meowmommy May 12, 2017 Share May 12, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: 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 here 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. She said, "I'm a nurse...home health aide." As an actual RN, my goal is for every single person who falsely claims to be a nurse to be reported to their state board of nursing for misrepresenting themselves as a nurse, and criminal charges filed for the states where it's a crime. That includes doctor's offices where the medical assistants pretend to be nurses. I also don't know a working nurse who would ever qualify for food stamps. 1 4 Link to comment
AZChristian May 12, 2017 Share May 12, 2017 (edited) Folks like the defendant in the first case have stopped me from being as generous as the plaintiff in that case. I've loaned money to friends and family that I've had trouble getting back. We once financed a mobile home for a family member who apparently thought it wasn't necessary to make more than two payments the first 8 months. The first was late, and the check bounced on the second, and there were no more payments until we sent a 3-day notice from an attorney: pay up or move out. We told them that if one more payment was late, the sheriff would be evicting them 3 days later. They were never late again. Interestingly, there were frequent pictures on FB of all the presents they were buying their grandchildren during those months. Sure, they had money for gifts - they weren't paying anything for where they were living!!! I've loaned money to a friend who I had to badger for payments, while she was posting pictures of FB of herself at a convention in Reno (she lived in Nashville). Isn't she a good daughter, she took her mother to Reno with her!!! And, oh, the pretty stuff from HSN. But was she paying us? Nope. After I finally told her to pay up or I'd file suit, she did pay. And 6 months later, she was asking for another loan. We gracefully declined that opportunity to be taken advantage of again. Anyway, given our learned skepticism, we do not donate directly to anyone, and we do NOT loan money. We donate through our church throughout the year, and then to the Salvation Army at Christmas. We volunteer at a food bank. We do realize that people sometimes need a little help. But if you're sitting at the entrance to Walmart with a "Please Help" sign and a cigarette? Uh, no. Edited May 12, 2017 by AZChristian 3 Link to comment
meowmommy May 12, 2017 Share May 12, 2017 18 minutes ago, AZChristian said: Folks like the defendant in the first case have stopped me from being as generous as the plaintiff in that case. I've loaned money to friends and family that I've had trouble getting back. We once financed a mobile home for a family member who apparently thought it wasn't necessary to make more than two payments the first 8 months. Those defendants had zero shame. And I think if I were MM, I would have padded the judgment a little bit. The plaintiff said she's still paying interest on what is owed, so by the time--when and if--the defendant ever pays on the judgment, even more interest will have accrued. I once had a co-worker, a unit secretary in ICU, who hit me up for money with a sob story. Even though I made her sign an IOU, there was no way she was ever going to pay me back. I found out later she had done the same thing to almost everyone in the unit. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 12, 2017 Share May 12, 2017 34 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I also don't know a working nurse who would ever qualify for food stamps. I can't imagine a working nurse not knowing about the wonderful world of birth control either, and would keep having kids she can't support. Where's the baby daddy in all this, anyway? Shouldn't he be around to lessen the burden on everyone else who has to help feed the kids she chose to have? 20 minutes ago, AZChristian said: Folks like the defendant in the first case have stopped me from being as generous as the plaintiff in that case. Maybe it's wrong, but I stopped donating to help people the year I read in my local paper at Christmas about a woman who went into labour with her eighth child as she was standing in line for a free Xmas basket. The article made it sound like some wonderful Christmas miracle. I still remember how outraged I was. Now I donate only to help animals, who can't help themselves. We can almost always see JM's face change when she hears about people who spend a lot of time and energy to work the system so they don't have to pay for their own stuff and are now in court to get yet more money they didn't earn. She no doubt worked her butt off to get where she is and her sympathy level is now nearing less than zero. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch May 15, 2017 Share May 15, 2017 30year friendship ends over a grand: these two were supposedly each other's best men at their weddings, have known each other for years, and over those years have worked with each other on a number of projects. According to plaintiff, a realtor acquaintance approached him and offered him some work. Problem was, whoever signed the contract had to be insured, and he wasn't. So he brought in his long time friend, who was insured, and he was going to work with the friend - small job worth a total of 4 grand, he was supposed to get a grand and the insured friend's cut was 3 grand. He figures he's working as a subcontractor, as that's how they always worked in the past. Ah, defendant sees it different. Since he was brought in as the insured contractor, and it's his name on the contract, he sees plaintiff as an employee. Partway through the project, defendant has received 2 $1000 payments, and plaintiff asks for a partial payment on his grand. Big kerfuffle because all of a sudden defendant wants all the paperwork signed for a 1099 IRS form for his "employee" or no pay. End result is defendant not only kicks plaintiff off the job, but kicks him out of his truck and dumps his tools out of the truck. Ah well, plaintiff is all decked out in fancy suit and bow tie, but commits the faux pas of calling her honor "sir" - quite a slap in the face after the suck up last week calling her such a beautiful judge, but really better than the occasional litigant calling her sweetheart. My initial reaction is defendant must of been short of money and looking for excuse not to pay. Ah, but not sure that holds up once defendant has a chance to talk. His story is that, yes, in the past he paid his friend under the table, but recently the IRS has been getting stricter enforcing the law, and he's had to change his business and make sure to follow the law. Seems the old ways were okay for smaller customers, but the business has grown and now he's getting more corporate type contracts. Ok, I could buy that, but he should have said that up front, and definitely no reason to blow up and kick the guy off the job after he'd been working for awhile. Well, unless plaintiff was equally bull headed and adamant that he get paid under the table, which is what I see happening. Course, way I see it defendant was still pushing the envelope letting any workers start before getting the paperwork. I mean he got the contract because he's insured, and what's the insurance going to say when/if a worker had been hurt on site without the paperwork. Soooo, way I see it both of them were bending/breaking get the rules, but got their backs up and decided the other was unreasonable. And, to confuse matters further, defendant has whole other story. He says he DID pay plaintiff, but his amounts differ from what plaintiff claims - oh and he actually has messages from plaintiff to support his view. His version is he gad been after plaintiff to fill out the paperwork all along. The big kerfuffle occurred after he had paid plaintiff a couple times. He says the kerfuffle happened when plaintiff wanted a third payment, and he said no more pay until you fill out the paperwork. Defendant is starting to look a lot better. Now MM starts getting into why plaintiff's lawsuit numbers don't match defendant's evidence. Hmmm, turns out he's basing his claim on previous jobs where he worked and wasn't paid what he figures he should have been paid. Defendant has ready answer - this wasn't the first time he withheld payment because plaintiff refused to fill out paperwork. That sort of answers some questions, but why would either of these two start yet another project, and a bigger one worth more money, when they have previous pay disputes. MM decides to accept email claim for $600 - not really sure why, since she just shot down plaintiff about the amount he was owed from the previous work, and everybody agrees he didn't complete the current job. Oh well, defendant agrees he is owed something, but says he usn'the cutting another check without the guy's SSN - sooo, another case decided with "rough justice." On to the ginormous countersuit - plaintiff was suing for $600, but defendant has $8,000 countersuit for slander and lost business. That'll be a tough one to win, especially after she's already decided for plaintiff in the main case. Ah, after the kerfuffle, plaintiff went on craigslist warning folks about defendant's dirty business deeds. Defendant says he left the negative posts up for 16 weeks, and it cost him jobs and money. First off, construction is seasonal, so can he prove business was slow because of the posts versus normal downturn from weather - maybe business was bad for everyobe, not just him. Second, the wording has to be just right to win, since plaintiff has every right to post his opinion. Oops, yeah, he seems to go beyond simple opinion... he's alleging criminal acts with nothing to back it up. So, yeah, I think he goes to far - but 8 grand too far? At first, I think MM is going to use that to offset the $600 she awarded plaintiff, but no, she decides plaintiff didn't cross the line, defendant gets nothing and plaintiff gets 600 hundred - but only after he supplies his SSN for the IRS forms. tow company case: plaintiff says defendant cause $4856.50 worth of suspension damage when they towed his ticketed car. Defendant has a countersuit for $1500 because of lost wages - yeah, like that happens all the time. Case starts out iffy when plaintiff wants to argue the ticket which got his car towed. Dude, even if the ticket was totally bogus, that's something to fight city hall over, not the tow company doing their job. So, dude parked his car illegally on Wednesday, and didn't go back til Friday - figuring the folks who use two driveways could just go around him for days. Uh, another entitled snowflake who figures everyone should make allowances for him, no reason he should follow the rules. Anyway, when he goes to pick up his car at impound, he says his suspension had been damaged. He has pictures, but they don't show much of anything to me. He needs a mechanic's report to say there was damage which prevented him from driving it to where he parked, not just damaged, but damaged after his illegal parking. Ah, like so many in the past, defendant brought someone who has nothing to add instead of the driver who towed the car. Don't like entitled plaintiff, but right off the starting line defendant is an idiot for bringing his pal instead of the driver. So, anyway, defendant