AZChristian May 4, 2017 Share May 4, 2017 1 hour ago, sealit said: 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. Yep, that's where they are, catty-corner from the Gap store. We went to visit the SM Pier last year, and walked up to see where Harvey stands . . . just because we have no life. He wasn't there. 4 Link to comment
momtoall May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 I have given and received many a restaurant gift card and I've never heard of an establishment making a gift card a one time use transaction. I suppose they have right not to give change from a gift card, but to state that the patron doesn't get the benefit of the full value of the card Is ridiculous. The giver paid the business $100 for the gift card but the recipient has to spend the $100 at one time or forfeit the remainder of the value. I don't understand where this is logical. Basically, the business pocketed and extra $67. Nothing fair about that situation. 8 Link to comment
speac May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 I have encountered those gift cards without a strip but it was years and years ago and usually they were in a small amount so it was reasonable to think a person would use the full amount in one visit. The problem with the gift card was it had no magnetic strip so there was no way to keep track of how much of the balance amount was used-it would have been a bookkeeping mess trying to figure out which patron had spent how much of their balance especially if they sold 100s or 1000s of cards. Frankly it was a very poor gift card design by the restaurant which probably didn't foresee the problems the cards would cause.. I don't know why whoever printed the cards didn't explain to the restaurant the problems they would face when people started to cash those cards. The restaurant is either going is going to have to issue change for the balance left on the card until they are out of circulation or explain to every patrons before the order that if they have a card, there conditions to using the cards of the cards before they order their meals--and perhaps replacing the $100 cards with 10 cards worth $10. 5 Link to comment
howiveaddict May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Eliza422 said: 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. That's how they work too. Last Christmas time I purchased a $50 gift certificate from our favorite Chinese restaurant. Got a free $10 with it. They were actual paper gift certificates. When I went to use it, the waitress wrote what are check was that time, on the gift certificate and subtracted it from the 50. Then she signed her name. So next time we will use the rest of the 50. If the plaintiff's gift card didnt' have a metal strip, then they should have given her a receipt with the balance to use next time she uses the card. Never heard of a one time use card. Sounds like a scam. 5 Link to comment
DoctorK May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 Quote Sounds like a scam. I am not so sure, they may have been very naive and uninformed about the way these cards work. Link to comment
Jamoche May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I only know about a gift card I was given for Subway. I bought a sandwich and retained the balance on my gift card, so went several more times until the 25$ 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. They don't expire in California, and when I googled to see if that was nationwide - it's not. They can't have an expiration that's shorter than 5 years (apparently there were lots of very short-term ones?) but they can be charged "inactivity fees" which could slowly eat them away. Also in CA, if the remaining balance is small (under $10 IIRC) you have the right to get it back as cash. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 12 hours ago, momtoall said: The giver paid the business $100 for the gift card but the recipient has to spend the $100 at one time or forfeit the remainder of the value. I don't understand where this is logical. Basically, the business pocketed and extra $67. Nothing fair about that situation. Exactly. They just choose to keep the cash that the buyer of the card paid them and give only a fraction of its value in merchandise. It's kind of outrageous and deliberate or not, does have the flavour of a scam which in its most basic form is this - paying for something you don't get. I"m pretty sure had the plaintiff been told upfront that she and her guest had to eat 100$ worth of food for lunch she'd never have agreed. Also, as the plaintiff said, this was very embarassing for her. I can understand that. I take my friend out for a really nice, rather pricey lunch then have to sit there and look like a fool arguing over the stupid card. 14 hours ago, AZChristian said: We went to visit the SM Pier last year, and walked up to see where Harvey stands . . . just because we have no life. And here I thought I was tops in the "I have no life" department. 14 hours ago, AZChristian said: He wasn't there. At least you had one bright spot on that day! Did you take some very ripe tomatoes with you, just in case? 2 Link to comment
howiveaddict May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 I would totally go find Harvey's spot if I went to the SM pier. 2 Link to comment
Jamoche May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 (edited) The writeup (pg 52) for today's rerun with the illegally parked non-running non-street-legal motor home leaves out that the guy who parked it on a main street in the business district saw a sign saying "no vehicles over 5 tons" and assumed his motor home couldn't possibly weigh over that much. My Miata weighs one ton; a motor home has to be at least 5 Miatas - Google suggests up to twice that. Plus you know the cops will just treat "5 tons" as meaning "really big, like a motor home". ETA: and then in the halterview he seems totally baffled by the idea of an "as-is" vehicle purchase. Oh, the fun JJ would've had with him... Edited May 5, 2017 by Jamoche 1 Link to comment
SRTouch May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 (edited) JOYful tattoo: plaintiff suing tattoo shop because he says the tattoo artist who inked his American flag hid her name in to tattoo and didn't give him his 13 stripes - so he wants $700. Defendant, shop owner, says the guy didn't have any complaints for a year. Then he showed up after he got it "fixed" saying he wants money. All he has to show the supposed tattoo signature is pictures, and he can't find "Joy" in the tattoo. Plaintiff says he has had several tattoos done at this shop, but all his tats have a deep personal meaning - unlike many folks who go in, pick something they think looks neat without any idea of what it is, means, or stands for. Plaintiff is one of those people who was really affected by the 9/11, says he was a first responder who has had to deal with health issues due to the aftermath of the towers collapse. In fact he says he had this shop do a tatoo of the twin towers on his back. All that testimony is to show that the contested tattoo was meant as a tribute to Pat Tillman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman - for those who don't know, Tillman gave up a multimillion dollar NFL contract to enlist in the wake of the 9/11, became a Army Ranger and died in a friendly fire incident. During testimony he says he knows it only cost a couple hundred to "fix" the tattoo, but he bumped his claim to $700 because the shop refused to make it right. Doesn't match defendant's intro which said there were no complaints for a year, and when MM comes off the bench for a close look at the tat on his arm she says she can still make out part of the "JOY" even though it has since been covered up by a different artist. As soon as MM says she can still see parts of the hidden signature I figure the case is over except for fixing a dollar amount. As MM is down making her closeup inspection, the camera shows a smug looking defendant looking on. Even after MM says she can clearly see "JOY" spelled out defendant still claims he doesn't see anything in the photo, and suggests it may have been altered - ignoring MM saying she still sees it through the cover up tattoo repair. Dude, really, that is just going to piss off the judge - who do you think she'll believe, her eyes or your smug flapping gums. Then he goes into a song and dance about how plaintiff waited a year to complain. Plaintiff starts naming names of employees he complained to, and it seems every time MM asks if so and so was an employee, the answer is yeah, but they were let go. Bout the only employee still there is some dude named Bubba, who is a manager, the guy who supposedly told defendant about the complaint - and is conveniently not here to question. (Defendant owns the shop, but apparently isn't there all that much, as plaintiff has been in and out getting several tattoos over time and never knew he existed.) After the nonsense about possibly altered photos, and all the hearsay evidence of fired employees, MM lets defendant look at the actual tattooed arm, and he still doesn't see it even though I can spot the "J" on tv. He admits to maybe seeing "something," though it's like pulling teeth to get that much. MM gets fed up with smug Lou the tattoo man, awards the $200 it cost plaintiff out of pocket to cover up Joy, and tacks on $500 for Lou's bad attitude. Guess Lou figures any publicity is good, but if I were in the market for a tattoo I sure wouldn't go to his shop. Hmmm, we never heard a thing about incorrect number of stripes on Old Glory after the intro... roommate left hanging: intro for this one leaves makes no sense. (Hey belly button! Defendant thinks bare midriff top is appropriate courtroom attire. Poor girl, facial expression throughout the case suggests constipation - though Doug does get a smile in the hallway.) Plaintiff suing her roommate after the roommate moves out. Well, they were only roommates for a month or two, when out of the blue plaintiff moves in a new hubby. Apparently after a "romantic proposal" and overnight marriage for the plaintiff, defendant got upset and moved out when some stranger moved in - the nerve of some people. Defendant moving out messed up the lease and plaintiff says defendant should pay her 4 grand. Quick reaction, if anyone breached the agreement between the roommates, it was plaintiff with the surprise additional person in the apartment. Anyway, 'nother litigant with an accent, this time legit - fake accent looney was much classier. Appears the litigants met in their native Italy, moved to NY, and after a year rented a place together. I found plaintiff harder to understand, but seemed defendant had a harder time understanding MM. Plaintiff says they had conflicting life styles - she claims different schedules made things hard, and she was a "Felix" to the defendant's "Oscar" in a sort of Odd Couple relationship. Plaintiff tries to skip over the surprise marriage in her story, just says she found out from the office that defendant hadn't paid her share of the rent and was moving, but MM back