claims she had room, put on her signals, and he sped up to keep her from getting in front of him. Uh, sorry, but the way I look at her story, she's still at fault. MM has the same reaction, if you saw him, why cut in front of him? When changing lanes, the changes is responsible to make darn sure they have room. Sort of like a rear end collison, it's almost by default the fault of the person in the rear - or in this case the person changing lanes. She's really going to have to pull something out of the bag - especially as the point of impact has her hitting with his car two thirds of the way in front of her. At the scene, he says she accepts responsibility. They agree not to call the cops, and he says at that point he starts recording the conversation. 'Nother laugh when MM asks why he thought to record their conversation, and he answers he watches TPC and got the idea from watching her - yeah, phones are NOT just for dirty pictures, you can even record audio. Little bit of courtroom nonsense, he claims she knew he was recording, she denies it, MM asks where they were - New York - and she tells us it doesn't matter if she knew, he can record without her consent in NY while the same act would be a felony if they had been in Florida. Ok, the recording really has her dancing around. Doesn't sound like she was accepting responsibility - in fact she tries to find different reasons why it wasn't her fault. Interesting that the defense she brought up in court isn't what she says on tape. Reaching for straws, when told it WAS her fault, now she says she wanted to report the accident, and he refused to give her his information. Hmmm, not sure where she's going with that - maybe that he wasn't legal to drive or some such. Could be wrong, but I think in some jurisdictions you can't collect property damage if you're uninsured. Doesn't matter as MM doesn't go there - plaintiff gets the money to fix his 'vette. Usually, when I say a litigant is dancing around I'm not saying physically - but this girl is really slow dancing in hallterview.

Edited May 2, 2017 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · May 2, 2017

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

geez, nother fool parting with their money: didn't make it all the way through this one.

I wish I had been as smart as you and skipped this. Pardon my language but is this one of the most fucked-up cases we've seen? Plaintiff has four austistic children(so she says) and lives in a shelter. She gets a lot of money skimmed from the taxpayers, but decides to use it not on her kids, but on the def. People? This is where your tax dollars go, snatched from your hard-earned paycheques. You are paying for people like this to buy playstations, bail out thieves, pay for cable, repairs for your friend's husband's car, buy horrific 2-inch fake talons, really bad wigs, a whole lot of fast food and a vibrator ("Personal massager"). All real necessities. The whole thing was beyond disgusting. JM thought so too and was especially pissed off seeing where HER tax dollars go. UGH. I was nearly put off my homemade pasta with garlic bread and freshly-grated Parmesan cheese.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

rescue dog attack: plaintiffs adopt a dog at the shelter. When they take it home it attacks another family dog, so they return it to the shelter.

It was a rescue, not a shelter. No one can guarantee the actions of an animal or predict how it will react to other animals out there. Rescues also cannot guarantee the breed mix - no one can - unless they want to do a DNA test on every dog they get. They have to take their best guess and sometimes they're wrong. Why the plaintiffs allowed the new dog to attack the mother's little dog four times, I have no idea. Once would have been enough for me. Personally, I would never have sued to get back what I clearly knew to be a donation to a good cause.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

'vette bumper cars:

Another baby girl (in this case a 24-year old woman) whose cop Daddy doesn't think his princess should be responsible for an accident she caused. Really, she sounded like a moron, especially in the hall and especially with her repetitions of "I seen."

Broderbits · May 2, 2017

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

geez, nother fool parting with their money: didn't make it all the way through this one.

Yeah, I'm finding it hard to get through this one also because the plaintiff, a career welfare mother with 4 "autistic" children, is making me SO ANGRY. It feels awful to be so judgmental, but I bet her kids are only autistic because it nets her more money. And if you're living in a shelter why are you giving away thousands (!?) of dollars?

Bazinga · May 2, 2017

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Personally, I would never have sued to get back what I clearly knew to be a donation to a good cause.