starts off with - how do we even know those pictures are all of the same car - how do we know when it was damaged - my driver, who couldn't be here today, noticed damage when before he towed the car - and no, we don't take pictures before we hook up to see car, we tow 40-50 cars a day and can't be bothered (cue "not just for dirty picture" speach). Don't know which of these litigants is more irritating... scratch that, tow guy is more irritating with his condescending attitude. Oh boy, not only no pictures, but he brought a copy of the tow paperwork instead of the original - with an even more ridiculous story of how they make a copy when the tow is completed and shred the original - or is it that the original is left with the police precinct after an officer comes out to inspect the vehicle. MM doesn't buy this for a second, and defendant is all "of course, that's how we always do it" like she's being silly for asking. So, on the one side we have defendant with either no or suspect evidence. On entitled plaintiff's side confusing evidence - MM asks for mechanic's report and instead gets tow receipt that doesn't match - which defendant explains is because he came to get his car after hours. Ah, finally plaintiff produces something from a mechanic - dated a month after he picked up the car. Come on dude, I don't like tow dude, and you're torpedoing your case. After you picked up the car from impound, was it drivable or did you have to tow it? If it was drivable, your case is lost because damage could have been preexisting. If it had to be towed, why did it take a month for a mechanic to check it out? Some nonsense about... not sure, something about a dept of consumers affairs complaint, not enough money to fix the car, temporary repair with "used" parts on his 10yo car so the 4800 is what it costs for a brand new front end on his old car (but hey, got to admit it's a GOOD looking old car). Anyway, the key here is he drove it from impound, so he has no proof it was damaged during the tow. Maybe it was, I kind of think it was, but he can't prove it. Oh, and MM did some pretrial research, she tells us, and this model car had some recalls dealing with this exact problem. Would have been easy enough for defendant to prove the car was damaged when they picked it up, but might have taken an extra minute or two, so why bother. Course the countersuit is laughed out of court. landlord suing over savage which exceeds security: should be a slam dunk case. Ah, but these folks are like I was back when I was a tenant - don't think I ever did a walk through with management, and back in those days phones plugged into the wall and didn't take pictures - heck pictures were taken and then you took the film to be developed. Soooo. Nobody has pictures, no walk through, yada yada he said/ she said. Geez, even if landlord doesn't routinely take pictures, when he entered the place after evicting his tenant of 5 months, don't you think he'd take some, or at least have a witness to the shambles he says he found. Ah well, couldn't be much of a shambles as he's only asking $350 and part of that is past due rent. Oh boy, this case is one of those which convinces me I should forget about renting out my third bedroom. This was a month to month rental, she only paid rent a couple months, was late, made partial rental payments, etc, and it took going to court to get her out. That also explains why he's only suing for $350 - a lot of what he would have been asking for has already been settled in housing court in a previous case. She was first tenant after new laminate floor was put in - and he says she ruined the floor in those 5 months. Part of his claim is for paint. I question that at first, but apparently defendant decided she wanted a striped wall, so he had to repaint when she left. All his damage claims are like that, no pictures, and sometimes no receipts, but everything is very reasonable and I believe the guy. Once we get to defendant's side of the aisle we start getting a woe is me, i got sick, daughter lost her job - he knew of my problems and kicked me out anyway. Not to be outdone in the no evidence department, a big portion of her defense is that things were supposed to have been settled in the housing court settlement - but somehow she lost the settlement papers last week and hasn't had time to get copies. Lucky for her, plaintiff is honest enough to admit the rent he is asking for in this case should have been dealt with in the previous case - he admits he just overlooked it - there goes half his damages. Well well, defendant turns around and helps HIS case for late fees when she admits that was the agreement (which is another thing, everything between these folks was verbal, nothing in writting) ah, but she didn't help too much, because they disagree on when rent was due. Doesn't really matter, all this should have been in the settlement papers - which neither side brought - so all I see him getting is damage to the property, which he wouldn't have known about til she was gone and he gained access. He gets most of the property damage, everything except a ripped screen door for which he has no receipts - so $175. Link to comment
meowmommy May 15, 2017 Share May 15, 2017 SRTouch, didn't get those cases today. If history is still true, we'll see those tomorrow. 1 Link to comment
Eliza422 May 15, 2017 Share May 15, 2017 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: SRTouch, didn't get those cases today. If history is still true, we'll see those tomorrow. Yeah I got the nutty plant case and even nuttier pen case. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 15, 2017 Share May 15, 2017 I didn't get those either. First case was a contracts one, which I really like, so much more than I like pitiful women suing ex-boyfriends over rent, etc. or women beating each other up/keying cars/acting like savages over some loser guy/mutual baby daddy. Plaintiff has a landscape company and agreed to do def's yard for... well, we're not totally sure since neither ever thought of a contract. Anyway, def stiffs plaintiff, nit-picking and phoning and texting her a million times a day because what she agreed to wasn't done, but who knows? No contract, remember? Def's hubby gives the plaintiff the final finger, tossing her a check for 1000$ when she was due 2000$. Def was Client from Hell, I think, and that's another reason I love contract cases (even minus the actual contract): They make me so very thankful I was never in a service business or any business where I had to deal with the public. Plantiff was sporting Alice in Wonderland ringlets (Ladies, please - not after the age of seven!) while def looked as though she just got out of bed after tossing and turning all night and couldn't find a comb. Then we had a silly plaintiff who sells vintage pens on EBay, sold one to the def, who found out on arrival that it was cracked. Def got the charge reversed but kept the pen, since he quite rightly felt he should not have to pay for the return postage on a damaged item. Plaintiff did everything but stand on his head to try and deny he did the damage or even knew about it and even tried to claim that was a different pen. We're talking a 59$ item here, not the Hope diamond. JM showed him point by point from pictures that because of the patterns on it, it was indeed his. Sigh. Plaintiff loses and remained pissed off in the hall. Last case - the usual nonsense. Plaintiffs, who like to have kids when they can't even buy a 13-year old car without getting Mom to pay for it, want all their money back because said beater needs some work - and not even major work, something like new tires and a wheel alignment - but they expected showroom condition, I guess. They must have missed the 15,000 cases here where JM says an old car is sold "as is." Oh, but def wouldn't let them take it to a mechanic to get checked out! What a meanie she is, so of course they had to hand over mom's money without checking out a single thing. Why should they? Shouldn't you put all your trust in strangers from Craigslist? They were forced to buy the car at gunpoint. Or maybe it was just that they didn't want to have to ask momma for another 100$ for the mechanic check. Whatever. Plaintiff sounded moronic. Fix the beater yourselves and get lost. 1 4 Link to comment
SRTouch May 16, 2017 Share May 16, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, meowmommy said: SRTouch, didn't get those cases today. If history is still true, we'll see those tomorrow. Yeah, could be. Wouldn't be the first time my channel got the schedule mixed up and I see the same cases two days in a row. Soooo, I may have just provided everyone with a preview of tomorrow's show. In fact, some of you may recall I complained about this channel's scheduling of Hot Bench. My schedule still shows two episodes every day with identical info - which means if I don't manually tell the DVR to record both, it skips one - and they're NOT THE SAME EPISODE. Ah, well, if that's all that I have to complain about life must be pretty good. Edited May 16, 2017 by SRTouch 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 16, 2017 Share May 16, 2017 (edited) After the schedile mix up, I half expected to see a repeat of yesterday. Nope, today's fare is not a repeat of yesterday, and doesn't appear to be what everyone else saw either - and doesn't appear to be what the schedule says, since directv says something about a windshield ancient nothing today deals with windshields. Have to wait and see if everyone else sees what I'm seeing. Anyway, here's what I'm seeing.... kids and their phones: plaintiff buys her 12yo kid a Iphone6, and either she was showing her friend the phone or her friend pulled it out of her pocket to take a look on her own. Anyway, screen cracks, and plaintiff mommy wants defendant mommy to pay to fix it. Course, respective mommys totally believe their precious angels, so plaintiff figures defendant should foot the whole $120 repair bill, while defendant mommy believes her daughter that both girls were looking at it together when it dropped, so she's only willing to put in $20 towards the bill. Plaintiff is all, well if she's going to be that way, I'll take her court and demand she buy a whole new phone. Ever practical and mother if 3 daughters, MM's first question is "why didn't you buy a case for the phone? - oh, she had a case, just didn't have it on the phone because it causes a bulge in daughter's pants pocket" To me, no matter which story you buy, a case can be made that plaintiff daughter contributed to the damage by not having the phone protected by the case. OTOH if things went as she claims, defendant kid grabbed it out of her pocket, does plaintiff have a legal obligation to have it in a case? Kids in the case are being kids... they have a big blowup, and threatened to beat each other up.... and had the parents not been involved probably would be back to being friends the next day. Ah, but the mommys got involved, and they're just as childish as the kids with their unreasonable response. Defendant offer of $20 was silly, but then so was demand she buy a new phone - and why does this kid need a $600 phone anyway!? MM starts talking with 12yo plaintiff, and right off the bat decides she's not getting the truth - so she switches over to 11yo defendant, and