her up and explores that facet of the roommate relationship. Turns out hubby is in the audience, so of course MM brings him up - no accent here, well except what you expect from a New Yorker. Nice romantic story about the proposal and marriage and all, but the key thing is defendant, who was paying a larger share of the rent, was blindsided by hubby's moving in. Defendant hurts her case when she says part of the reason she moved was the heat was not repaired - better to just stick with new hubby as the reason. Save the heat problem for the case with the landlord for breaking the lease. Anyway, when MM starts talking dollar amounts, plaintiff wants stuff she isn't entitled to - especially since a new lease was signed removing defendant and adding hubby. As soon as the lease changed, her obligation ended. Sounds like defendant left owing landlord a month's rent - which was taken from her share of the deposit. After that, hubby was added and he should be the one replacing that money. Defendant does owe a couple hundred a month for two months - the difference in what she had agreed to pay and what replacement tenants paid before new lease began. So, the $4000 case gets slashed to 400. inept garage fails tire change 101: plaintiff apparently isn't that good with auto preventive maintenance. Problem starts with a flat tire. She takes it to defendant to be fixed. Turns out her rim is damaged, and her other front tire also needs to be replaced. So, new tires on one side and donut spare put on as temporary fix until damaged rim is fixed/replaced. She says car was pulling to side and blames garage, but something bent that rim, so could be front end damage or alignment. Anyway, she limps home and doesn't drive it til time to go back and put the new rim on - doesn't mention car pulling while at the shop. Still, have to wonder why shop didn't question how rim was damaged, and I guess no test drive. Once the new rubber is on, plaintiff and her posse decide it's time for a road trip to Jersey - about an hour and a half drive. Just put on new tires, the car is pulling to the side... who thinks an alignment should have been done automatically before a road trip? Especially when the tires were replaced because the freaking rim was bent! Hmmmm, what's that noise? Hey, it seems to be getting louder! So, she says she pulls off the highway into a parking lot. BAM front end drops and wheel rolls away. She says she immediately called the garage, her insurance and the cops. She has proof she called the cops and insurance, but no phone records and defendant is doing a Sgt Schultz impression, "I know nothing, I see nothing!" He says she never called, according to him she was in an accident which caused to tire to come off. He says it was a week before she showed up at his shop - in a different car - to blame him for the "accident." Oh boy, when we see the pictures, there sits her Lexus sitting with no front left wheel, and his explanation is "Somebody must have loosened it." (Guess the accident excuse is out, 'nother misleading intro?) Just listen to the guy as he digs his hole deeper. Even his insistence that the lug nuts didn't come off immediately is bogus, as it could take awhile for loose lug nuts to come off if not tightened. Evidence is circumstantial, and may not be enough for a criminal case, but in civil court I say pay the lady - and thank God no one was hurt. Defendant told to pay over a grand. Edited May 6, 2017 by SRTouch 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Tillman gave up a multimillion dollar NFL contract to enlist in the wake of the 9/11, became a Army Ranger and died in a friendly fire incident. Well, that was certainly a wasted life. "Friendly fire" - I wonder who coined that phrase. Anyway, def. was a total asshole ("Maybe he was having a love affair with someone named "Joy"! Does he not know how stupid he sounds?) and seemed to be proud of the fact. A tattoo artist who "signs" her work? She got shitcanned, but of course not because she was doing this. Another one - the def. - who would rather show his face here and let everyone in his area know just how he conducts business than pay a lousy 200$ for his idiotic employee's mess up. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: (Hey belly button! Defendant thinks bare midriff top is appropriate courtroom attire. I had to conclude that JM didn't see the bared bellybutton winking at her. I'm sure she'd have protested had she seen it. This case (and what seemed to be plaintiff's overly-exaggerated accent) just bored me, although if I had agreed to live with a female friend (something I would never do) I'd be majorly pissed off if suddenly a man was living there too. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Oh boy, when we see the pictures, there sits her Lexus sitting with no front left wheel, and his explanation is "Somebody must have loosened it." Yes, I'm sure some random person came along and thought, "Gee, I really feel like loosening someone's lugnuts. Why, here's a car! Luckily I have my lugnut wrench in my pocket so I think I'll just do it." Another asshole doing business (watching his massive chins wobbling was making me queasy as I ate dinner) who might find his customers drop off after they watch this. At first I rolled my eyes over plaintiff wanting "emotional distress" over a tire but after listening to the def. I think I might have awarded her that. 1 1 Link to comment
Jamoche May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: JOYful tattoo: plaintiff suing tattoo shop because he says the tattoo artist who inked his American flag hid her Hmmm, we never heard a thing about incorrect number of stripes on Old Glory after the intro... I did a freeze-frame and counted - the original tat was missing the top red stripe. Like, how do you do that? Even in kindergarten when we were all fuzzy on counting, we knew it started and ended with red. I thought maybe they did 11, but no. 12. The repair job added the top stripe and cleaned up the starfield to match - the new one is really nice, especially compared to the original. 1 2 Link to comment
Silver Raven May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 No, JM, Colonel Sanders was not made up. The new ones in the commercials are fake, but the original guy was real. 1 5 Link to comment
Silver Raven May 5, 2017 Share May 5, 2017 God, that Italian woman's accent was annoying as heck. She had to be putting it on. 1 3 Link to comment
babs j. May 6, 2017 Share May 6, 2017 Friendly fire means the fire came from your side instead of the enemy's. Link to comment
BabyVegas May 6, 2017 Share May 6, 2017 On 5/2/2017 at 3:45 PM, Bazinga said: 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. I think I can actually answer this! (Bear in mind I am only a law student, not a real lawyer, so if there are any real lawyers in the house, they should feel free to correct me.) But, I believe JM was basing her decision on the concept of an express warranty. Any time you post an advertisement and make a description of what an item for sale is (such as what breed a dog is) you are warranting that you are selling what you say you're selling. If you describe the dog as a Labrador/whatever mix, you have now created a warranty that you are selling a Labrador/whatever mix. If the dog turns out to be a Shepard/whatever mix, you have violated that warranty. I think from a typical person's standpoint, if you're not buying the dog for show purposes, a mistake in the breed is no big deal. But from a legal standpoint, I think that's why JM did what she did. 1 5 Link to comment
arejay May 7, 2017 Share May 7, 2017 On 5/5/2017 at 7:16 PM, Silver Raven said: No, JM, Colonel Sanders was not made up. The new ones in the commercials are fake, but the original guy was real. I was coming here to say just that. The Colonel was a real man, with an actual restaurant. Love me some KFC. 1 1 Link to comment
SRTouch May 8, 2017 Share May 8, 2017 On 5/7/2017 at 6:27 AM, arejay said: I was coming here to say just that. The Colonel was a real man, with an actual restaurant. Love me some KFC. As I recall, quite a lifestory... born in poverty, worked on the railroad during steam engine days, lied about his age to join the Army and served in Cuba, involved in a gunfight with business rival, etc. Oh, and didn't think much of the food at KFC after he sold out, though still did personal appearances. 1 1 Link to comment
SRTouch May 8, 2017 Share May 8, 2017 (edited) Ah, terrible Monday. First off, not even taking time for cooffee, off to the the pharmacy for refills. Get home, start the pot and get the first cup while still brewing and sit day to watch TPC. Furby, the 7 yo kitten in my pic, hops up for cuddles - unusual for her, as she started life as unsocialized wild kitten and not very cuddly - she needed reassurance that her meal ticket was still going to be around. Turn on the tube (hmmm wonder if this flat screen even has any tubes?) and am greeted by "no need to call...sorry for the interruption" notice from DIRECTV. So, joined in progress at around the 18 minutes mark... tenant/landlord fight: 10 year tenant wants back deposit and money she spent on the dump... plus big bucks for harrassment. Not to be outdone, landlord has damage and harrassment counterclaim. No spring chicks here. Plaintiff originally rented from "Shorty" and his wife. When she moved in it was with a roommate, but a few months later she got married. Since then she has lived there with hubby, but always had a third person in the house renting a room. There was a lease the first year, but it's been month to month since. I got the feeling she was close to Shorty's wife, but she's gone now and Plaintiff and new wife do NOT get along. Anyway, landlord can't afford to keep up maintenance, so ceiling tiles are falling. Landlord wifey makes a fool of herself trying to claim plaintiff's young kid doper room renter pulled the tiles down - nah, place needs a new roof, tile got wet and sagged. Anyway, defendant says no money for repairs, so plaintiff spends a hundred bucks replacing the sagging tiles - band-aid repair, as leaky roof will damage the new tiles next time it rains. So, plaintiff figures the money she spent on repairs will come off her rent, but defendant decides place is a money pit, so better off to just sell it. Everybody gets mad at each other. Plaintiff wants back the repair money and her deposit - defendants have no money... big kerfuffle - hard feelings on both sides - conflicting stories about how place was left after move out - they end up in court with dueling harrassment charges. Nobody has the lease from long ago, but all agree there was a $700 deposit. Problem is, the litigants, who are all old enough to know better, are acting like spiteful little kids. Both sides have pictures, plaintiff has pictures showing a clean house after the move, while defendant shows a mess. Problem is defendant decided on not returning the deposit so refused to do a walk through, so plaintiff kept the keys. So, plaintiff had access and someone apparently made a mess and stole the copper - which can be