Surprisingly, it all worked out very well though. Snow got adopted by a better owner. The rescue got the donation from said new owner. The plaintiff got paid by the show, with the rescue keeping the original donation, so they are actually ahead monetarily having rehomed the dog (but behind one dog being adopted). In addition, the rescue got some free publicity and maybe a few dogs get adopted. Here is their site: Husky House

I think JM was wrong in her decision though. Why did a later different description of the dog breed matter? The dog breed is what the dog breed is (Oh no, I just said it is what it is). What the rescue puts in a a later ad doesn't change that fact. What they say later doesn't make the original determination wrong. We don't know that the plaintiffs did not get a part lab like they bargained for. And it is a "donation" not a purchase in the first place. Seems that too should make a difference.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Bazinga

AngelaHunter · May 2, 2017

14 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

I think JM was wrong in her decision though. What did a later different description of the dog breed matter?

Agree, and people have to use common sense. Sometimes someone races out to get a new pet when the old one passes on and expect the new one to be exactly the same. Believe it or not, not all Labs are like Care Bears (not that Snow was a Lab). When I adopted a dog I needed one who was good with cats. I observed her in the foster home and she was indeed wonderful with those cats. I realized that didn't mean she'd be that great with MY cats, so kept her separated from them until I was positive she wouldn't try to harm them. Turned out she loved ALL cats but if she hadn't I wouldn't have asked for my donation back. There's no reputable rescue that isn't operating in the red.

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

And if you're living in a shelter why are you giving away thousands (!?) of dollars?

Yeah, and it seems they got their checks at the same time? Don't know why def was getting subsidized, but oh, well.

SRTouch · May 3, 2017

9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

It was a rescue, not a shelter. No one can guarantee the actions of an animal or predict how it will react to other animals out there. Rescues also cannot guarantee the breed mix - no one can - unless they want to do a DNA test on every dog they get. They have to take their best guess and sometimes they're wrong. Why the plaintiffs allowed the new dog to attack the mother's little dog four times, I have no idea. Once would have been enough for me. Personally, I would never have sued to get back what I clearly knew to be a donation to a good cause.

7 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Surprisingly, it all worked out very well though. Snow got adopted by a better owner. The rescue got the donation from said new owner. The plaintiff got paid by the show, with the rescue keeping the original donation, so they are actually ahead monetarily having rehomed the dog (but behind one dog being adopted). In addition, the rescue got some free publicity and maybe a few dogs get adopted. Here is their site: Husky House

I stand corrected - not only not a shelter, but when I followed the link to Husky House I really liked what I read about their organization. If I hadn't already deleted it, I'd go back and actually watch... I liked what I read on their application. I'll have to remember not to automatically skip it when he comes back around like I do with most dog cases. Have to ask though, after reading the comments, these dimwitted idiots actually let the other dog get attacked four freaking times?

Hockeymom · May 3, 2017

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

UGH. I was nearly put off my homemade pasta with garlic bread and freshly-grated Parmesan cheese.

Oohhhh, tell me a little more about that! I'm a sucker for a good homemade pasta story!

AngelaHunter · May 3, 2017

7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Have to ask though, after reading the comments, these dimwitted idiots actually let the other dog get attacked four freaking times?

Yes, and this happened in their house. The little dog finally hid under a bed and when it tried to come out, those morons stood there and watched the new dog attack it again. Whose fault is that? "I'm tellin' you" (tm Levin) most people - at the least the ones we see here are not smart or responsible enough to care for a guppy.

Our rescue adopted a dog to a couple who seemed perfect. They were told to confine the dog when they went out because he WOULD chew things. I guess they thought we were being silly and that they knew better. They went out, left the dog loose in a strange house and he chewed their sofa. We get an hysterical call at 1:00a.m. from the wife telling us to come get the dog or her husband was going to take it out in his car and dump it on the road. This is what you deal with when you do rescue. No way did we give the adoption donation back to them.

I was disappointed at JM giving the plaintiffs their money back. I remember a similar case on JJ, and she did not refund the fee because it was a donation and not a purchase price. I know of no non-profit organization that does refund donations. Maybe there are, but I know of none.

7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I'll have to remember not to automatically skip it when he comes back around like I do with most dog cases.

I automatically skip most of them too, and wish I had done so in this case.