quickly decides SHE'S not being truthful either... of course not, both girls have to much invested in their well rehearsed stories to change it now - especially with mom and the TV camera watching. So, mommys are told to park it, and daughters left standing there alone. More grilling of the kids, and eventually MM buys the story that 11yo defendant tried to pull the phone out of 12yo's after being told she can'take hold it - totally buy that, happening right now on playgrounds around the country, difference is most of those grabby kids aren't grabbing $$$big bucks phones. Whole case is kind of boring, but I get a chuckle because of the neighbor who witnessed the incident. Seems the neighbor is a correction officer at Rikers Island, so part of her job would be to watch out for prisoners grabbing stuff from each other - especially cell phones. Anyway, the neighbor witness couldn't miss work, so sent an affidavit which sinks defendant's story. Now, mommies are back standing, and plaintiff makes her case for a whole new phone. At first, it was just a cracked screen, but as time went by the cracks got worse, and eventually the phone quit working altogether. So, now defendant mommy gets slammed for offering to pay $20 for $125 repair cost. She tries to back talk MM and says MM isn't letting her finish her story, and da judge says she's not letting her finish because she's not liking the answer. Ah, more nonsense about the childish mommies interaction - just like the daughters the adults degenerate to name calling and threats. Ah, now childish plaintiff mommy comes in for her lecture. She had insurance, but didn't like the idea that the insurance was going to replace the week old phone with a refurbished phone. So, she did nada, and the phone died. Uh, why pay for insurance if you refuse to use it.... and why would defendant have to buy you a new phone when you had two options - fix the screen for $125 or take the refurbished phone. So, defendant is going to pay, we just don'the know how much. Aldo, we get a little lesson on how the law works in NY. Apparently, an 11yo is considered old enough to be held liable as long as the responsible adult/parent isn't contributing to the bad act. So, the kid is liable, not mommy. Thing is the kid has 10 years to make restitution, and then if there's still money owed the ten years can be extended an additional 10 years. Doesn't seem fair, as plaintiff has said she doesn't have the money to fix/replace the phone, so her kid has no phone and plaintiff is paying for phone service she can't use without a phone. parked car smash up: plaintiff says his uninsured neighbor backed her car into his parked vehicle - defendants say it never happened and he just wants them to pay for preexisting damage... hmm, if I ever decide to make up an accident and try to scam someone into paying for my already damaged car, I think I'd pick someone who looks like they have money - or at least insurance. Anyway, plaintiff (who apparently really got stiffed up for court) says careless neighbor's backed into his '95 ford ranger, originally said they'd pay the repair bill, but then balked and refused to pay. Gotta believe him, as he has a really involved story of how he and defendant hubby went around looking for parts to repair the damage, and how defendant had money back in the Dominican Republic to pay the bill. Ah, but something he's saying really makes defendant wifey want to interrupt, but her hubby shushes her and holds up a finger in front of his mouth to keep her quiet. I'm not liking the little defendant hubby, who tries to charm MM and she tells him to pipe down, he wasn't there, so she wants to hear from the wife. Ah, he doesn't like that, and tries to say wife has trouble talking/understanding English. Wife, OTOH, seems to be willing enough to speak for herself, but she'd do better in Spanish. MM says if she needs to, she'll act as interpreter, even though it's more work for her. Wife does fine with MM interpreting - but denies hitting the illegally parked truck. We switch back to plaintiff, and he automatically reverts to Spanish and we get a chuckle when MM tells him he has to speak English. When defendant hubby finally gets to talk, his main focus is all about how plaintiff is trying to pad the damage, saying in court filing documents he claimed damage all over, including a dent in the roof. Yeah, MM agrees the damage claim has been padded, says it's more than double what the truck is worth. Really, dude, trying to claim a parking lot bump bent your frame? Hubby is the only one telling the truth, he says maybe his wife hit the Ranger, but he's not sure because of all the other stuff plaintiff padded the bill with, and defendant has no matching damage on their car. Ah, but he cooked the "never touched husband car" because during testimony, and immediately after the accident, he sure acted like he thinks the cars collided. Have to wonder if he would have made that mistake if he had been testifying in Spanish - both these litigants think in Spanish, and what they say in English doesn't always help their case. Sort of an entertaining case, as both sides testify, then try to back track and correct their English errors. The best is defendant's testimony about how wife picked him up all upset because she hit the truck - but wait, some insurance adjuster friend, who isn't here in court, told him she couldn't have hit it. Anyway, plaintiff wins, but award capped at the value of the beat up 22yo truck. Uhhh, anyone want to bet dude pockets the money and never fixes that dented fender? Broker didn't do his job: plaintiff rented his place through a broker, but now says broker owes because tenants were deadbeats. Broker says hold on, he did his job, even returned his seven hundred dollars fee as a good faith gesture when the tenancy didn't work out, he doesn't owe plaintiff anything. Pretty wild case, plaintiff is suing for over 3 grand in back rent based on the theory that real estate brokers should guarentee tenants they bring to him. Another landlord who is renting without first learning what the laws in his jurisdiction expects of landlords. Slick defendant is a fast talking scamner. He knows the laws, but when asked if he told pkaintiff, who was in effect his client, he dodges and when pressed says "not my job." Legally, maybe not, I'll leave that to the judge, but that little sidestep sure makes me distrust/dislike bearded bald dude with the fancy suit and gold tinted specs. The plaintiff has already gone through a different court where a different judge ruled our plaintiff at fault for not following the law, so he can't collect from the deadbeat tenants, which is why he's now trying to collect from the broker. Hmmm, things get interesting, since slick broker scammer dude was acting as the landlord's agent, and actually was the person who dealt with the tenants - even signing the lease for the landlord. Sure sounds to me like it was defendant's responsibility to get tenant the all important document, after all he was hired and being paid to act in the owner's stead - otherwise how would any out if state owner be able to rent an apartment to a tenant. Turns out for the plaintiff to win, MM says he would have to be able to show he had assigned the defendant that job as part of his responsibilities - hmmm maybe like in a written contract when he hired when dude. Course he couldn't do that, cause he didn't even know about the missing certificate - cause he pays for a license to be able to rent without finding out what the law says he needs to do to hold the license Morally, I think defendant is a douchbag, but legally not liable. Plaintiff has to eat the 3 grand in lost rent from deadbeat. Edited May 16, 2017 by SRTouch Link to comment
meowmommy May 16, 2017 Share May 16, 2017 14 minutes ago, SRTouch said: After the schedile mix up, I half expected to see a repeat of yesterday. Nope, today's fare is not a repeat of yesterday, and doesn't appear to be what everyone else saw either - and doesn't appear to be what the schedule says, since directv says something about a windshield ancient nothing today deals with windshields. Have to wait and see if everyone else sees what I'm seeing. Anyway, here's what I'm seeing... Nope, got the windshield case. But I'm hanging onto your recaps because they have to show up eventually! 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 16, 2017 Share May 16, 2017 I got three total freakshows today. First we had the creepy little bug-eyed, pony-tailed, over-aged hipster suing for the cost of his windshield, busted out by def. Google-eyed hipster/child molester's girlfriend is 18, and the sister (one of 4, all of whom behave like wild animals, it seems) displays her "hurt feelings" by smashing windshields. Oh, and hipster/total loser, who is 42 and looks 15 years older, was banging and knocked up youngest sister who was a minor at the time (JM threw out the term "statutory rape" here) yet already had one kid by the age of 16 or so. As if all that isn't bad enough, The Creep also stood by and watched his child-baby momma get into a fistfight with her sister (the def.) and did nothing about it. He's such a creep I'm sure !girlfight! turned him on. He finally put a headlock on def. but we're not sure if he did this to stop the fight, or to hold def. so her sister could claw up her face. All the sisters are at each others' throats, steal shit from each other and take out their annoyance on children and cars, but in the hall Mom of all of them says she thinks it's all okay, which totally shocks Doug. Anyway, seems hipster punched his own windshield after an argument with his child-baby momma, so it was already cracked before Savage Sister smashed it all to shit. He protested to JM that she was making him look like "the bad guy" here. Duh? Yeah, you super-creep. He gets half of what he was suing for, and revealed himself to the world as a disgusting statutory rapist/pedophile for a measly 100-something dollars. Second freakshow: Plaintiff, another creep who has a very strange and weird affect, went to live with def after a motorcycle accident because his family wanted nothing to do with him, probably for very good reason. Def knew he had drug/alcohol problems. She has kids but let him move in anyway because she has a good heart. The 6K he allegedly promised her had nothing to with her good-hearted-ness, I guess. Def says plaintiff may have left some of his stuff in her carport, but she has not even glanced out there in the last year, so doesn't know. (I have a garage and think I might notice if there was a bunch of stuff belonging to someone else in there, but whatever) He gives her 2K and she's dumb enough to sign a promissary note to pay him back. Where the hell do they find people so messed up? 2K judgement for plaintiff. Third freakshow: This was actually the best. We've seen that every lawyer appearing here is either stupid, arrogant, incompetent or all three. The plaintiff covered all bases. He's a lawyer who must not exactly be Clarence Darrow, since he moonlights as a taxi or Uber driver - don't know which. Since he's driving people around in the middle of the day - he says only because he really likes doing that - I have to assume his practice is not really thriving. He's a lawyer, a litigator, who when asked for evidence by JM, says, "I didn't bring that with me today." He may have it next week? Okay, then. Anyway, he accused def. of scratching his car when she threw her luggage into his trunk. According to him she was hysterical and shouting obscenities because she might be late for her train. Plaintiff sees her throwing her suitcase and messing up his car, but says absolutely nothing about it to her because some company policy says he should never confront passengers about anything. A month after the incident he send her a garbled letter that sounds like some scam email I get all the time so I understand why she ignored it. As a self-proclaimed lawyer who could provide no evidence of anything, he loses. Doug in the hall couldn't believe how much of an asshole he is, as he still declares he should have won. 1 5 Link to comment