a major deal resulting in rewire/plumbing. To me that's where the case could get interesting. After 10 years I don't see the landlord having a claim on the deposit - except she kept the keys so had access. So, plaintiff should get back deposit (plus the hundred bucks she has a receipt for for the ceiling). But, if MM believes that plaintiff was vindictive enough and/or decided on self help in getting back the deposit, well, defendant's may get a portion of the over 8 grand they want in damages. Oh boy, once defendant gets her turn, she starts name calling. Plaintiff's hubby was pathetic drunk gambler, renter was a druggy, etc. Not to be outdone, plaintiff calls her a money grabbing witch. All the big bucks harrassment crap is tossed. MM gives back the deposit and ceiling repair money, but offsets that with a few things both sides agree were left undone - so plaintiff gets a couple hundred. Hmmm, no hallterview for these folks - guess Doug was afraid to get between these feisty grannies. car accident tow job: plaintiff claims defendant towed her car after an accident, but won't give it back. Defendant says she came to his lot, removed her personal stuff, and told him to junk it. Sort of involved story from plaintiff about how police told her she had to have it towed, rude tow truck driver refused to listen where she wanted it taken, it ended up at defendant's lot - either plaintiff and her bf witness are telling the truth or they're REALLY bad actors. Ah, defendant's answer when MM asks makes some sense - tow driver either needed to be paid when the vehicle was towed to their house, or it was going to the lot (where of course it would end up incurring impound/storage fees). Plaintiff says she had the money at home, but rude tow driver wouldn't listen and took it where he wanted because he wanted to be paid upfront and the money was at home. Another case which demonstrates why people don't like tow companies. Defendant says he let them take their personal stuff, then after 30 days he junked the car as the tow/impound/storage fees added up to more than the car was worth. Hmph, don't like it much, but he tells us that he did is legal in New York - keep it for 30 days, fill out a NY State form saying it was abandoned, haul it to the scrap yard and hope to recoup your costs. MM agrees, what tow company did was legal - just not nice! Edited May 8, 2017 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 8, 2017 Share May 8, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: 10 year tenant wants back deposit and money she spent on the dump... plus big bucks for harrassment. Each side wanted 10K, mostly for harassment. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Landlord wifey makes a fool of herself trying to claim plaintiff's young kid doper room renter pulled the tiles down She also made a fool of herself claiming she knew plaintiff's hubby (and what the hell was with them having a 3rd person living with them since the day they got married?) stole copper wire and sold it to fund his degenerate gambling habit. She knows this through a most reliable source - gossip. All these people had such horrific grammar it was difficult to listen to them. Also, I was waiting for JM to ask defendant witch, "Are you chewing gum?" She stood there and chewed between each drawled word, just like a cow on its cud. Drove me mad. Def's hubby appeared to be in his late 90s maybe. I'm sure his wife is spending all his money, such as it is, but that's their business. SRTouch, you didn't miss much with the first case. Pizza delivery guy suing his former boss because of a cheque error, blah blah. The only interesting part was def - after JM told him the show would provide a computer for him to access his bank records - explaining to her that he got "locked out" of his account since he was trying to access it from a different computer, even though he had the correct acct. no. and password. Sure. JM believed him not. Understandable that your feral kitty cuddles come first. I have two feral/ex-feral cats - mother and son - and mother remains feral after living with me for 13+ years. She's the most nervous thing that ever lived. She allows only a certain type of petting, but no more than that. If she ever wanted a cuddle I'd be shocked. Link to comment
HoboClayton May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 Pizza Guy looked like a softer Breckin Meyer. 3 Link to comment
Bazinga May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 (edited) On 5/6/2017 at 3:45 PM, BabyVegas said: I think I can actually answer this! (Bear in mind I am only a law student, not a real lawyer, so if there are any real lawyers in the house, they should feel free to correct me.) But, I believe JM was basing her decision on the concept of an express warranty. Any time you post an advertisement and make a description of what an item for sale is (such as what breed a dog is) you are warranting that you are selling what you say you're selling. If you describe the dog as a Labrador/whatever mix, you have now created a warranty that you are selling a Labrador/whatever mix. If the dog turns out to be a Shepard/whatever mix, you have violated that warranty. I think from a typical person's standpoint, if you're not buying the dog for show purposes, a mistake in the breed is no big deal. But from a legal standpoint, I think that's why JM did what she did. I am a "real" lawyer and think you did a great analysis. I agree with what you wrote, but I had two issues. This was not a sale but a "donation," at least in name. I assume if the plaintiff didn't donate, then wouldn't have been given the dog. Probably called a donation for tax purposes, as the rescue is a charity. A donation is a gift. A gift is a gift not a contract. As to your express warranty point, yes, they may have had a warranty as to the breed of the dog, just that I don't think a later contrary advertisement is proof that the dog wasn't part lab. The defendant said the later ad was just a mistake and shouldn't mean anything. JM didn't buy that it was a mistake and saw it as proof the dog wasn't a lab. The defendant also had a story about the mother being part lab, so this dog would also be part lab. My point is that the dog breed is a discernible fact, not a matter of guess or opinion. The plaintiff would have had to have the dog breed tested to prevail, IMO. Obviously, might be cost prohibitive to test the dog. I don't think the later ad proves the dog's breed anymore then the original ad-they are just guessing for both ads. I would think that it is obvious and reasonable that a rescue could be mistaken as to the breed of a dog; probably guessing the breed by what the dog looks like. I don't think the later ad is dispositive of anything for the plaintiff to have won. So two reasons the plaintiff should not have prevailed: It was a donation and there was no contract and no money should have been returned. If not viewed as a donation/no contract/no express warranty, the breed of the dog is a provable fact and the plaintiff had the burden to prove it. Either way, the plaintiff should have returned the dog due to its aggression and not recouped the donation. BABYVEGAS good luck in law school. You are going to do great. Edited May 11, 2017 by Bazinga 5 Link to comment
SRTouch May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 (edited) typical homeowner vs tradesman: plaintiff's AC not working right, so hubby hired defendant. So much of the case seems to involve hubby, plaintiff even alleges a physical altercation between defendant and hubby, but hubby isn't here to answer any questions - apparently he has a cold. Defendant came to house multiple times - first he has to find the problem, figure out how to fix it, order parts, etc. Sounds like homeowners were the type who stand over your shoulder offering useless advise while you're working (yes, I had a few like that back when I ran a landscaping business). Problem here is defendant has no people skills and let homeowners get under his skin. Oh, and he tells MM there was no argument right after plaintiff testifies the argument turned physical. So, I'm having trouble with everybody's story. In the end, AC repair dude decides it needs a blower motor, orders the part, but gets fired from the job before putting it in. Oh, and there's a disagreement in how much he was paid for the unfinished work - homeowners say they gave a $250 deposit and he says he only received $50. Hmmm, I think I believe homeowner on this, as tradesmen usually want the money for parts up front, and he was buying a 200 dollar plus motor. Somehow, this $500 repair case has blown up into a 9 grand case (she wants 5 grand but his countersuit is only for 4 grand). Tradesman story is full of holes, and his countersuit is laughable. He wants money for tools he left in the attic and forgot - hey, I grew up surrounded by carpenters and I find it hard to believe an AC repairman left tools behind while when he left to order parts. Then he wants $720 for time wasted and gas money (remember, this was a $500 job - maybe $650 if he needed to add coolant) oh, and a couple grand because plaintiff bad mouthed him to consumer affairs. Like I said, I grew up surrounded by tradesmen - everything about this guy strikes me as bottom rung dude who is in the trades, but not someone to be trusted - and I can't help but remember MM grew up in a family of contractors. Funny thing is that most of that comes from his testimony, because I don't really believe everything from plaintiff and she sounds like a difficult customer. Anyway, nobody proved anything, nobody gets anything. Defendant does his best to talk his way into turning this into a loss while MM is making her ruling. lifelong friends end up suing each other over house purchase: plaintiff says he helped his buddy on a house deal, but defendant cut him out of the deal at closing. Not sure, but sounds like he sort of wants to be considered a realtor/broker and get a finders fee. Now, after things went into the crapper, he not only wants a 5 grand finders fee, but 3300 in additional expenses while he was helping defendant look at houses. Course, it takes zero time and effort for da judge to tear apart his case, and she quickly rules in favor of long stringy haired gap tooth. Oh, and the lifelong friends from the intro knew each other maybe 8 years. parking lot skateboard vs car kerfuffle: plaintiff claims skateboard dude ran into her as she was driving through the parking lot. She says when she accidently ran over his board, he damaged her car in a fit of rage. She called the cops, now she wants her $500 deductible to repair the damage (total repair cost around $850). Pretty straight forward. Out of control skateboarder in a parking lot where he shouldn't be, hit a car which was where you expect cars to be, car damaged, whether in the collison or the whole enraged teenager boy punching a car. Ah, one of those entitled spoiled number II kids, and of course he did nothing wrong in the eyes of his mommy. He denies the punch, but then MM makes a joke and clueless kid cops to punching the car, but hey she ran over my board! Ah, he doesn't deny the punch, but tries to excuse it because he punched the car in a fit of rage, and it was all her fault for driving in a parking lot to pick up her daughter from her martial arts dojo. Really, mom ought to reach over and smack the smirking little punk... but then I guess that wouldn't be the best example... Even when it's obvious MM isn't buying his defence, it's all a joke and he's having a grand old time, yet mommy acts like she sees nothing wrong as she laughs along with him. Best part is, even though the car driver did nothing wrong, he has a countersuit for skateboard damage. Uh, thinking back to the dark recesses of my mind, I sort of think my parents reaction would have been a tad bit different - and may have included a skateboard bonfire. Not sure how that would work, do today's skateboard even burn? As I kid I remember making skateboards out of scrap lumber and those old clip on skates. I have a feeling though that had it been me or one of my brothers standing with mom in court on national tv, she would have been hot enough to melt the metal wheels. Edited May 9, 2017 by SRTouch 1 7 Link to comment