Hockeymom · May 3, 2017

Has anyone noticed how "handsy" Doug is? He always touches the litigants in the hallway. He's either patting them on the back or rubbing the shoulder, or something touchy.

califred · May 3, 2017

I'm back on the mainland for vacation and so far behind . I'm going to have to catch up on YouTube!

patty1h · May 3, 2017

After hearing all the crazy stuff spouted by the woman with Foreign Accent Syndrome, I think she has some other major issues. She's traveling all over the world on impulse, has 4-5 incidents with domestic violence, a bunch of ex-fiancees, pregnant with no visible means of support (the defendant is giving her $$), had police called on her for "a psychotic break", needs an emotional support dog which she leaves with random folks, her mother and father kicked her out. I'm thinking some illness involving delusions (ex: the new accent?) and poor reasoning/impulse control (flitting all over/multiple violent relationships).

I don't know what to think about the guy who put up with all that mess - lovesick, wants to feel like a rescuer, or can't get women and will put up with the one that shows him attention. She's cute, dude, but her life sounds like a circus and a headache.

Edited May 3, 2017 by patty1h

JD5166 · May 3, 2017

I watch ALL the Judge shows and I have never ever seen anyone as crazy as this woman with Foreign Accent Syndrome! Holy shit!

ETA there is no way that she should be allowed to have a child! I hope the father keeps this tape!

Edited May 3, 2017 by JD5166

SRTouch · May 3, 2017

for those who haven't figured it out, I routinely recap cases as they air - very rarely waiting until it's over. Which of course means, I may write an impression I have of something, then write an opposing view later on.