Jamoche May 16, 2017 Share May 16, 2017 (edited) I have no clue why the cradle-robbing hipster's girlfriend didn't want to use all her sister's names, it's not like this family seems to have any concept of shame. All that "Sister 2, Sister 3, Sister 4" - I don't see how JM kept it straight. "And I kind of felt some kind of way about it." OMG. Second case: Less charismatic Rain Man: he's got train schedules, he knows he got there at X:02 (not bothering to rewatch) - seriously, who remembers arriving at 2 minutes after? I thought the guy was Uber/Lyft, but he keeps talking about "contacting his company" - erm, if he's working for a taxi/limo, isn't luggage-related dings something the company's insurance deals with, if they bother at all? Edited May 16, 2017 by Jamoche 1 4 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: After the schedile mix up, I half expected to see a repeat of yesterday. Nope, today's fare is not a repeat of yesterday, and doesn't appear to be what everyone else saw either - and doesn't appear to be what the schedule says, since directv says something about a windshield ancient nothing today deals with windshields. Have to wait and see if everyone else sees what I'm seeing. Anyway, here's what I'm seeing.... SRTouch, I am afraid you are seeing reruns. Yesterday's was Season 20, episode 106 (Suing a Friend) and today's was episode 107 (Crying over a Cracked Phone ). Looks like you might get #108 (Rusty Bodywork Battle) tomorrow if the pattern holds true. What's up with your provider? And I thought mine had issues. 1 Link to comment
howiveaddict May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 On 5/12/2017 at 5:27 PM, meowmommy said: She said, "I'm a nurse...home health aide." As an actual RN, my goal is for every single person who falsely claims to be a nurse to be reported to their state board of nursing for misrepresenting themselves as a nurse, and criminal charges filed for the states where it's a crime. That includes doctor's offices where the medical assistants pretend to be nurses. I also don't know a working nurse who would ever qualify for food stamps. I'm a nurse at an outpatient center. I have a patient who comes in slurring and brings her "nurse" with her. I think in this case nurse means drug supplier. Or maybe owning a scrub top makes one a nurse. 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 5 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said: SRTouch, I am afraid you are seeing reruns. Yesterday's was Season 20, episode 106 (Suing a Friend) and today's was episode 107 (Crying over a Cracked Phone ). Looks like you might get #108 (Rusty Bodywork Battle) tomorrow if the pattern holds true. What's up with your provider? And I thought mine had issues. Ah ha, sort of thought that might be hit - especially with the cell phone deal. After today I googled people's court and found the old listings, exactly like you said... Guess maybe my reruns started early ? Link to comment
bref May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 Anyone else suspect Mr. Uber Driver, Esquire, might not REALLY have been a lawyer? 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 6 hours ago, bref said: Anyone else suspect Mr. Uber Driver, Esquire, might not REALLY have been a lawyer? Maybe he's a lawyer on the weekends. Maybe he got his degree from a pop-up ad that said "Be a lawyer in your spare time! No inconvenient classes to attend! No tough exams to take!! Make $$$$$!!!!!" 1 Link to comment
SRTouch May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 (edited) hmmm, today opens with a case which might actually match the schedule and be something new. furniture moving foul up: plaintiff has a small vintage furniture business, and hired defendant's moving company to deliver a purchase to her clients. Course, the shipment is damaged - otherwise no case. Once the damage is done, a couple problems pop up. First off, plaintiff under insured the merchandise, paying for $1800 worth of insurance, but not saying it was worth more. Well, I guess they insured at their cost, but are suing for replacement value plus what they paid for shipping. Second, and more important, defendant "repaired" the damage, which was unacceptable to plaintiff or her customer. Surprise, they have a contract, but nothing in the terms and conditions about shippers repairing damage. And really, if you're paying a couple grand for some vintage piece and it is damaged while being shipped cross country, would you want the shipper to repair it, or would you want some input on who does the repair? When MM asks defendant where their contract says they can repair damaged goods, we get "it should be part of the quote" and a bunch of paper shuffling - really, folks, that's the whole case, why isn't that right on top of your papers! And then, since this is a Web based company, MM asks if the policy is on the Web site. Uh, nobody knows, as they really don't work IT. Ok, I get where this is going... plaintiff well spoken, well prepared, and has everything ready to hand Douglas when asked for evidence - while defendants hm and haw, look puzzled, because the evidence is right here, but can't put their hand on it, or maybe somebody else in the company handles that. Anyway, when thing gets to California the customer refuses delivery, immediately sending plaintiff pictures of the damage. And, that's when the fight begins. Plaintiff had been using the shipper for awhile with no problems, but isn't happy with the disgruntled customer, and especially when shipper decides not to pay the claim, but instead repairs the piece. Turns out this a NOT vintage, but is a handmade solid teak cabinet. Again, plaintiff comes off good, then defendant wastes time defending shippers everywhere - "a certain percentage of stuff gets damaged when shipped, all we can do is our best to package it." Sure, no question there, that's why people buy the insurance, dude. The important part of what he says is that he uses "expert repair people" to fix stuff when they damage your 2 thousand handmade furniture. Nope, doesn't fly with me, just like if you hit my car, you don't get to pick the repair shop. Back to the contract. He says the terms and conditions are pretty long, and they're working on putting it on the website site. Again, not buying it, you expect your customers to abide by your "terms and conditions" without telling them what they are when they hire you. Really sounds bad after he says that when he says the company is nationwide and has facilities all over. To make it worse, you provided some of the terms, but when you damaged the thing you unilaterally tried to impose terms. Case is over in my mind. Sure, defendant's experts may have done a great repair job, but what was a new teak cabinet selling for over 2 grand now will have to be discounted and sold in the dents and ding store. Since we still have time on the clock, and defendants DID bring it to court, so we get to watch the plaintiff nit pick and point out the not so great repairs - not that we can see what she's pointing at. Then everybody goes back to their spots, and MM says we have a contract case here, and defendants failed to deliver. They don't get to retroactively make up the terms. OTOH plaintiff has to stick to the contract as well, she has to take what she insured the piece at, plus shipping. ex stole his ride: whoa, plaintiff is ALL decked out, fancy threads, scarf thingy, heavy gold chain, not sure where he thought he was going - either he's got money are he's living ghetto fabulous... which, at least to me, means he may well have given the car away like defendant is claiming. As we go to commercial we hear MM asks defendant if she thought the cad was cheating on her. Instead of answering, defendant does everything but break into song and start spelling R E S P E C T while plaintiff does his silent black militant impression. I can already tell I'm going to wish these two were on Greg Mathis show. Anyway, after commercial plaintiff freely admits he committed insurance fraud by not putting car in his name. Says he only dated defendant a few months, but had the car a couple years - in her daddy's name so he could cheat on the insurance. Wow, I am not liking this joker. After pointing out that he was committing insurance fraud, MM asks who broke up with who, and why. Instead of answering, plaintiff looks down to go through his papers and launches into his prepared breakup story, mumbling about "when" they broke up... MM isn't getting an answer from him, so over to defendant, which is when we get the RESPECT speech - well rehearsed and practiced in front of the mirror... and also not an answer to the question. I start reaching for the remote, but MM stops the act and brings us back to the case. Nope, instead of the case, MM starts in lecturing about moving the dude into her place with her 9yo daughter after only dating 2 months. Again, I start for the remote, but decide to stick it out when the clip before the break brings back her daddy - yeah, didn't dude say the car had been in HER daddy's name, now she's saying she only knew him 2 months when he moved in, conflicting police reports/statements... hmmm, maybe whole case is a scam. Her story is he gave her the car after knowing her 2 months, and she turned around and gave it to her daddy. Crazy case, don't believe a word from either one, nobody has reliable evidence, she says she doesn't have the car, her daddy has it and he lives in a different state.... so why is dude suing her for the value of the car when he put the car in her daddy's name and daddy has the car (oh, and the Lexus they're fighting over - MM tells us the value in $4100... like I thought, ghetto fabulous.) Her claims he has proof she has possession of the car, and shows an undated video of her driving car. Sure, proves she drove the car after the breakup (only because she helpfully provides the date) but does not prove daddy hasn't taken it out of state. Next, he has a letter from daddy saying car belongs to plaintiff - not much help, since the contents include statements supporting the insurance fraud scheme. Oh, and this isn't a letter from daddy like I thought, but a police report of a conversation cop had with the dad - or at least someone pretending to be dad. Hmmm, MM places more faith in the supposed conversation with dad than I would. MM starts to have defendant call daddy, but she says she has videos, too. Yep, she does, but what we see, plaintiff on his knees begging defendant, just strengthens plaintiff's