meowmommy May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: SRTouch, you didn't miss much with the first case. Pizza delivery guy suing his former boss because of a cheque error, blah blah. The only interesting part was def - after JM told him the show would provide a computer for him to access his bank records - explaining to her that he got "locked out" of his account since he was trying to access it from a different computer, even though he had the correct acct. no. and password. Sure. JM believed him not. Understandable that your feral kitty cuddles come first. I have two feral/ex-feral cats - mother and son - and mother remains feral after living with me for 13+ years. She's the most nervous thing that ever lived. She allows only a certain type of petting, but no more than that. If she ever wanted a cuddle I'd be shocked. I've been away from here for weeks now because both my teenage kitties, including the cutie beauty in my avatar, crossed the Rainbow Bridge. I adopted two adult cats on Saturday but my heart is still broken. Ridiculous that pizza delivery owner just accepted that he couldn't access his bank records and hadn't bothered to take it further when he got locked out. I can see him not knowing his TIN off the top of his head, but he has to have it on his tax records somewhere. And even without a lawsuit, why would he not want to monitor his bank records? I'm assuming delivery guy accidentally keyed in the extra 1 on the ATM, but my experience is that usually the bank instantly fixes it when they compare the keyed number to the checks actually deposited. Edited May 9, 2017 by meowmommy 1 3 Link to comment
Bazinga May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 (edited) On 5/9/2017 at 3:39 PM, meowmommy said: Ridiculous that pizza delivery owner just accepted that he couldn't access his bank records and hadn't bothered to take it further when he got locked out. I can see him not knowing his TIN off the top of his head, but he has to have it on his tax records somewhere. And even without a lawsuit, why would he not want to monitor his bank records? No, the owner was only unable to access the bank records for the show at the show. He went to the bank and the bank gave him the monthly statements showing the money was not returned. JM wanted the records from the point the original check was deposited by the delivery driver, as there were a few days the funds could have been returned unaccounted for by the bank statements. The owner (and his bank rep) obviously saw his statements previously and knew he didn't get the money back, just that the bank only gave him the monthly statements as proof. He tried to access the records from the show and got locked out. He didn't "accept" not being able to access his records permanently. This was just a temporary situation that he could clear up and get access from his computer or by going to the bank, just not immediately for the show. Not sure why the show staff couldn't call TD, but maybe he didn't have enough information on him to pass the phone ID checks. JM made the defendant look like a liar who got paid twice who was hiding this fact by not bringing the proper records and not gaining immediate access, when he really didn't do that. Every once in awhile I get locked out of my online bank account (when I clear my history) and have to have a number called to my phone that has to be entered before proceeding. Pretty much that was all that was happening here-as he was using a new computer, the online account wasn't recognizing it and a security number needed to be texted over. Somehow they ran into problems accessing the account. Harvey's closing comment was that "...this was a bank error, the defendant never got the $1,000 in his account, the plaintiff got the $1,000." Left unsaid that it was TD Bank's fault for not returning money it took from defendant's account and plaintiff got paid by TD not the defendant. Defendant did nothing wrong. Show should have brought everyone back the next day when the defendant had the complete records from the bank and JM would then see that the defendant never got the money back from TD and known that the defendant was not at fault and the plaintiff needed to pursue the matter with TD instead of leaving the situation unresolved and allowing the defendant to look bad. It really was a simple, open and shut case made more complicated then necessary. Edited May 11, 2017 by Bazinga 1 6 Link to comment
patty1h May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 Delusional friend who wanted $5000 for helping his friend find a home was delusional. Sounded like he saw an opportunity to play on their "friendship" and crowbar his way into having a roof over his head. He's another one of those fools who think that a handshake is still enough to seal all kinds of deals. Maybe I heard wrong but didn't the defendant say that he was on disability? That's a good deal if he gets enough disability money per month to swing a mortgage, utilities and other expenses. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: plaintiff's AC not working right, so hubby hired defendant. That woman's motor mouth left me dizzy and depressed, but it made me grateful that my husband is not a spineless, ball-less chicken who would throw me under the bus, hide under a chair and cry, "Nooo! Don't wanna!" when Douglas comes in to drag him out and asks him to testify and help me. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: lifelong friends end up suing each other over house purchase: Funny, I've helped friends in many ways - gotten them jobs, driven them all over, even helped paper a damned wall - and not once did I demand payment for it. All we had here is "Did too!" and "Did not", but def's story made more sense. Plaintiff deserves 5K for spotting a For Sale sign and asking the sellers what they would take for their house? $1500 for gas? Really? Plaintiff wanted def. to pay for an accident HE had because he slid on some black ice? What a freakin' nutcase. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: 43 minutes ago, patty1h said: Maybe I heard wrong but didn't the defendant say that he was on disability? That's a good deal if he gets enough disability money per month to swing a mortgage, utilities and other expenses. Yes, you heard correctly. I have to think that lenders know that, unlike unemployment, welfare and disability are guaranteed for life (at least it seems that way) so don't mind extending credit on that basis. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: parking lot skateboard vs car kerfuffle: (Stupid quote thing.. mutter, grumble) I love how Mommy looked so proudly at her dick-headed wee little 21-year old baby boy - the "Second" something or other and I'm sure it's a noble lineage and he makes the First proud - even though he threw a toddler tantrum at the scene of the accident he caused. I'm just sorry plaintiff went through her insurance instead of making that infantile twerp with the douchebag hairdo pay all of it. Yeah, sure - if you get annoyed, you have a perfect right to vandalize someone's property. Mommy needs to have a little chat with her progeny. Really, you'd expect this case to involve a 12-year old and not a grown man. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: I've been away from here for weeks now because both my teenage kitties, including the cutie beauty in my avatar, crossed the Rainbow Bridge. I adopted two adult cats on Saturday but my heart is still broken. I"m SO sorry to hear.:( I know just how you feel. I hope the new kitties bring comfort. After a loss, I've never been able to adopt new pets for at least a year or two, but everyone is different and I hope that taking in some other animals in desperate need may help you get through this. Edited May 9, 2017 by AngelaHunter 3 Link to comment
SRTouch May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 50 minutes ago, patty1h said: Delusional friend who wanted $5000 for helping his friend find a home was delusional. Sounded like he saw an opportunity to play on their "friendship" and crowbar his way into having a roof over his head. He's another one of those fools who think that a handshake is still enough to seal all kinds of deals. Maybe I heard wrong but didn't the defendant say that he was on disability? That's a good deal if he gets enough disability money per month to swing a mortgage, utilities and other expenses. Believe he also said he had recently sold a home and was looking for a replacement, so he may have had a chunk of cash for investment. Not a lot, though, as I believe he was turned down at Bank America. Have to wonder about the loan, though. I wonder if it's one of those really great deals that falls apart when the housing market takes a downturn... I am not a fan of some financial institutions which make bad loans and expect the taxpayers to bail out their bad investments (like some big business fiasco where folks who ran the company into the ground get a golden parachute). 1 Link to comment
Bazinga May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 29 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: the "Second" something or other and I'm sure it's a noble lineage and he makes the First proud His name was Ryan Voorhies II, kind of like Jason Voorhees from Friday the 13th infamy. 1 2 Link to comment
meowmommy May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Bazinga said: No, the owner was only unable to access the bank records for the show at the show. He had went to the bank and the bank gave him the monthly statements showing the money was not returned. That's what I get for listening to the show with a quarter of an ear. Usually it's half an ear to the TV and half an eye to SRTouch's excellent recaps. 3 Link to comment