bad breakup - ex steals her dog: not sure how plaintiff picked defendant to sue. When MM asks her what she's suing for, she says, in a lovely accent, she wants 5 grand because dastardly defendant took her dog, and now she needs therapy since the dog helped her cope with her PTSD. And why does she have PTSD? Well she keeps choosing abusive bfs. Hey, I totally get how a therapy dog can help - my menagerie certainly help me often enough, but she testifying that he bought the dog, and her problems stem from her past relationships before this guy came along. Not saying defendant didn't pile on and cause additional problems, cause if her history is to pick abusers my first thought is he may be another in a long line of dirt bags she chose. And really, if he bought her the dog 5 years ago, why would he take it knowing her fragile state? She's not one of those who jumped on the PTSD bandwagon, she been diagnosed and hospitalized a couple times, and this dog IS a certified therapy/emotional support animal. Ah, but he says she abandoned the dog in Europe, and he rescued it. She says while working in Berlin she was again hospitalized (for 3 weeks). Course, the dog was with her in Berlin, and she explains while she was hospitalized the dog was being cared for by the friends she was staying with while in Berlin (Ok, we've been hearing her talk for awhile, and she has yet to say "the dog's" name.) The time of the Berlin stay was an off time in the on again/off again relationship with defendant - but even during the "off" periods the guy is still her meal ticket. Oh boy, things are getting a little weird here - as she testifies the accent she speaks in is not natural, but is a result of her psychiatric problems (foreign accent syndrome). She testifies she's currently 7 months pregnant, father of the child is in Italy - yet another abuser who she has filed charges against. She apparently really gets around, so I'm really hoping we eventually find out where she comes from. Kind of off-putting that she's smiling and giggling about all this, but I suppose if she really is emotionally disturbed that could also be a symptom of her looney toons. Ah, back to the case as MM finally gets back to whether she left the dog in someone's care and just left it. MM asks how long she left the dog in the care of these Berliners. Answer, 3 months! Huh, I understand the three weeks while she was hospitalized, but three months without even checking on this "emotional support" animal? Uh, did she really just say she was not in contact with these folks who were caring for her dog because "she has had trouble with people in the past?" Finally, defendant's turn - I've been waiting to hear if he has an accent. No accent, but not impressed by big Mr Blue. Both litigants' body language seems to indicate they're making up the story as they go along as they look up down and all around as they talk. He admits buying her the dog, says it was "her dog" and he's not claiming it wasn't. His story, which he admits is second hand, is that she had a 90 day visa, went to the Berlin US Consulate, and they had her committed. He got evolved because he was footing the bills, so when her visa expired he eventually got concerned and tracked her down through the German Polizei. Whoa, when MM asks why this guy bankrolled her world travels, he's all like, why not, a trip to Europe doesn't cost much, and her parents wouldn't support her. What a convoluted story - I keep bouncing between this has to be total BS and no one could make up this crap. Anyway, back to the case, he tracks her down in the mental ward, but she gets released and splits and goes to Vienna without checking on "the dog." Folks who have the dog tell defendant they need to go to England and need to find someone to take care of the "therapy animal." Defendant says put the dog in a kennel and he'll foot the bill. So, turns out plaintiff, who is suing for 5 grand because this terrible guy stole her therapy animal and who follows her around the world paying her bills, left Germany and headed to Austria while the dog languished in doggy prison (actually, it would be months before she even thought to wonder where the dog was.) Again, is this guy for real? He points out the dog wasn't in a kennel, but was at doggy day care. Anyway, after her European tour, she eventually comes back to the States and turns up at his house, with the cops. BIG kerfuffle, since cops don't have the whole story and think she still lives there even though she's been gone for months. For some crazy reason, in all this time dude hasn't changed the locks, and she still has a key, so the cops just come in. Not even sure WTH she was doing there. Defendant points out she has never asked him to return the dog, and when MM asks if she wants it we hear a long song and dance about how she isn't allowed dogs at the shelter where she's staying - so no she doesn't want her emotional support, she wants 5 grand. I'm glad to hear MM launch into her lecture a out how plaintiff needs to straighten up because there's going to be a baby in a couple months. Not glad because I expect the lecture to change the idiot, just that after 25 minutes this case is finally about to end. And the case ends, we still don't know the dog's name, but Doug does find out it's a female not an "it."
Landlord suing tenant this time: dude wants the tenant to pay for the 2 grand in damages defendant's gf caused during a squabble. Funny defense. We heard others try the "it wasn't me, so sue my guest, that's who caused damage" defense, but I think this may be the first time a tenant tried to say the landlord is liable because he didn't have good enough security to keep tenant's lover away. Oh, and she also says the reason he's suing is because he's upset she moved out - yeah, don't all landlords hate to see tenants move after their bf/gf/lover/guest causes thousands of dollars worth of damage to the property. What a surprise! Property in question is a 3 bedroom apartment/house and tenant's portion, after section 8 paid $1600, was $50. Plaintiff is apparently a new landlord, bought the house 3 years ago, and rented it without a security deposit - to a section 8 tenant who was paying $50 a month. When she decided to move she called and he said they'd set a time to do a walk through and turn over the keys - but she rented a uhaul and left in the middle of the night. Eventually he got a locksmith to get in, and of course found place trashed. After MM looks at the pictures of damage and trash, she asks "What was going on?" Defendant mumbles, "Alot..." MM "no really, what was going on? D "well, I have a history of domestic violence" MM "as the perpetrator or the victim?" Again, as in last case, the abuse victim is smiling, but this time I believe it's how she copes, "smile instead of crying" - last case the girl was just nutty. Sooo... I believe she was abused and attracts losers with anger problems, but being a victim doesn't mean she isn't liable. To make things worse, her three kids (8, 10, & 12yo girls) are there watching the abuse. Anyway, she has no defense, damage claims are not unreasonable. She freely admits to the damage, except the window and two screens, so I'm leaning towards letting those items off the list. I've seen judges toss unreasonable claims or call stuff normal wear and tear, and she had been there a couple or three years, so would have understood tossing out the painting, but this guy was reasonable and didn't seem like he was padding the bill. No defense, especially for not returning the key and dodging landlord. Ok, I get being overwhelmed and sneaking out in the middle of the night and wanting to forget - but that isn't a legal defense. A disgusted MM orders her to pay everything plaintiff is asking after a lecture about setting a better example for the kids. I'm not as disgusted - like I said, to me it wasn't that defendant had no shame, it was that she was a long time victim of abuse - I was glad to hear she's in counseling, and wouldn't be surprised if the daughters shouldn't also be going.
junky's car won't start: plaintiff drove her car to the drug treatment center, and when she got admitted she arranged for her friend to pick up and store it was she while detoxing and undergoing in-house treatment. When she gets out the 11yo car won't start and needs a new ignition. Somehow, in her mind, that means the friend should pay to get her running again, and pony up extra for the pain and suffering fixing the car caused her. Well, she says friend drove the car when she wasn't supposed to, and dealing with the non-starting heap caused an asthma atrack. Geez, sounds like she's one of those who expects friends to drop everything and take care of her errands - oh and she didn't like the treatment program, so left early and is upset the friend wasn't sitting by the phone waiting on the unexpected call to come get her. To compound the sin of not answering the phone while at work, and busting the 11yo ignition, mean ex-friend doesn't taxi her and her luggage home from the auto shop. Not sure what's in her drugged out mind, but think she should thank friend instead of suing.