case as far as MM sees it. Things degenerate into accusations of abuse, he says she tazed him, she put her hands on her hip and turns to him and accuses him putting his hands on her in front of her 9yo, so yeah she tazed him. Back to the dad, she gets him on the phone and MM comes off the bench to hear from the horse's mouth. Daddy isn't much help - doesn't come across as being too bright, and is trying to tailor his answers to support daughter, but contradicts her testimony. Guess I agree she has the car, and is keeping it to punish dude for his cheating dirtbag abusing ways. Not sure if he should get anything, I mean the whole "dirty hands" doctrine - but then letting her keep the car is unjustly enriched her since she, and her daddy (the legal owner) were part of the whole fraud scheme. In the end, MM decides to undo the fraud. Since daddy isn't in court to sign the title over, she gives dude the Kelly book value. To bad we can't see some real rough justice - nobody gets any money and car gets donated to charity. should have hit FF when I first thought about it 20 minutes ago. tenant wants money for busted lease: gramps collecting rent from his granddaughter and her roomy. Roomy moves out and in with her bf, but says she still had stuff there and continued to pay rent. Ah, but she says gramps changed the locks, so she quit making payments. Oops, gramps that's what they call a constructive eviction. As long as she's paying the rent, it doesn't matter whether she sleeps there or tells you where she's bunking. Once you change the locks you're the one breaking the lease, so forget trying to collect rent and any late fee. Well, listening to gramps, seems that while she paid, she wasn't always paying on time, in fact as much as a month late. Ok, maybe more understandable that he wasn't happy, but still, as a landlord there are hoops you have to go through before changing the locks. Gramps is another of those who wants to tell his story his way, which ends with him talking over MM when she asks a question. Actually, this was a month to month rental, not a long term lease, but that doesn't help gramps all that much. After all, he's just said he continued to accept rent payments after as much as a month late. This whole thing was a loosey goosey arrangement, with no paperwork and gramps knocking $300 off the rent to let grandkids and her friend have a cheap/safe place right across the street from grandparents. Anyway, come October defendant doesn't pay rent when due, and when she to goes to the apartment at the end of October the locks have been changed. Sounds bad for her, she's moving out without telling her landlord - but says she had told the granddaughter - also she didn't pay August rent til Sept and he accepted it then without a late fee. So, no way should he get November rent after locking her out in October. October rent could have gone either way....as we've heard from JJ, if your toothbrush is there, you're there, so you owe for the month. OTOH, she was locked out at least part of the month, so it could be argued she doesn't owe if she didn't have access the whole month. The late fee... that's more loosey goosey stuff, sometimes he collected it, sometimes not, established after the fact with no clear agreement - I wouldn't have made her pay it. Plaintiff collects about half what he asked for. Edited May 17, 2017 by SRTouch 1 3 Link to comment
JD5166 May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 After case #3 today Doug's "well it's your fault, you know" to the defendant (over her rift with plaintiff's granddaughter) was the best thing I have seen all day! 1 3 Link to comment
Silver Raven May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 Doug doesn't sugar coat his responses. :) 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: furniture moving foul up: I enjoyed this. I like contract cases in general, but the litigants were both so civil, well-spoken, reasonable and polite that I liked it even more. Def. was a bit annoying, citing company policies, term and conditions, which he mentions plaintiff never saw because they're "very long." I thought the judgement was very fair. No way would I pay 2K for an item damaged and repaired with glue still showing. If I'm spending that much money, I want something pristine and would have refused it as well. I really liked the piece too. I once bought a TV, brought it home and found it didn't work. Took it back, where the store offered to fix it. No, I said. I didn't pay for a repaired item, but a new one. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: ex stole his ride: whoa, plaintiff is ALL decked out, Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! It seems lying and cheating always come back to bite you in the butt. Plaintiff decides to commit insurance fraud, since for some reason his insurance rates are off the charts (or maybe he can't get insurance. Who knows?) He signs his car over to his new girlfriend's daddy(Brilliant!) for insurance purposes. I mean, who the hell signs over a car to a virtual stranger, especially when we see that his squeeze is a gutter rat, who says she wants nothing but "respeck" (and maybe a free Lexus)? Def isn't driving the car! Except she is. as we see in the video. When JM calls Daddy, we see where baby girl got her ethics and sense of honesty. Plaintiff appeared to be wearing a map around his neck, but I couldn't make out what state/country it was. JM to Daddy: "Do you have the car now?" Daddy: "Uhhhhhh." JM walks away in disgust. Def. has a nine-year old girl and just moves plaintiff in with her and her child, after knowing him for about 8 weeks. Is he a sexual predator? A child molester? (Not saying he is, but I think I might check that out first) Why would she bother to find out? She just worries that he's talking to other women on his phone and disrespeckin' her. Respeck is what she wants! The video, with plaintiff down on his knees on a public street? After the first case, I felt we were beamed into an episode of Springer, which I would never ever watch. Anyway, def finds some other fraudster to declare the car is worth 500$. Yeah, okay. She thinks JM just fell off a turnip truck, I guess. I don't know what she had on her head, but it looked bizarre in the hall. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant wants money for busted lease: gramps collecting rent from his granddaughter and her roomy. I would never rent to millennial snowflakes, who feel everyone should be sensitive to their situations, problems and even levels of discomfort, and act accordingly. Why should plaintiff expect rent for October? It's the usual "I was hardly there!" defense. Def. said she was staying with her boyfriend, and sort of told plaintiff's granddaughter she was thinking of moving in with her boyfriend. Shouldn't her landlord just get over it, instead of expecting her to pay rent? I mean, like, basically it's not fair and there's a possibility that it might hurt her feelings. Boo hoo. 1 1 5 Link to comment
meowmommy May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Guess I agree she has the car, and is keeping it to punish dude for his cheating dirtbag abusing ways. Not sure if he should get anything, I mean the whole "dirty hands" doctrine - but then letting her keep the car is unjustly enriched her since she, and her daddy (the legal owner) were part of the whole fraud scheme. In the end, MM decides to undo the fraud. Since daddy isn't in court to sign the title over, she gives dude the Kelly book value. To bad we can't see some real rough justice - nobody gets any money and car gets donated to charity. should have hit FF when I first thought about it 20 minutes ago I wonder if there was definitive proof that defendant still had the car, and MM could have forced daddy to sign over the title, if she might have done the rough justice, because nobody really gets penalized here. Loved in the first case seeing MM in jeans and sneakers under her magisterial robes! 1 1 Link to comment
Jamoche May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 In HD it did look like the drawer pulls didn't have identical curves anymore. I've got a nice piece of furniture - handmade from old-growth vintage wood (back in the days of floating logs downstream, some of them sank and now they're pulling them up) - and the first time it arrived, somewhere in the shipping the box had been sliced, taking out a big chunk. Seriously, it looked like someone had taken a sawblade to it, unlikely as you'd think sawblades would be in shipping. It went back to the seller and I got a new one, no problem. I would not have been happy with the shippers thinking they could do a repair job on it. 1 5 Link to comment
babs j. May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 When Aretha sang the song - and spelled out the word - I don't remember it ending with a K. 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 14 minutes ago, babs j. said: When Aretha sang the song - and spelled out the word - I don't remember it ending with a K. "R-E-S-P-E-C-K"? No, I don't remember that either. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: MM could have forced daddy to sign over the title, if she might have done the rough justice, because nobody really gets penalized here. Daddy, who wasn't feeling well, wisely stayed home. Maybe he knew if he showed up, the car would be gone. It's true, all these petty scammers got away with everything they did and it's really too bad. Plaintiff fraud gets the money for his car and def. fraud gets to keep the car. Nothing learned here. And I'm with JM: No boyfriend I had ever gave me a "gif" of a 4K car, or any car at all. I obviously didn't choose wisely. 21 minutes ago, Jamoche said: Seriously, it looked like someone had taken a sawblade to it, unlikely as you'd think sawblades would be in shipping. Looks like someone took a sledgehammer and a sawblade to it. How to get your shit messed up? Put a "Fragile - Handle with Care" sticker on it, it seems. Some time ago, I ordered a piece of electronic equipment from Amazon. It came with a huge gouge in the box and the equipment dented. Seller asked for pics which I supplied and told me to send it back and they would repair it. I refused, saying I didn't pay for a refurbished item. They then told me to keep it (it was unusable) and they would refund my money. I was impressed. 1 1 Link to comment
howiveaddict May 17, 2017 Share May 17, 2017 My favorite part was JM coming out from behind the bench wearing jeans and sneakers beneath her robe. She came out both episodes. Could never picture Judge Judy doing this in a million years. Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 22 minutes ago, howiveaddict said: Could never picture Judge Judy doing this in a million years. But she did do it, for a wedding dress hanging on a dress form. She came down to feel it and see if it was a stretchy enough to fit the plaintiff. 1 2 Link to comment
Brattinella May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: But she did do it, for a wedding dress hanging on a dress form. She came down to feel it and see if it was a stretchy enough to fit the plaintiff. Yes, she did! 1 1 Link to comment
Bazinga May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Plaintiff appeared to be wearing a map around his neck, but I couldn't make out what state/country it was. Africa 1 Link to comment