babs j. May 9, 2017 Share May 9, 2017 The People's Court is the only court show I have scheduled to record. What I hate about it - aside from Harvey - is Judge M saying to grab the nearest toilet paper and crayon to write a receipt. I know she means that you don't have to have anything fancy in order to write a receipt but I DO NOT want to have any toilet paper that is stiff enough to be written on. 4 Link to comment
DoctorK May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 Quote I DO NOT want to have any toilet paper that is stiff enough to be written on. I don't know, years back there was a (satirical) ad for "Macho-Wipe" which appeared to be 60 grit sandpaper. 3 Link to comment
BabyVegas May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 12 hours ago, Bazinga said: BABYVEGAS good luck in law school. You are going to do great. Thank you! I actually just took my contracts final today. I've been using TPC to practice my issue spotting and analysis skills. It works pretty well. I just missed the bit where they said it was a donation and not a sale price. That's what I get for not paying attention to the fact pattern! 3 Link to comment
AZChristian May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 15 hours ago, babs j. said: The People's Court is the only court show I have scheduled to record. What I hate about it - aside from Harvey - is Judge M saying to grab the nearest toilet paper and crayon to write a receipt. I know she means that you don't have to have anything fancy in order to write a receipt but I DO NOT want to have any toilet paper that is stiff enough to be written on. OT: When we're traveling, I take my own TP. I refuse to use the "John Wayne Toilet Paper" provided by most hotels. It's rough, it's tough, and it doesn't take crap off anyone. 6 Link to comment
ElleMo May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: That woman's motor mouth left me dizzy and depressed, but it made me grateful that my husband is not a spineless, ball-less chicken who would throw me under the bus, hide under a chair and cry, "Nooo! Don't wanna!" when Douglas comes in to drag him out and asks him to testify and help me. He may not be ball-less, he may just know that the entire case was BS and didn't want to make a fool out of himself on TV. Link to comment
meowmommy May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: Believe he also said he had recently sold a home and was looking for a replacement, so he may have had a chunk of cash for investment. Not a lot, though, as I believe he was turned down at Bank America. Have to wonder about the loan, though. I wonder if it's one of those really great deals that falls apart when the housing market takes a downturn... I am not a fan of some financial institutions which make bad loans and expect the taxpayers to bail out their bad investments (like some big business fiasco where folks who ran the company into the ground get a golden parachute). I thought the liar loans and subprime market were supposed to have gone away. I want a job where I get $5K for driving by a FSBO sign, with the prospective buyer, and negotiating this great deal that's $5K under the asking price so I can pocket the difference. And then when I have a car accident, bill the buyer as if it's a company car on company business. And not put my name on the paperwork but claim I'm fixing the buyer's credit. 18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: (Stupid quote thing.. mutter, grumble) I love how Mommy looked so proudly at her dick-headed wee little 21-year old baby boy - the "Second" something or other and I'm sure it's a noble lineage and he makes the First proud - even though he threw a toddler tantrum at the scene of the accident he caused. I'm just sorry plaintiff went through her insurance instead of making that infantile twerp with the douchebag hairdo pay all of it. Yeah, sure - if you get annoyed, you have a perfect right to vandalize someone's property. Mommy needs to have a little chat with her progeny. Really, you'd expect this case to involve a 12-year old and not a grown man. Mommy needed to stop giggling like this was all a big damn joke. Because it wasn't. Edited May 10, 2017 by meowmommy 1 Link to comment
SRTouch May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 bf split with the car she bought him: another in a long line of foolish women, a couple months after meeting on Facebook the 22yo is loaning Prince Charming money for outstanding tickets, buys him a car, and pays his insurance. Course she had to pay off his tickets, seeing as he couldn't drive his new car with a license that had been suspended for unpaid tickets. Maybe - just maybe - the girl has learned her lesson, since when MM "asks how foolish she is" she answers "Very!" Just another nail in the "how foolish can you be," our young, fairly attractive, 22yo security guard is paying dude's bills with credit cards after blowing through her savings. I heard but didn't watch the intro so haven't seen Prince Charming, yet, but he must be something because apparently about the time the credit card bills started coming in he ditched her, found a new gf, and blocked her on social media. When MM switches to him I still can't see it. He starts by agreeing they met on FB, but the whole time he's looking down mumbling - need JJ to yell "LOOK UP HERE!" Right off the bat MM catches him lieing about who paid insurance on his new ride, seems he has problems keeping what months come first on the calendar Oct, Nov, or Dec - unfortunately for the Prince, she has her credit card statement showing payment to his insurance company (not proof positive, as he points out the CC statement doesn't show what policy was being paid). STREEE-IKE TWO!!! claims he paid his own tickets - he just didn't bring receipts to court. Oops, she has HER receipts along with his driving record where of all the places he was ticketed. Geez, MM again asks our young woman WTH she saw in Mumbling Monotone Dude. Poor girl does not want to tell us how foolish she feels, but blushes and is all he was so sweet to me - he took car of my car - gag! Want to reach through the screen and slap some sense into her! Ah well, back to the case, MM asks our princely defendant what she should make of plaintiffs receipts and break down of where she paid tickets, is he a liar liar pants on fire? Our witty prince replies, "You can think whatever you want..." ah, the perfect smart a$$ elementary school kid answer. Oh boy, MM gives him some rope, then stops him as he starts to run down the plaintiff and tells America he sounds like a complete idiot. One thing that comes out of his rebuttal is that he isn't the first bf who ditched her after emptying her bank account - a fact she confirms when MM asks. MM strongly urges our girl to take the money and use it on therapy - which leaves the girl crying - as Doug says afterwards, MM has daughter's that age and we had a glimpse of how she'd react to obey of them acting like the plaintiff. Yep, plaintiff won, and defendant tells Doug he has nothing else really to say. Off topic - I know lots of us skip ol' Harv, but take a look at how tall that bearded dude is! clumsy dog groomer drops the pooch: plaintiff says the groomer dropped her dog off the table and now refuses to pay the over 2 grand in vet bills. (Used to watch Cesar Milan, and remember an episode where he helped teach a groomer (maybe a vet) how to handle problem dogs.) REALLY! 2 grand in vet bills! If a "professional groomer" sees they can't handle a dog, surely they should stop trying to force the issue and quit before the dog gets hurt? During the intro the groomer says the dog came in all matted, was old and grumpy, his policy is he's not responsible, yada yada. Nope, I'm skipping this one. I did catch a little of the hallterview - enough to know defendant lost, yet shows no real concern for the hurt dog, just in covering his a$$ so his next victim's owner won't win. bad sub-lease: plaintiffs sublet a room from defendant and there's differing stories about why the real landlord wants them out. Their story is they were paying defendant, and he was pocketing the money and the real landlord never got paid. Defendant's story is the real landlord wanted them out when she learned plaintiff was preggers, since she didn't want babies in the place. Hmmm, that's all from the intro, and it looks like both sides want to use the landlord - so where is she? Anyway, the case is about the rent money. Plaintiff's want back what they claim they paid, while defendant says when they were told to leave they stayed, but stopped paying rent, so they're "SQUATTAHS!!!" Any Stargate Atlantis fans? Plaintiff hubby reminds me a little of Jason Momoa in his too small shirt accenting his muscles - only a little though, as Momoa is a truly big guy, whereas thus guy has muscles, but looks more muscle-bound-bodybuilder than athletic. Apparently, problems arose with the real landlord almost as soon as they moved in, because plaintiff agrees she didn't want kids there. Uh, come to find out that doesn't matter much - defendant fell behind when previous subletter moved, so landlord had perfect right to be upset, kid or no kid. But, they say defendant told them not to worry, they could stay. After two months they get served, but again they say defendant assured they didn't really have to leave - so they stayed. According to plaintiffs, landlord wanted everyone gone, defendant and them, and reason given was nonpayment of rent. Uh, maybe it's just me, but if someone knocks on the door and serves notice to quit, I think I'd skip defendant and go to the person who made out the notice and find out what they say - especially if I have the timeline right and mommy to be is now 8 months pregnant. Heck, landlady may have decided they could stay and just kicked him out as they were only two months behind in THEIR rent - no telling how far behind defendant was. Don't know if defendant would be making more sense in whatever his first language is or not, but his story, in his accent, makes zero sense. It DOES NOT help that he wants to tell his story HIS way instead of answering MM. Hmmm, maybe it's not all him not making sense, because he moves out, plaintiffs know he moved when the eviction notice was served... so why did they stay, again. From hubby's testimony it sounds like they waited until after defendant was gone before they even talked with landlady - and that was a chance meeting, not a call or visit to find out what was going on. Defendant finally admits he was months behind on rent, but claims he caught up AFTER moving out, but says it was all good because he had known the landlady for years - uh, not so good if landlady is serving eviction papers. Finally got to defendant's claim that the reason landlady wants them gone is the "no kids" rule, but of course MM says that just ain'the legal. Anyway, as defendant says, they're still there even though they were served - and he's right, they haven't been paying rent. So, rather she originally wanted them out because of the baby or not, now they've given her a legit reason for kicking them out. Ah, dimwits, the whole bunch. Like MM says, they're demonizing the landlady, yet she had to go to through the eviction process to collect 6 months back rent from defendant, and now plaintiffs are two months behind. So, even if these plaintiffs pay today, landlady is still out defendant's portion of the rent because she can't rent with these squatters there. Oh, and MM points out they have no lease, so at any time landlady can give them 30 days to be gone - and wth are they suing defendant anyway, because he paid the landlady the rent money they gave him - months late, but that money has been paid. Ah, like I said dimwitted people - MM is breaking it down to "landlord/tenant for dummies" and dummies are trying to argue law with a career lawyer/judge/arbitrator. 1 6 Link to comment