Edited May 4, 2017 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · May 3, 2017

41 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

bad breakup - ex steals her dog: and this dog IS a certified therapy/emotional support animal.

I missed the part where the dog had been certified as a therapy animal, but... I can't. The level of insanity here was so off the scale that I can say nothing about it, except that it made me believe even more firmly that some people should forcibly be implanted with contraceptive devices, because subjecting a baby to a mother who is demonstrably and blatantly batshit crazy is unconscionable. (but as we were saying either here or on JJ - I forget which - babies can't complain so who cares about them?) I think I got PTSD and maybe even Foreign Accent Syndrome, just watching this case. My head - it spins.

The first case made the uber-trashy Ms. Vasquez seem almost mundane, except for the fact that she doesn't care who she gets it on with - male or female - as long as they're suitably violent and that violence is perpetrated in front of her 3 young children. Nice going, you skank. She also didn't give a shit that her choices in partners trashed the house for which she paid just 50$/month, letting the taxpayers cough up the rest of the 1675$ rent on a place for her to use for her fight-and-bust-up-the-place venue. She just does not give a shit about anything and the snide smirk never left her face, even when JM was reaming her out. The landlord learned to stop feeling sorry for people like this and that's a good thing.

Last case was comic relief. Plaintiff, seemingly dressed, bejeweled, bewigged and outfitted for a gig in Vegas after the show, wanted her friend to pay for the ignition on her old beater after def was nice enough to pick up the car and have it hanging her house around while plaintiff was in rehab. Everyone wants emotional distress payments when anything happens to their 11-year old heaps. Sorry, you lose, both the case and someone who seemed to be a good friend. But she got to show her cleavage, her Elizabeth Taylor knock-off necklace and her fancy chicken wig on TV, so there's that.

Edited May 3, 2017 by AngelaHunter

SRTouch · May 3, 2017

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I missed the part where the dog had been certified as a therapy animal, but.

As I recall, she made the claim that it was certified, and offered the certificate, when she said all the paperwork showed her as the owner. Couple things wrong there. As has been pointed out several times on these forums, anyone with a PayPal account or credit card can get a pet certified - no training required - MM wasn't interested in the certificate. Nobody was disputing she owned the dog. The question was whether she could reclaim it after abandoning the dog on a different freaking continent and not even looking for it for three months.

The nice thing about dogs, even though she took off and abandoned it, if the dog loved her before it almost certainly still does. Now, the baby... if she does the same thing with the baby, she'd still be in jail.

AngelaHunter · May 3, 2017

28 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

As I recall, she made the claim that it was certified, and offered the certificate

Oh, thanks. I think I was so befuddled by her I missed that. I must say, her accent was better than many professional actors who try to affect a British accent.

shksabelle · May 3, 2017

The only reason that nut job should have gone to Vienna would be if Freud were still around to study her.

Broderbits · May 3, 2017

Concerning the dog in the " stress-induced foreign accent" case: I like to think the dog's name was withheld to protect the innocent victim in that situation.

That woman has no business having a baby, and strikes me as the kind of person who would put her baby up for adoption and then try to get it back 3 weeks later.

Jamoche · May 3, 2017

27 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

When she gets out the 11yo car won't start and needs a new ignition. Somehow, in her mind, that means the friend should pay to get her running again, and pony up extra for the pain and suffering fixing the car caused her. Well, she says friend drove the car when she wasn't supposed to

Ignition or battery? It's not clear from her story. Because just running the car shouldn't damage the ignition, but not running a car will cause a dead battery.

catrice2 · May 4, 2017

I have been watching The People's Court for a long time and this was the craziest case I've ever seen. The woman with the foreign accent syndrome had to be a actor there cannot possibly be someone walking around this crazy. The sad thing is I can't decide who was more pathetic ,if it was her or the defendant. Seriously this case disturbs me on many many levels.