howiveaddict May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: But she did do it, for a wedding dress hanging on a dress form. She came down to feel it and see if it was a stretchy enough to fit the plaintiff. Bet she didn't have jeans and sneakers on. Link to comment
Brattinella May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 I know for sure she was wearing jeans, and I assume sneakers, too. There is a video on YT of that episode. 1 1 Link to comment
howiveaddict May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 17 minutes ago, Brattinella said: I know for sure she was wearing jeans, and I assume sneakers, too. There is a video on YT of that episode. Ok. Missed that one. But I bet JM was nicer. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 no show tutor blowup: plaintiff hired defendant's company to tutor her baby girl in preparation for her SAT, a package where a tutor is supposed to conduct 50 hours of study sessions/classes, costing $1750. In my limited experience with tutoring classmates (way back when) a BIG part of the job is trying to instill good study habits - something this well paid tutor never learned according to the plaintiff. Seems the plaintiff had hired this tutoring company before, and a dude named Wes tutored big brother and did a couple sessions with little sis. Wes was great, but the time came when a new tutor, Dustin, took his place. New guy was a disappointment. First session with Dustin scheduled for eleven (this will be first time Dustin has met his new student and the over protective momma) - no call - no show at eleven, so mommy emails the boss at 11:15, Dustin's not here. Dustin finally shows - an hour and a half late. At least according to daughter Amanda, Dustin showed up hung over and barely functioning. He manages to keep it together and makes it through the 2 hour session. Amanda and Dustin have a total of 4 sessions together, but on session number 5 he again fails to show. Mommy got highly upset, demanded a refund for the session, but refund demand ignored. Mommy has conniption fit. At first she's wants Dustin replaced, and credit for the missed session. After being ignored, that progresses to a cancellation of the remaining sessions, and return of the $1100 for those sessions. When defendant has a chance to reply, he starts out trying to gloss over Dustin's shortcomings. He starts out about how the tutor and student have to be a good match, how all his tutors are reluable and have been vetted, they know the subject matter, yada yada. But when MM stops his commercial he has to admit Dustin no longer works for the company - yep he was fired. Turns out mama bear goes a little nutso when she was told no cash refunds. She sends police to defendant's house, sends harassing emails, etc. According to defendant her email threatens his wife and kids. Plaintiff speaks out, saying no way, show me where I threatened your wife or kids - MM wants to see it, too, so Douglas brings her a copy. Whoa, if what is read in court is the worst, most threatening example of "harrassment".... actually it's pretty reasonable, simply demanding a response or she'll proceed to take further "legal" actions. The only threatening thing to his family is that, since he does business out of his home, his family may be embarrassed if she has to send the police to his house. Ah, but she doesn't stop there, she does shows up at his house, on Christmas Eve yet, with a police escort. Well, yeah, that does sound, in MM's words, "a little nutty" MM tells mommy she went off the rails a bit, she had no business involving the cops (I mean really, what part of this dispute needed a police presence?) Ah, now mommy's calm reasoned facade cracks a little as she attempts to talk over MM and is admonished to shut it and listen. Oh boy, seems she also went on a facebook rampage, even to downloading pictures of an employee's kid's to use in her social media campaign.... getting more than "a little nutty" here we may be entering the creepy zone. MM has heard enough of the background story, and reminds us all that this is really a contract case and a breach of a contract. Yes, defendant says, there is a written contract for MM to read - oh wait, it's one of those, yes I have a contract, just not with this customer. (He passes up the signed contract for big brother - no contract for little sis). End result, since there's no contract stating no refunds, and defendant admits he had a bad apple employee who he has since fired, plaintiff gets back the money for the unused sessions. Best part was hallterview where momma bear dismisses being called nutty and bizarre, and calls herself a momma bear defending her cubs. Oh, and smiling defendant was glad he would not have to deal with crazed momma bear anymore - either he or Doug says Good riddance as he turns to walk away. "texting" awareness: According to intro, plaintiff's dad was hit and killed by a distracted truck driver. She decides to raise awareness of the dangers of distracted drivers - but instead of volunteering, she wants to be paid for her lectures. She says she appeared at several events for the defendant, and was stiffed on her lecture fees. Defendant's stance is that yeah, she did the talks, but their agreement was that she was to reimburse him for part of his expenses for the events. She didn't pay, so he doesn't owe her anything. Hopefully these folks aren't out to make money, merely looking to to recoup their expenses. Even if they are just greedy money hungry opportunists, the question here is rather they had some sort of binding agreement, and if they did, who breached it. Anyway, before getting into the case, MM makes her own PSA about the danger of distracted/texting drivers. As we get into the case, sounds more and more like plaintiff is in it for the money. She started out with a fee schedule for speaking engagements, and now has her own organization. Again, I have to remind myself there really isn't anything bad about that, but in the back of my mind I keep thinking about how much some charities collect versus how much they spend on whatever they're supposedly working against/for. MM brings us back to the case. No question plaintiff gave the talks for which she expected to be paid. Question is whether she had an agreement that one buy banners or promotional stuff from defendant. Even if she did have such an agreement, seems like the thing for defendant that to have done was pay for that other talks and then sue her for breach of not paying his organization - his defense sounds like self help... contracts, anyone? Ah, but when he testifies, he says the dispute is because she raised her rates. He says all of a sudden, she was sending invoices with a higher payment schedule, to which he never agreed. Not only that, but when she formed her own organization she started poaching his regular sponsors/clients. Oops, sounds like he may be in it for the money, too. For 6 years she had been one of the faces for his organization. Instead of being happy that there's another organization going the good work, he's pissed because she's horning in on his business. She denies she poached any clients, but agrees some of her clients were originally his. When he passes up past invoices to show her unilateral rate increase, it instead shows payments from before the rate increase - supporting her case not his. So, at least in part based on his own evidence, MM rules for plaintiff. breakup woes: young couple decide to buy an old RV. Now that the relationship has hit the rocks, plaintiff wants back the money he spend on the RV, since gf kept possession - one of those "almost married" cases. Both the entitled brats brought their respective mommy/daddy to court - just that bit almost had me reaching for the remote, ah but maybe MM can get a few laughs - already a dig at young hippy dude when she tells him to tell us how they decided to "play house." At first, the kids lived at his parents house, but then moved out on their own by buying and moving into an old RV. They made an attempt at rich kid homestead, solar panels, composting, etc... yeah really living off the grid in the 2 grand RV - in her mommy's driveway (he did mention composting, right? What, in mommy's flowerbeds?) After a year, he decides the RV life wasn't for him so he moves out - she says he moved when she cut of the sex. So much for living off the grid in mommy's driveway. As things degenerate - she says they were mutually abusive - him verbally abusive and she admits she was physically abusive - they decide to split, and she signs an agreement agreeing to buy out his portion of the RV cost and repairs. Ah, that's the thing, she signed that document agreeing too pay him, then tried to undo the deal. Giggly gf has no difference - she was a better gf than he was a bf, so her signature should be ignored. Once they open that door they both go from entitled brats to abusive a$$holes. She's all smiles and giggles as she talks about tackling and punching him. He freely admits to verbally abusing her, talking bad about her dead father, calling her mom a whore. Ah, but from their demeanor I wonder if they're both just playing a part for the show - they're both just to happy to declare their own faults well except for her saying he ran her down because she's Mexican, nah, she says it was her her ran HIM down for being white. Guess what, MM says the signature still counts, plaintiff wins. Everybody leaves happy - I wonder if they went out to lunch together to celebrate getting the 2 grand because I don't buy the "oh so happy I'll never see him/her again" act 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 24 minutes ago, SRTouch said: no show tutor blowup: plaintiff hired defendant's company to tutor her baby girl in preparation for her SAT OMG! Smother Mother started off sounding quite rational and then we find out she's completely nuts. She's a "Momma bear" for her two children, who looked like grownups to me, but whatever. She used pressure tactics on the def that might have raised eyebrows in the Mob, as she did everything but threaten to break his kneecaps. Yeah, the new tutor was a slacker, a jerk and unsatisfactory, but Momma Bear's extreme reactions would be more in line if tutor had robbed the family or assaulted baby girl. The woman seems a bit high-strung. If she's not on meds maybe she should consider them. Wow. Doug in the Hall - he just doesn't give a rat's ass, does he? "The judge said you were crazy, nuts," etc. Awesome! Love you, Doug! 29 minutes ago, SRTouch said: "texting" awareness: I have a way to stop texting and driving: Seize the car for the very first offense. If people knew their cars would be taken and towed away, I bet they'd put down the phones. Oh, and put these brain-dead morons in jail for at least six months for any second offense and suspend their licenses for 5 years. Somehow I managed to drive for my whole life without being in constant communication with anyone about anything, let alone the trivial shit they text about these days. "Yes, officer. I know I hit that car while I was madly texting and checking my FB and killed a whole family. I'm basically, like, sorry, but I really needed to update my FB status. I'm sure you understand !" 44 minutes ago, SRTouch said: breakup woes: young couple decide to buy an old RV. So, is 22 like the new 15? Two more 20-something babies acting like toddlers. High-pitched little plaintiff says that his ex beat him up and SHE says he said horrible things about her family. He admits he did because it was the only way to get back at her since she's quite capable of beating him up. All we're missing is "I know you are, but what am I?" type fights. Ridiculous nitwits. Plaintiff had Daddy there, and def had her Mommy. I advise both to stay with mom or dad until they're at least 30, but really I doubt that will help. Live with Mommy and Daddy and let them take care of you and you stay a child forever. I give all kudos to judges everywhere who sit and listen to this babyish stupidity. 33 minutes ago, SRTouch said: I keep thinking about how much some charities collect versus how much they spend on whatever they're supposedly working against/for. Yeah. That's something that has prevented me from donating to anything for many years. I just don't trust these organizations. I'm sure some of them do good things but a lot of them have nice fat paychecks going to the top tier people in the organization. Kind of makes you doubt their motives. 1 6 Link to comment