Brattinella May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 @SRTouch, hope the bad weather passes you (and me) by! Thanks for your recaps! Link to comment
patty1h May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 I felt a teeny bit bad when the blond plaintiff in the 'boyfriend loan' case started to cry after MM schooled her on getting some self esteem. especially when MM also told her to get some therapy, but the other half of me was yelling at her "Why are you crying now? Why does a judge have to tell you that giving men money after 6 weeks is stupid and only leads to trouble?!". I noticed that she didn't bring anyone with her into the courtroom, but I hope she has some people in her life to remind her that she doesn't have to buy love. When MM asked her what she saw in Mr Wonderful, she said something about him liking her car? That's a great trait for a good relationship /sarcasm/. The defendant had the classic "sleazy creep" look and I wanted to crack him for lying about paying his tickets and insurance. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: clumsy dog groomer drops the pooch: plaintiff says the groomer dropped her dog off the table and now refuses to pay the over 2 grand in vet bills. (Used to watch Cesar Milan, and remember an episode where he helped teach a groomer (maybe a vet) how to handle problem dogs.) REALLY! 2 grand in vet bills! If a "professional groomer" sees they can't handle a dog, surely they should stop trying to force the issue and quit before the dog gets hurt? During the intro the groomer says the dog came in all matted, was old and grumpy, his policy is he's not responsible, yada yada. Nope, I'm skipping this one. I did catch a little of the hallterview - enough to know defendant lost, yet shows no real concern for the hurt dog, just in covering his a$$ so his next victim's owner won't win. MM also thought the defendant seemed unfeeling, but his female associate (didn't quite catch the connection) denied that. Apparently the bone (got it? bone!) of contention was that the plaintiff didn't have her own vet, so she took the dog to an emergency center where the costs were higher, and the defendants didn't think they should pay the higher cost. But there were texts from the defendant to the plaintiff directing her to the very hospital where they ended up going. Then the defendants claimed the services were padded, but had no evidence from another vet. And MM pointed out that the defendants could have and should have gotten a waiver for liability before ever touching the dog, so they were toast. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 10, 2017 Share May 10, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: bf split with the car she bought him: another in a long line of foolish women I thought we'd seen the worst of desperate pathetic women, but this had me cringing. The way MM puts it - "So how many days did you know him before you started paying his bills?" really showcases the insanity. The boyfriend - a dull, inarticulate and goofy looking dork - prompted JM to inquire as what was so riveting about him that it would motivate plaintiff to use her 28%interest credit cards to keep feeding him funds. JM made a litigant cry! I say that's good, since maybe, just maybe, it might wake her up, although I don't have high hopes for that. We've seen sad women twice her age doing this kind of thing. I was 22 once and had a boyfriend who was way better looking than this creep. He had a good job! He paid his bills and bought his own car and not once did he expect me to bankroll him. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: clumsy dog groomer drops the pooch: Well, I'm sure defendants did wonders for their business, after revealing what jerks they are. No amount of logic from JM swayed them. They're not responsible for the dog's injuries because, well - it was the dog's fault? Oh, well, maybe they'd be willing to pay a bit of the vet bill, if the vet had called them for a consultation, even though def's shrill, mouthy wife couldn't even pronounce the procedure done on the dog ("I never heard of that!"). And yes, the emergency vet is very expensive (I've been) and if a pet is older then blood tests must be done before adminstering anesthetic to be sure the organs will tolerate that. Anyone with half a brain would understand that, but not the defs! The thing is, that is the place defs recommended the plaintiffs go! Defs, who are not only NOT vets, but not particularly educated in any subject judging from the poor grammar, just didn't agree with what the vet decided was necessary so wouldn't pay. Surprise! You will pay, and don't expect an influx of business after this. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: bad sub-lease: Okay, call me crazy but I couldn't help but think that a mature couple might want to wait before deciding to have a baby, if the only accomodations they can afford are one room in Mohammad's apartment, to house both them and the upcoming blessed event. I was puzzled by the plaintiffs. They were both well-spoken and seemed intelligent but they seemed unable to comprehend that if you don't pay rent, you can't sue to get it back. Maybe boyfriend could cut back on gym memberships and steroids and use the extra funds to find a place of their own to live? Just a thought. 6 Link to comment
Eliza422 May 11, 2017 Share May 11, 2017 12 hours ago, AZChristian said: OT: When we're traveling, I take my own TP. I refuse to use the "John Wayne Toilet Paper" provided by most hotels. It's rough, it's tough, and it doesn't take crap off anyone. I thought I was the only one who did that! 2 Link to comment
AZChristian May 11, 2017 Share May 11, 2017 10 hours ago, Eliza422 said: I thought I was the only one who did that! We just got back from a week-long driving trip. I had even accumulated a few partial rolls to slip into my tote bag for highway rest stops. A friend and I were once discussing packing for a cruise, and I (afflicted with OCD) provided her with a copy of my detailed packing checklist, which she copied for her adult children. The only feedback I got was when she told me her daughter looked at the list and asked, "Don't they provide toilet paper on cruise ships? Do we have to take our own?" LOL. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 11, 2017 Share May 11, 2017 (edited) Full of laughs today, right from the beginning when there's a chuckle when Douglas tells folks they can be seated (not sure what that was, as camera was on MM - may have just been because she motioned with both hands to be seated. Cases were kind of blah, but some entertaining litigants. Last case booooringggg... only chuckles there are the plaintiff's bowl haircut and how red-faced defendant gets. room renter disaster: plaintiff is big TPC fan, and starts out star struck and sucking up to MM. As usual, MM turns to defendant so everybody will be can be equal on the suck up meter. Love it when she says, "I'm sure watch the show, too?" And defendant says "No." Within a few minutes I'm thinking these two have a well rehearsed routine they put together to get on TV. The plaintiff works from her house, but has rented out a bedroom for 15 years. Defendant rented the room, and to hear these two talk, nothing but drama, lots of yelling, cussing, naked gf showing up in plaintiff's bedroom while she's sleeping, etc etc. She claims there were problems from the get-go... before he moved in he told her he had an office, yet when he moves in he's home all the time - no office, he says he "let it go." Not one sided, either, defendant says little old lady plaintiff gave as good as she got - believable as plaintiff says she raised twin boys and would have "laid him out" had things ever turned physical. 'Nother inconsistency in her story - She told us how afraid she was when he got right up in her face yelling at her, what with her hip and shoulder replacements, but now she's saying how strong she is and she'll take him on. And, with all this, dude lived there for WAY longer than I would have put up with with a month to month tenant - like two and a half years. Wow, I have a laid back reputation, but no way I would have let this go that long - either as tenant or someone renting out a room in my home. The lawsuit claims 4 grand, back rent, cleanup, and bad talking (among other things, she has a raised toilet seat and he took a pic and posted it on FB). She alleges he made veiled threats. I know restraining orders are not supposed to be used to evict renters, but if he truly threatened her, and his naked guest wandered into her bedroom in the wee hours, well, that sounds unsafe and worthy of at least a temporary restraining order. Heck, just the guest wandering around seems like justification for ending the rental agreement - after all, this was not a "full house privileges" deal, according to her, the rental ad stated the living room was off limits - and why, if she's renting a room on CL, was there no lock on her bedroom. Well, like I said, her testimony was so theatrical and well rehearsed, I question whether the case is real. Really thinking they got together to cook up this case to get a little something the show and get on TV. He really doesn't dispute anything, even admits casually unlocking and entering her home a month after he was no longer living there to get charged another month's rent. Even with him not contesting much of any of her charges, MM cuts the award in half. Plaintiff gets a couple thousand instead of 4 grand. parked car hot and run: Plaintiff claims defendant side swiped his parked car and kept on trucking - but he managed to get his license number. Defendant says it never happened, he doesn't remember ever even being on that street, he's fully insured so if he had hit plaintiff his insurance would have paid. And why did plaintiff argue against getting cops involved, anyway? Typical truck sideswipe car accident. Having driven trucks I can totally believe the driver not realizing he had clipped the car (true story - I was driving an Army deuce'n'half with trailer through a German village when Yahoo German driver tries to pass me - my trailer caught his little Volkswagen Passat and totaled it - I didn't feel a thing - stopped at a stop sign, and my assistant driver did her job and while checking we were clear saw the Passat in the mirror. Had there been no stop sign we would have never known. Oh, and after we got back to our kasern I received two