AngelaHunter · May 4, 2017

3 minutes ago, catrice2 said:

The sad thing is I can't decide who was more pathetic ,if it was her or the defendant.

Yeah, he was koo-koo as well. We usually see desperate women acting as he did - willing to shower some goof with endless money to keep them around. But his kookiness was so overshadowed by the plaintiff's that it made him seem the epitome of reasonable normality.

I believe the plaintiff was for real. After all the outlandish, crazy things we see here, I know that no one could make this stuff up!

Edited May 4, 2017 by AngelaHunter
Typo

howiveaddict · May 4, 2017

3 hours ago, Jamoche said:

Ignition or battery? It's not clear from her story. Because just running the car shouldn't damage the ignition, but not running a car will cause a dead battery.

I think it was the starter. I was so lovely of the plaintiff to wear her natural hair color to work. Not!

Eliza422 · May 4, 2017

I have actually heard of foreign accent syndrome, but it's extremely rare and is usually the result of some kind of brain injury, like a stroke. It takes a team of doctors to diagnose it and I don't think this woman has the wherewithal to get that kind of medical treatment.

This woman clearly has some deep psychological problems, so I think her Version of FAS is most likely her own choice, whether subconscious or not, to get more attention.

I think this is a case that should never have come on tv.

Hockeymom · May 4, 2017

And did foreign accent chick actually say in the hall, that she knows she'll be an amazing mother. She just needs to stay away from "people like him".

Yes, genius idea to ditch the only person on two continents who cares enough to bankroll your insanity. He was weird too, but now she's knocked up and in a shelter. He may have been handy to keep around.

Hopefully, JM will forward the tape to Child Services. No way that nut job should even be taking care of a plant!

I wonder what the diagnosis is really. PTSD from abusive relationships doesn't sound right. Apparently she has a problem with every person and relationship in her life. These people live in different countries and don't even know each other. If she's having a problem with all of them, the problem is with her. Whether it's her choices, her perception, or her behavior. It's her.

Despite all the giggling, this is so sad. The baby is in for a rough life with a mother so out of touch with reality.

AngelaHunter · May 4, 2017

1 hour ago, Hockeymom said:

Apparently she has a problem with every person and relationship in her life.

To that she agreed with a big smile. I would have kind of liked to have seen this case on JJ. She seems to more readily recognize mental illness and conducts the case accordingly.