meowmommy May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 (edited) Wow, could we find more unsympathetic plaintiffs who won their cases? All the ridiculous times that defendants countersue for harassment and tutor guy doesn't, when what I see is a textbook case of harassment. Never mind that I find tutoring for SATs to be a joke. If you get in to a college because someone taught you how to scam the test, what does that say about the whole college admissions process? SATs are a racket, anyway, and I say that as someone who did very, very well on the SATs as a 15 year old junior back in 1973. I spent my entire first semester of senior English class bored out of my mind as the teacher used the time for SAT prep. Anyway, you stalk this guy at his house, threaten to embarrass him in front of his family, go on Facebook to download kid pictures ("just one!") as part of the harassment, and you get your full judgment???? And cashing in on your father's death? Despicable. I wonder how the people who donate to the charities would feel knowing their money goes toward speaking fees to people cashing in on personal tragedy. I could see having her expenses covered, but not speaking for fun and profit. And then these litigants are grubbing over how much of other people's money to divvy out. Third plaintiff who wants MM to divide the pots and pans of their lives, feh. And the defendant giggling as she recounts the mutual abuse. WTF kind of sick ass relationship is worth that. Edited May 18, 2017 by meowmommy 6 Link to comment
shksabelle May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 Wow! I'd hate to be a teacher who gives one of Momma Bear's precious snowflakes an A-. At least the son looked a little bit embarrassed. 3 Link to comment
babs j. May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 Charities could not do their work without volunteers but they also need paid staff which needs to be paid a decent wage. 2 Link to comment
meowmommy May 18, 2017 Share May 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, babs j. said: Charities could not do their work without volunteers but they also need paid staff which needs to be paid a decent wage. JMNSHO, but there's a difference between paid administrative staff who keep the charity running, and someone making an ongoing profit using the death of her father. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: Anyway, you stalk this guy at his house, threaten to embarrass him in front of his family, go on Facebook to download kid pictures ("just one!") Did you see her face as she said, "Just one!!"? I think that's when I realized she's not operating with a full deck. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: JMNSHO, but there's a difference between paid administrative staff who keep the charity running, and someone making an ongoing profit using the death of her father. I was mostly on the fence about that, but couldn't help thinking about someone earnestly saying that the only reason she does what she does is, "I just want to help people any way I can so they never have to go through what I went through. I just want to save lives! That'll be 300$, please." I dunno. 2 Link to comment
teebax May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 As soon as someone self-proclaims to be a mama bear, it invalidates anything else they say to me. I can't stand that attitude. And, yes, they're a nightmare for us teachers. 9 Link to comment
shksabelle May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 Agree that she is doing a good thing overall, but she was a tad heavy on the self promotion. 1 Link to comment
Brattinella May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 1 minute ago, teebax said: a mama bear Is never a good thing! If someone says that to me, they are invisible from that moment on. 3 Link to comment
AZChristian May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 How about that woman on Harvey's Corner who bragged that she texts and drives all the time? And laughed. I wonder if she's drunk or high while doing it. That would be pretty funny, too, wouldn't it? 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: How about that woman on Harvey's Corner who bragged that she texts and drives all the time? So glad I never listen to a single word from those nitwits on the sidewalk - nitwits Levin needs to make himself feel superior. Let's just hope that when "I like to text and drive"slackjaw smashes up her car, no one but her gets injured or killed. 1 hour ago, teebax said: As soon as someone self-proclaims to be a mama bear, it invalidates anything else they say to me. I can't stand that attitude. Especially when she's ferociously defending cubs who look as old or older than she does. No, I certainly don't envy teachers who have to deal with, "MY little precious, unique and perfect snowflake would never do anything wrong." 4 Link to comment
marny May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 On 5/17/2017 at 5:29 PM, AngelaHunter said: would never rent to millennial snowflakes, who feel everyone should be sensitive to their situations, problems and even levels of discomfort, and act accordingly. If this show has taught us anything, it's that this attitude is hardly limited to a particular generation. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 parking fee ripoff: plaintiff says he parked his car at defendant's place while he was gone for 8 days. The agreed upon price before his trip was 150 odd bucks, but when he went to retrieve his vehicle the price had jumped to $194. Somehow, he figures that extra $40 means the defendant owes him $388. Apparently in his jurisdiction he's allowed to sue for double damages - but even if what he claims is true, wouldn't his damages be the extra $40 and not the entire charge. Defendant says hold on, plaintiff's car was in his garage an extra two days - that's why the price went up. Poor plaintiff starts out fine, but as soon as he presents his evidence things start going in the crapper. He starts out telling us what day he gets back, but the written estimate he presented has a different date. MM asks him a series of short questions - but isn't this the wrong date? - so didn't he write down the date you told him? - and gets one word answers - correct - exactly - but that's the parking employee's goof, he shouldn't have to pay extra just because he didn't correct the employee when parking dude misunderstood. Not only was the estimate off by a day, but he was late getting getting to the lot, so got charged for a full addidtional day for going a couple hours past the time. Uh, yeah, that's how those things work. Kind of confusing, since the numbers from the intro and what they're talking about are different, and he gets a free day after either 7 or 10 days depending on whose testifying. Plaintiff's honey wants to talk, and when MM calls her up she explains they were late because of a snow storm. Uh, so what, MM says doesn't matter why they were late, if the car was in the parking garage they have to pay the storage fee. MM gets out her calculator and does the numbers - yep, parking garage dude's numbers match her calculator. Ah, now she's about to unload on plaintiff, case is bogus, and especially claiming double the fee as his damage. Oh boy, what follows is an example of where the stereotype of Latin Caribbean culture where folks get excited and start yelling to make a point and not listening to anything someone else is yelling. Puerto Rican plaintiff and gf and Cuban MM are all yelling at the same time, nobody listening. (Yes, I know, this is not just a Caribbean thing.) Anyway, in a court, the judge has the loudest voice. Plaintiff just doesn't get it, but eventually gf admits she understands. MM tells gf to explain things to plaintiff on the ride home while defendant is off to the side enjoying the show. Case, such as it is, is over, but we have time on the clock so let's entertain the viewers. Turns out, when the manager found out about the problem, he offered to refund the extra fee - nope, not good enough, plaintiff not only wants the $40, he wants free parking, plus double what he was charged. More of MM and plaintiff yelling at each other, and MM poking fun at him by asking gf how long they'd been dating (course he objected to that question) and asking gf "he's kind of headstrong, right?" Finally MM calls him pig headed, throws out the case, and leaves the bench. Outside, dude still arguing, and Doug says he can disagree, but everyone else agrees with MM, and proceeds to call plaintiff pigheaded. tenant/landlord circus case: first case was a short one, this one stretches forever to fill time - worth the wait for the end to see MM put her feet up and dare defendant to prove anything... seems plaintiff came to court with a whole posse, a half dozen or so and all of them jumbo sized - I swear the 1 woman in the tight sweater had me thinking "michelin man." Poor defendant showed up all alone. Anyway, deal is the defendant rented a two story place, then sublet the bottom floor to plaintiff. Defendant says place going into foreclosure, everybody has to move. Plaintiff blames defendant, and wants back every penny in rent ever paid. Hmmm things get interesting when plaintiffs claim defendant was illegally subletting to them, and part of their posse is the owner, who claims he never rented to the defendant. Oh dear, this may be one of those cases where I need a white board and flow chart. Owner of property comes up and says defendant moved in illegally. Defendant has a signed lease, owner says it's fake - his signature on lease is forgery. Hmmm anybody else thinking this should maybe be in a criminal court? After all, we're talking thousands of dollars scammed from both the owner and these tenants if what they're claiming is true. Well, since it's in this forum, MM will have to be her own investigatory staff. Right off the bat we gave questionable evidence from the plaintiff, since her copy of the lease us in fact a copy - a bad copy at that. She also has a bad copy of a document with a signature (which they say is forged) saying defendant can rent the apartment. Oh, and defendant's lease that she presented - another copy with a signature the owner says is not his. So, MM has owner dude pull out his license and puts on her forensic handwriting expert hat - yep, magnifying glass in hand, she examines the signatures - and decides the signature looks fake. She asks owner why he wanted defendant out - she wasn't supposed to be there, never paid rent, and to top it off, decided to sublet one floor, collect the money and not even give him anything. Yep, pretty good reason to want her out. Turns out owner has already taken defendant to court - he won and she was ordered to vacate, but she's appealing so still there. Defendant says she did so pay rent, she has the proof... just forgot to bring it, but it's here, in the cat in the hat bag in the other room. She's really not a very good scammer, in the movies the con men/women all ooze confidence when caught - not our defendant, she's looking down and mumbling so that MM has to admonish her to speak up. Noticeably, MM has her describe the bag containing her proof in the other room, apparently not trusting her enough to go get it herself. Anyway plaintiffs hadn't been there long, so had just paid a month rent and security (plus hundred for doggie fee). Things came to a head when next month rent is due and defendant demanded cash, even though when they moved in plaintiff's check was good. As that's bugging plaintiff, the real owner shows up wanting to know who these new people are living in his property. Oh boy, now we're hearing quite the story as defendant's scam falls apart - all the while plaintiff is telling the story defendant is standing there with the puppy dog look. Guess the puppy dog look works sometimes, because owners says this is the second victim she found to rent, and he's still fighting to get her out. Enough, TPC finally have her cat in the hat bag from the other room with her proof she paid rent... Uh yeah. She dodges around, digs through the bag, and MM just gets louder and louder - show me the proof! Surprise, she can't find the proof in the bag that she has ever paid rent in the bag. Oh, but she has another lease which she says shows the state was supposed to pay her rent. Well, the new paper is from some housing authority, but doesn'the show rent being paid. MM threatens to recess and call, but warns everybody they better not be wasting her time. Defendant caves, now she's not sure if rent has been paid. When MM again asks owner dude if rent gas been paid, he again says no, and that defendant is under investigation for fraud. MM decides she doesn't need a recess (hmmm, I wonder if investigators could use her testimony - do they read these jokers their rights before they come on). Anyway, way way back when this thing started the story was the place was being foreclosed... nope, owner still owns the place, and in fact plaintiff still lives there and is now paying the right person rent. Surprise, plaintiff's win, and now can pay the real owner his money. Custom furniture case: plaintiffs bought a $6000 custom couch, but says they didn't get what they paid for - and are dragging the cushions in to show us. No, really, I backed it up, these people were actually paying 6 grand for a couch, sight unseen out of a catalog. Defendant argues that when it was delivered and they complained, he paid to fix it, they then accepted delivery and gave him a check, only to stop payment. His theory is they decided it cost too much and just want their money back. Hmmph, I guess when you're paying that much, everything is supposed to pop back into place after being sat on - at least that seems to me to be what they're complaining about. Really, seems to me that what they're complaining about is just the style, individual padded cushions in frabric. Individual cushions not lined up, gaps between the cushions... ah what do I know, my couch and love seat seemed too expensive when I paid a $1400 for them. After the plaintiffs come up and point out the faults, MM brings up defendant. He agrees the couch doesn't look so hot in their pictures, but says he thinks they staged the pix and he has pics that look a lot better. I actually thought the same thing when they held up the cushion to show how crooked the seam is - a couple seconds and you could work the padding around and make a straight seam look like what they have in court - or straighten the crooked seam. Oops, his pix don't do the job. He says when they complained the second time he went out and took pictures of it as it sat, without straightening cushions. Basically, his pictures show exactly what they're complaining about - mix his with theirs they look the same. MM has the same question I'd ask, if it's so easy to straighten them, why wouldn't he do that before taking the pix - or better yet, take pix and video before, during, and straightening. Now we get a glimpse of what plaintiff complained about when she talked about him saying how easy it would be to straighten out creases. Dude has seriously poor customer service attitude, and he arguing with MM about how easy it would be to straighten the cushions after she already said she has had this style couch and knows how easy it is. The point he's missing, that she can't get across to him, is that a perfectly made couch may look like his pix, but can be straightened - a poorly made couch looks like that but can't be straightened - and he has no pictures of the couch which has been straightened. So, since common sense would be to take the best pictures he can get, why should we believe this couch can be straight. As MM tells him, if he had pictures of the couch straight, he would have already won. Nope, everything shows a couch wherected the cushions and seams are crooker. Should have brought evidence of how easy it is to straighten, and without that plaintiffs win. 1 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 There oughtta be a remedy for completely frivolous lawsuits. I know the wronged party never gets reimbursed for taking time off from work to defend a joke of a case, but I'd like to see an exception for cases like the idiot parking lot plaintiff who still doesn't understand that if you hold over past the original end date, you have to pay the additional storage time. And that it's not the parking lot's responsibility to care about the reason you held over. And that it's reams of cray-cray to think you get the entire stay free and then get paid an equivalent amount in addition. And that you're seriously now considering suing the airline for making you have to stay $37 over on your parking stay. And every one of these jokers invariably has a S.O., while a perfectly nice, rational person such as myself lives a life alone. I don't understand how scammer squatter fake landlord is not only not evicted, but not in jail for fraud. And this bitch needs to be reported to Section 8, now, complete with the videotape, and have any benefits she's been scamming at our expense completely pulled. 1 5 Link to comment
teebax May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, meowmommy said: There oughtta be a remedy for completely frivolous lawsuits. I know the wronged party never gets reimbursed for taking time off from work to defend a joke of a case, but I'd like to see an exception for cases like the idiot parking lot plaintiff who still doesn't understand that if you hold over past the original end date, you have to pay the additional storage time. And that it's not the parking lot's responsibility to care about the reason you held over. And that it's reams of cray-cray to think you get the entire stay free and then get paid an equivalent amount in addition. And that you're seriously now considering suing the airline for making you have to stay $37 over on your parking stay. And every one of these jokers invariably has a S.O., while a perfectly nice, rational person such as myself lives a life alone. I don't understand how scammer squatter fake landlord is not only not evicted, but not in jail for fraud. And this bitch needs to be reported to Section 8, now, complete with the videotape, and have any benefits she's been scamming at our expense completely pulled. I didn't see the episode, but amen to your original point. I was in a car that was in the center of a chain reaction accident. I was slammed into from behind and pushed into the car in front of me. Of the five cars involved, I was the only one who had insurance (welcome to Philadelphia.) So everyone sued me, even though I wasn't at fault. I spent the next year having to travel back and forth from my home in the Poconos to Philly to keep testifying in various lawsuits regarding this accident. My insurance company defended me perfectly, but I had to take off a lot of time from work, spend my own gas, and put wear and tear on my car to appear in court. 1 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 19, 2017 Share May 19, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, meowmommy said: but I'd like to see an exception for cases like the idiot parking lot plaintiff who still doesn't understand that if you hold over past the original end date, you have to pay the additional storage time. Dumb as they come. JM says that his ticket shows he parked longer than he was supposed to. "Exactly," he replies. Idiot! He couldn't get in touch with the manager, something he repeats probably 15 times while talking over JM, although it's irrelevant. His girlfriend is just as dumb, thinking that if she explained that they got delayed on their trip home, another business should somehow pay for his overage at a parking lot. As the Hall Clown used to say, "HUHHHH??" 49 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I don't understand how scammer squatter fake landlord is not only not evicted, but not in jail for fraud. And this bitch needs to be reported to Section 8, now, complete with the videotape, and have any benefits she's been scamming at our expense completely pulled This was so outrageous I can't even comment on it. People now get rewarded for being thieves, con artists and utterly shameless scammers? They can squat in someone's home endlessly by pleading to a court that it would be inconvenient for them to move? The guy who owns the place and has a mortgage to pay? Obviously anyone who owns a home is rich, so screw him. Boy, was JM mad. Wow. I really hope the plaintiffs turned the money over to the landlord. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: plaintiffs bought a $6000 custom couch, but says they didn't get what they paid for - and are dragging the cushions in to show us. No, really, I backed it up, these people were actually paying 6 grand for a couch, sight unseen out of a catalog. Yes, but it's supposed to last them for the rest of their lives! I didn't really care if the seams on the cushions were straight or not. I would never pay 6K for a sofa to be used as a giant scratching post for my cats, so I didn't really relate to this case. Quote And every one of these jokers invariably has a S.O., while a perfectly nice, rational person such as myself lives a life alone. Yeah, but would you want any of the SOs we see on this show?? As JJ says, I'd rather join a nunnery. Edited May 19, 2017 by AngelaHunter 1 6 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.