awards, a Drivers Medal for a year's driving witdh no accidents (obviously orders were cut before the incident) and the Motor Officer painted a silhouette of a Volkswagen bug on my truck's door.) Anyway, chuckles from this case comes when plaintiff's witness is called. MM tells him to come on up, and he asks if she means approach the bench, she laughs and jokes yeah, sit on her lap, and hasn't he ever watched any courtroom shows. His answer, yeah, but none with such a good looking judge - ah, another suck up! Plaintiffs are entertaining, but poor defendant is another of those talking what he thinks courtroom talk should be instead of how he normally taljs. Not that I think he shouldn't cut out cussing if he does a lot of that in normal talking, but he's all "I have no recollection of being on 8th street." Ah, maybe reason plaintiff is doing so much better is that he's a law school graduate - never passed the bar, but he did graduate a couple years ago - and when he tracked down defendant he used that to apply pressure - I'm a lawyer, this was a hit and run, pay up or else. Ok, lawyer dude may be an ambulance chaser in the making, but I buy the story. Like I said, I can easily see truck driver not realizing he hit the car, and while his company has insurance is can see him arguing "IT WASN'T ME!" to avoid problems with his job. Thing is, to keep out of trouble at work, he made a sworn statement to the insurance that he wasn't on the street. Well, forget his insurance, no way they pay now, so plaintiff has to chase the driver to fix his car. Obviously, not enough for criminal conviction, but I figure enough circumstantial evidence for civil court - two eye witnesses and an unnamed Samaritan who left a note on plaintiff's windshield with partial license plate. Plaintiff wins his $903 for repairs - but I don't agree that you'd always know if you hit a parked car - in a personal vehicle, maybe, but not in a commercial size truck. homeowner suing contractor/handyman: homeowner dude says he hired defendant to correct a code violations. Seems a neighbor complained that the outside stairs to plaintiff's upstairs were a violation of code, so city was making him make repairs. So, he hired defendant. As often happens when renovating, once work started the estimate turns out to be lower than it should be - sometimes shady contractor, but often problems that crop up when they start tearing stuff apart. To top off the low estimate, plaintiff says in the beginning he paid the defendant's partner, and now partner is MIA. When we get to see a picture, never mind the cost overage, looks like a lousy job - the siding contractor dude put up blew off with the first strong wind. Also, to my untrained eye, I question the installation - it appears a siding panel is directly in line over a window, which seems iffy to me. Oh, and part of homeowners complaint is that since the renovation the window unit air conditioner in that window no longer has power - claims the worker must has cut the electrical wiring, which cost him to repair. Homeowner appears totally credible, receipts and dverything where he had to bring in someone to fix the siding and wiring. Defendant, uh not so credible. I usually start on the side of the workers - mainly because homeowners often gave unrealistic ideas of what's involved. Takes no time to start doubting this guy. Actually, the picture started me doubting, and MM had to ask for hgat, plaintiff wasn'the planning to show it. Ah, picture really blows defendant's claim that air conditioner is way, way far away from his work. He even admits to moving wiring, but claims what he moved was not to the outlet air conditioner uses. Uh, dude, unless the thing is on its own circuit, I bet all the outlets on that wall, the one you worked on, are connected. I can totally see how "moving a wire" could have left some outlets working, but pulled loose the connection to the outlet in question. And, in the process, creating a fire hazard, so it may be a good thing that unit didn't work, cause that prompted homeowner to find the problem. OTOH, obviously this old house had had previously renovations which were below code, so maybe, just maybe, this work just happened around the time the electric quit - nah, I think it's on this guy. Time to throw out a new defense theory. But, judge, he didn't notice the outlet wasn't working for six months. Dude, can't believe you're going there! Only thing plugged in the outlet is a freaking window air condioner. That sort of implies the unit is only used when needed, and plaintiff already said, more than once, that the first time he tried to use it there was no power. What really sinks dude, is the homeowner has a statement from the electrician who came to repair the non-working outlet - again, plaintiff came prepared. Oops, now dude us on the defensive and starts interrupting and trying to talk over the judge. The intro implied the defendant was glad to be coming before MM because, with her family background, she knows something about the trades. Well, that knowledge is biting him in the a$$, cause she's spotting the holes in his arguments as soon as he spouts them - only relying on the electricians statement to back up what she already thought. To really shoot down his cause, he tells the judge she just doesn't understand. Bad move dude, because she clarifies his case, says yep, just what she's thought and been saying for 20 minutes. While plaintiff is just listening and doing his bobble head routine, MM is getting louder and ready to rule. No question the siding was botched, and evidence certainly there that he messed up the electrical. Ah, but we still have time to kill, so when defendant finally admits he may have screwed up, gets all red faced and asks to tell his side, MM lets him run with it for awhile. Really, did dude just say it's the homeowners fault because he tried to do the job on the cheap and hired him when he knew he wasn't a licensed contractor. Not sure what his point is, maybe just warning the viewers not to hire him. Oh, and now I'm wondering about permits, as this all started due to an unpermitted reno not being up to code, so if you're in the market for a house and plaintiff opens the door when your there to view it, hop in your car and skedaddle. Times up, she cuts off dude and give plaintiff what he was asking for. Edited May 11, 2017 by SRTouch 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 11, 2017 Share May 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: room renter disaster: plaintiff is big TPC fan, and starts out star struck and sucking up to MM... Well, like I said, her testimony was so theatrical and well rehearsed, I question whether the case is real. Really thinking they got together to cook up this case to get a little something the show and get on TV. HATED both these freaks. Plaintiff is "so nervous" but her attack of nerves didn't stop her from talking over and interrupting the judge or even slightly impede her lengthy rehearsed and very UNfunny spiel. She and the creep who rented a room in her apartment spent two years fighting and screaming and cursing, but neither ever thought of having him move out. She wasn't afraid of his physical threats - after all, she has twin boys. From that are we supposed to deduce that she regularly beat them up or otherwise subdued them when they attacked her? Def, a middleaged man, posted pics on FB of plaintiff's raised toilet seat and... enough. If they were for real, they had some kind of kinky, weird symbiotic thing going on (cuz yeah, don't think I'd let someone who verbally abused me live in my home) but real or not, these litigants were irritating in the extreme. Plantiff: "May I approach the bench?" She must have been watching old Perry Mason reruns on MeTV. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: parked car hot and run: It was the "Wasn't me" defense. "Even though I was seen and even though someone got my license number - wasn't me!" Javier? Either undo your suit jacket button or buy a suit that fits, because that one was too small. Don't know about his witness, who thought "Step up" meant that JM wanted him to go up and join her on the bench. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: homeowner suing contractor/handyman: Two Extreme Douchebag Hairdos in one case. Other than that, this case was boring. Another handyman-type person who basically said, "Why would he hire the likes of me when he knew I was unlicensed and would do a crummy job?" ETA: "Times up, she cuts off dude and give plaintiff what he was asking for." You can always tell who the liar is, because that person invariably says, "WOW... " when the ruling goes against them. Edited May 11, 2017 by AngelaHunter 1 3 Link to comment
meowmommy May 11, 2017 Share May 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Full of laughs today, right from the beginning when there's a chuckle when Douglas tells folks they can be seated (not sure what that was, as camera was on MM - may have just been because she motioned with both hands to be seated. I got the impression that Douglas had told people to sit down and they didn't sit, so both Douglas and MM did the motion thing. Ugh, suckup plaintiff, going to law school either way (yeah, right), "May I approach the bench?" This ain't Perry Mason, sweet cheeks. And she thinks she's so cute. Not. And that it's like a marriage--WTF is this relationship? Doesn't sound like any landlord-tenant relationship I've ever heard of. The one thing she said that I agree on--she's definitely like a cockroach. Neologisms of the day: she says "derogative" for derogatory, and he says "previant" for previous. And then stupid witness in second case wants to come up to the bench, too, and then flatters MM as a "beautiful judge." Gag. Why would you go to law school and never take the bar? Oh, right, it's been several years but he doesn't want to take it "right away." Edited May 11, 2017 by meowmommy 1 3 Link to comment
meowmommy May 11, 2017 Share May 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Plantiff: "May I approach the bench?" She must have been watching old Perry Mason reruns on MeTV. 12 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Ugh, suckup plaintiff, going to law school either way (yeah, right), "May I approach the bench?" This ain't Perry Mason, sweet cheeks. GMTA! 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 11, 2017 Share May 11, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, meowmommy said: and he says "previant" for previous. I forgot about that part, and I particularly noted it at the time. I'm on my second Grand Marnier so that's my excuse. "Previant" - new word! 16 hours ago, meowmommy said: GMTA! Hee! So it seems. ETA: Quote definitely like a cockroach. I can't believe I forgot that one, because it was pronounced "cock-er-roach" and I hate that, just as I hate it when someone says "real-a-tor" for "realtor." Oh, and "previant" trumps "derogative" (IMO) so defendant won that round. Edited May 12, 2017 by AngelaHunter 1 Link to comment
SRTouch May 12, 2017 Share May 12, 2017 (edited) No good deed goes unpunished: here we have a good hearted woman who takes a struggling family under her wing. She helps the clerk at a store she frequents and her family (clerk, her hubby, and kids) out. First off, she hears there's no money for Christmas in '15, so she goes out and raises a couple grand, presents, etc via a community facebook page and turns water to wine. Fast forward, the family wants to attend a family function - wedding or some such - but don't have a car, and with no credit card can't rent one. They approach their good friend (read sucker) and ask if they can put her credit card on the contract - promising to pay cash when they turn in the car so no charges will ever go on her card. Soooo, sucker plaintiff, without consulting her cop husband, agrees to let them use her credit card as a guarentee at Hertz - not sure why they needed the car for a week, wedding must have been out of town or something. Anyway, when time's up she texts hubby defendant and is told everything is cool, car has been turned in and he paid cash. Plaintiff tells hubby what she did, gets a lecture about being so trusting, but deed is done - or so they thought. Fast forward a couple more weeks, plaintiff hubby brings in the mail and tells our good hearted sucker Hertz is about to report her for stealing a car, thing was never turned in and the bill is still accumulating. Oops, quick call to defendant and cop hubby tells defendant hubby to meet him at Hertz NOW or he's coming to arrest dirtbag who has been taking advantage of his sainted (sucker) wife. When we get to defendant's side of the aisle we get nothing but nonsense. It's not that he didn't have a credit card, just that it was a prepaid card and hertz rental place wouldn't accept it because rental was over his limit. Few other things are coming out that would steam me if I thought about them - back in '15 when community came forward to help the family at Christmas, one of the things the community paid for was back cable bill; then we learn even though family doesn't have two nickels to rub together, defendant still has money for a cell phone, smokes and beer (anybody else look at 'da bum' and think of Norm on Cheers). Anyway, his defense is.... he thought it was a gift, never knew she expected him to only have it for a week, she never called after the first week to check that it had been turned in and the bill paid in cash - that's all a lie, he was gonna pay but credit card place wouldn't accept his card - whoa, too late, I'm thinking about it now and getting mad at the dude taking charity to support his family while watching cable TV, smoking, drinking his brewsky, drawing public assistance and waiting for wife to finish cooking dinner with the food someone donated to the food bank. Of course defendant wife has a job, but Norm is between jobs - part of the reason he kept the car was for employment interviews. Let's put that aside, back to the case.... plaintiff doesn't have any of the texts for the initial agreement, she deleted those, but does have the later texts which talk about the agreement and, if anyone had any doubts, show defendant knew this was no gift. He trips all over himself trying to justify keeping the car the extra time - "she told me I could keep it an extra week" - dude, you didn't keep it 1 extra week, you had it 3 extra weeks. Then dude has the gall to complain plaintiff wanted the lump sum instead of taking payments. Actually, at one point plaintiff says she was willing to take payments, but then she finds out she's paying big bucks in interest every month. MM jumps all over him when he complains she wouldn't work out a payment plan. Only question here is how much TPC will end up paying - cause loser dude will not be out anything, just has to start looking for a new sucker to bilk. Obviously the rental fees and any credit cards charges will be paid, but like so many others before her our good hearted woman is asking for wasted time and pay and suffering - which ain't happening. On rare occasions, mainly Hot Bench, I've seen the judges change the "pain and suffering" to punitive damages, telling us they can do that because your typical small claims litigant is a lay person who just didn't know how to word their complaint. Ah, not this time, though. Maybe it depends on the cause of action of the case, MM points out this was a breach of contract case. Anyway, nothing for wasted time or pain and suffering, but all the charges and interest (25%). Geez, they could have bought car for the $2200+ Hertz will get - wonder if dude got a job at one of those interviews/appointments he needed the rental to get to. Course, our poor struggling couple completely miss why plaintiff wouldn't accept payments, arguing during the hallterview that judge was too hard on them and not understanding a thing the judge tried to explain. Defendant wife didn't say much in court, but in hallterview she says she's "a little pissed" at what MM said, and that plaintiff "was supposed to be a friend." So she have been willing to let them pay installments... Let's see, how long many years/decades/lifetimes would it take to pay off 2200 plus 25% interest making minimum payments? never know someone 'til you live with them: plaintiff moves in with childhood friend, and within a short time claims friend is stealing stuff, including her food stamps card, and kicking her out. Defendant says it was plaintiff who was caught sneaking around in HER room. Stuff came up missing, so she gave her the boot. This looks to be a waste of time / filler type case. Clips before commercial break is MM repeatedly asking plaintiff whether or not she ever actually moved in, plaintiff saying no never moved in, then MM asking, didn't you take her to landlord/tenant court? That can't happen if you never moved in - well, maybe I moved in. Ok, sounds like we're about to be treated to ghetto trash case - so turn on closed captioning and have ghetto slang dictionary ready in other window when we get back from commercials. Oh boy, plaintiff (as predicted can't speak da English so good - "know her family, her family know mines") says she's a nurse, does home care. Grrr, always frosts my cake to hear ignorant sounding yayhoos, who can probably barely take vitals, claim to be a nurse - Mom was a surgical RN, and my older sister is a retired RN. My friend actually had a "home health care nurse" come when he lived here who didn't know how to use the old fashioned blood pressure cuff (Sphygmomanometer) that was part of her kit, so she couldn't take his blood pressure because the batteries were low in her automatic dealybop. Heck, that's something I learned in Army medic school back in the 70s, haven't done since the 80s, but have no doubt I could pick up a cuff and stick the heartbeat thingy (stethoscope) in my ears and do today. (Never a medic, transferred to pharmacy tech class when they brought out needles and told us we were going to practice sticking each other to draw blood.) Anyway, when MM tells our ignorant sounding plaintiff that she has no idea wth she just said as she tries to tell her story I give up and fast forward to see if defendant makes more sense... actually a better way to watch, fast forward (instead of skipping ahead) I get to see the puzzled expressions of the audience and almost bored look of MM as she listens to her millionth stupid case. Nope, defendant is almost as bad - zip out to Doug to see if he can salvage anything. Geez, they actually wasted half the show on these two. Maybe it would have been better to slow it down and watch at normal speed since plaintiff obviously gets animated and waves her hands around... but no, not worth backing up to watch without earplugs. Poor Doug doesn't get a chance to do any salvage work - plaintiff storms out and doesn't even slow down to talk. Defendant comes out and says all plaintiff's lies made the whole thing a "mockery". Apparently, somewhere during the mockery MM heard something - she awarded $85 to plaintiff. Think I'll wait and read the comments before deleting it, maybe I'll get REALLY bored this weekend and watch. Edited May 13, 2017 by SRTouch 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 12, 2017 Share May 12, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: No good deed goes unpunished: here we have a good hearted woman who takes a struggling family, under her wing. Something I've been saying for years: People may be poor but that doesn't necessarily mean they're deserving. Personally, if I were going to help anyone it wouldn't be people who have money for cell phones, can buy cigarettes and who certainly have never missed a meal ( I can imagine how much of that 2K went on the kids and how much went on cigs, booze, phones and fast food for the parents). Are car rentals and cable real necessities? I really hope that if plaintiff wants to continue helping, she wises up and finds people who are at least trying to help themselves. We know that cretinous, revolting ("Axed, axed, axed" creep looking uncannily like the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland) hubby told his wife, "Get on the phone and get a rental car from her. We've got a live one here," because the 2k was just a beginning and they figured they'd milk this sucker for everything they could. They kept the car until they were "finished with it" and plaintiff should just pay and stop bitching. Aside from that, this was a most satisfying beatdown from JM, who went as far as to tell these scumbags that they're going to Hell. Loved it. I think if she could have she would have ordered them to work on a chain gang. Might do them a lot of good. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: plaintiff moves in with childhood friend, and within a short time claims friend is stealing stuff, including her food stamps card, and kicking her out. Oh, my aching head. I think JM got a headache too, trying to follow the messed up story from the yelling, screaming plaintiff and her ("She know mines," "I brung") horrible grammar. She can't be a nurse, can she? I also think JM has little time or sympathy for people getting food stamps yet have cell phones and buy 85$ sneakers for children - I have never yet bought sneakers for 85$ - or someone who has the taxpayers coughing up money for their Sec8 rent (because of course they both have a bunch of kids) and subleases in order to not pay even the token rent charged to them. Oh, no. She didn't do that because that's illegal, right? It wasn't rent, it was just "helping out." 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: but no, not worth backing up to watch without earplugs. Amen. I was surprised at JM who usually never allows litigants to go off on a screeching tangent this way. Plaintiff go the ridiculously expensive sneakers back, but flung them aside in disdain since they didn't look pristine anymore. ETA: Quote Apparently, somewhere during the mockery MM heard something - she awarded $85 to plaintiff. Yeah, she awarded it to plaintiff for the overspending def. did with her food stamps. *sigh* Edited May 12, 2017 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.