SRTouch · May 4, 2017

what's some tickets between friends: these two friends are squabbling get over a whole mess of tickets. Defendant has been getting ready for Cinco de Mayo for awhile now. He's got the mustache all grown, now all he needs is a sombrero and serape and he's ready for the celebration. Oh, and he has poor impulse control, as he just can't help talking to his witness while she's testifying. Apparently plaintiff was laid up for awhile due to a hospital stay, so she let defendant drive her truck. Plaintiff is in court saying she's been socked with a couple grand in traffic tickets - bunch of parking and tickets where cameras take a picture of your plate and the ticket arrives in the mail. Oops, sounds like defendant has a pretty good defense for a lot of those tickets - the offenses took place long before they even met, so no way he was driving her truck. Pretty straightforward case, these folks habitually ignore parking and other traffic laws, but everybody seems to admit different people were driving during distinct periods - obviously he wasn't driving before he knew her, and she wasn't driving when she couldn't for health reasons. Defendant has a countersuit claiming she ran down his good name... well if she claimed he's a dirtbag 'cause he refuses to pay his tickets, in my book all she has to show is one ticket he got and won't pay. Not sure how this one is going to last 20 minutes - oh, what am I saying, MM is going to drag out the backstory, and that's the real reason we watch. What a load of nonsense these two come up with... they barely know each other, having met when they went for wound care clinic as patients 1 but we then find out the both residents of the same transitional home. Well, they did know each other well enough to date a few times, but nothing exclusive. She ends up being admitted (says she spends a lot of time in and out of the hospital). He comes to visit, and offers to move her truck, as she lives where you have to play musical parking on certain days with the street sweeper. So, she forks over her keys, and he kept the truck for months - oh, and she says he told her he had a license, and it turned out his license had been suspended. When MM asks if his license was suspended he gets a little mouthy, and he and the judge both raise their voices a bit during the exchange. Oh dear, these folks (the two litigants and his witness) all live in some type of group/transitional home, and his witness was apparently in the room when they got a little frisky - definitely not something he wanted to see, but thankfully he says he was asleep. Hmmm, his witness actually sheds some light on the case and may add some cred to the countersuit. Part of his testimony is that without her meds she gets delusional, and at one point she was spreading stories which caused the rest of the residents in the group home to ostracize him the defendant til they realized she was off her meds. Then, part of the witness testimony is suspect - like when he tries to insist defendant was only driving locally around Long Beach... how would he know, unless he was a passenger every time defendant drove the truck. Plaintiff wants to discredit the witness, says he's besties with defendant - MM tells her to slow down, defendant's witness just helped her case, so don't be too quick to throw mud on him. At this point I'm really hoping for a quick resolution - MM isn't being very successful making these folks' backstory entertaining. MM takes a recess so she can go look up the traffic code violations and try to pin them on somebody. After the recess, MM makes the ruling that was pretty obvious since the intro - defenantes not liable for parking tickets (especially not tickets from before they met), but is liable for those when he admits to driving. Since some of the tickets have been found to be his, no slander case. Yep, he ends up being ordered to pay a couple HUNDRED bucks, not a couple THOUSAND (we never hear where the 2 grand figure came from, as the total for the tickets is $700 odd - maybe late fees). And, of course mister no impulse control mutters "wwhhaaatt" when he hears the decision.
restaurant won't honor gift card: plaintiff tried to use a $100 gift card to pay a $33 bill, and the restaurant told her the card was a one time deal, no change given. Hey, that's the policy at the pizza place I work at - we don'the give change from coupons. Course we don't give out $100 coupons, either - I think our biggest is ten bucks, and I've seen people pay with a combination of cash and coupon(s). Anyway, the plaintiff wants back the full value of the gift card plus what she ended up paying for her meal... I can hear JJ saying "you ate the steak!" As she bounces in her seat. I definitely don'the see how she would get her meal free. Not only that, but I just don't giving her the face value of the gift card, as that would mean everybody could cash in gift cards at business which issue them. Hey, gift cards and coupons are an advertising gimmick to get people in the door to try out the merchandise - a lost profit/cost for the business charged against advertising. Nope, had it been the manager is might give the meal free to keep the customer happy - otherwise the intention of good advertising backfires and you end up on national TV fighting over $33. Oh, and like I said above, stop giving out $100 gift cards or figure out how to break it down. I agree no currency for change, but in this case they could have worked something out to keep track of the $67 worth of unused gift card amount. Really, sort of a silly lawsuit, but I guess plaintiff mainly brought the suit because of the staff's attitude more than anything else. Kind of embarrassing, she took a friend out to eat, the bill was $43, and she only had $10 cash... just common sense to me to double check when ordering what the policy is regarding the gift card - you can ask if you can include the tip on the card (actually a good question if you have limited cash and might get you better service if the wait staff know you're already thinking "tip" already) and talk a little about the good friend who gave you the card and work it around to the policy if you want - me, I'd skip the work around and just ask. OTOH, I agree the restaurant is at fault here for not putting something - in writing - on the card saying no change will be given. Defendant, a manager or something for the resturant, says "It's on the website." MM points out it's a gift card, the customer was given the card, she didn't get it off the web, so how us she to know your "no change" policy? Both sides share some fault, but I lean towards the greater fault lieing with the business - just not sure if they're legally liable to the point where they would have to pay anything. Pretty much MM decides the business is liable to the extent that they need to add a disclaimer on the card itself but not to the extent plaintiff wants. She decides the absence of that disclaimer will cost the resturant the face value - but only because of the missing disclaimer on the card. Hmmm, defendant claims in the hallway the had offered to refund the face value of the card, but only to the person who bought the card, not the plaintiff who was given the card. Anybody else question that? To me that just compounds the negative advertising - especially bad when on tv.
tenant vs landlord over deposit: long time tenants feel landlord's held too much of their security. Defendants say they were good tenants, but left behind a lot of damage - more than they were charged for - so they don't deserve anymore back. Sounds like they issued a couple or three checks trying to satisfy extenants and after the third check the next thing they knew they were bring sued. As someone who has been both a tenant and part of management, I get where both sides are coming from. As I said, long time tenants, actually 12 years, and everybody agrees most of they time they were great tenants and a great landlord. Then a new troublemakers tenant moves in downstairs. Nothing but trouble, including police being called when new tenant is shouting that he's going to kill the neighbors. Totally get why old tenants are upset and feel something has to be done. Unfortunately, once the new guy is on a lease and living there the management can't just kick him out. But hold out, now it comes out new guy was there two years with gradually escalating problems before the big kerfuffle - and he's still living there. Hmmm, maybe these "very" good tenants have a reason to feel betrayed. As we go to commercial we hear a clip where defendant says both sides claimed the other was causing problems, and the had no way to determine who was at fault. Uh, can we see the police report? WTH, why not advise they apply for a restraining order - if nothing else there would be a hearing and maybe the facts would come out so you'd know whose lease not to renew. Not getting a good vibe from landlords here, but they really haven't had a chance to be heard, yet. Soooo what happens is that plaintiffs get permission to break their lease and move two months early. There's a walk through, where defendants say no problems were noted and they were told they'd get back the full deposit - defendant says, no, problems were noted and they were told part of the deposit would be withheld. Ah, now that they are getting a chance that whopping big damage claim is getting cut left and right. What plaintiffs are claiming as deposit was actually security and last month rent - and they didn't pay last month. Then their moving company broke a $200 window and a bill having to due with furnace hook up. But, all their deductions don't fly - they want plaintiffs to pay their attorney fees from when they consulted an attorney about the kerfuffle and MM says, uh no! OTOH, plaintiff's want moving expenses - uh no! Rough Justice time - amount that should have been returned $368 plus $83 interest so they get back $450 - long ways from the $4200 payday they were seeking.

Off topic: pretty sure Harvey is out in California, probably in LA Basin somewhere, but anyone know where exactly? Today I got to wondering, as it sort of looked like it must be close to a beach with coeds in swimsuits/coverups and dude on bicycle with dogs in a basket. Not that it makes any difference, just looks like I would expect Venice Beach to look.

Eliza422 · May 4, 2017

Ive used plenty of gift cards at restaurants and I've never encountered this situation - I've always been able to use them over multiple visits. You don't get change, but you don't have to use it all at once.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Eliza422

AngelaHunter · May 4, 2017

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Oh dear, these folks (the two litigants and his witness) all live in some type of group/transitional home, and his witness was apparently in the room when they got a little frisky

Thank you for giving us the end of this case. For me, it was interrupted by Donald Trump with some sort of bulletin/speech that just could not wait one hour for the nightly news.

Is it "Freak Week" on TPC? Oh, my - plaintiff and def were "dating" but were not exclusive. Of course not. They need to spread it around. You know how many people want some of what they have? I chose to blank out the thought of those two bumpin' uglies while def's witness lay feet away from them. Jesus.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

restaurant won't honor gift card:

I only know about a gift card I was given for Subway. I bought a sandwich and retained the balance on my gift card, so went several more times until the 25$ was used up. I thought the "gift card" scam was cleared up lately, when businesses were told that said cards do not expire, because cash doesn't expire. I guess not.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

pretty sure Harvey is out in California, probably in LA Basin somewhere, but anyone know where exactly?

I'm sure I don't know, since I not only FF through every high-pitched word that comes from that creepy shyster, but actually have to lower my eyes when he shoves his increasingly ugly face into the camera.

Edited May 4, 2017 by AngelaHunter

sealit · May 4, 2017

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Off topic: pretty sure Harvey is out in California, probably in LA Basin somewhere, but anyone know where exactly? Today I got to wondering, as it sort of looked like it must be close to a beach with coeds in swimsuits/coverups and dude on bicycle with dogs in a basket. Not that it makes any difference, just looks like I would expect Venice Beach to look.

I think it's 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica. I went to USC and thought I recognized the background. That would explain all the USC and UCLA co-eds.

Sign In

The People's Court - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

teebax

arejay

zillabreeze

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment