The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

she should have brought a case against the person who sold her a wig that made her look as if she had draped the carcass of some unknown mammal species over her head.

You said that so much more eloquently than I ever could. Nice!

Today's reruns were notable only for the incredibly low-life litigants and for JM subtly mocking their horrific grammar. Of course none of them realized this. FIrst plaintiff was such trash it was hard to listen to his, "landscapin" and "don't know nuttin'" and did he say "Paki run?" He quickly changed it to "liquor store run" upon a request to clarify and I don't think JM really got what he said first. I think JM is right in that something bad is going to happen here, with the angry, alcoholic, creepy plaintiff. I did enjoy her reaming out def's rough girlfriend for screaming from the sidelines. This isn't a sporting event, you brain-dead cretins.

With the mid-50s man who claimed his elderly mother-in-law coerced and forced him - put "her foot on my throat" -  to buy an ancient clunker and insisted that JM order the 24 year old stepdaughter out of the room lest her ears be soiled - what a bunch. Def's wife, "He said he didn't want to be here no more." JM questioned that, "He didn't just get up and say he didn't want to be there no more."

She also mocked the plaintiff in the knocked-down fence case, for his persistant use of "Cee-ment."  Or maybe she's starting to speak that way herself, after listening to murdered English day in and day out.

[Brattinella]

5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

did he say "Paki run?" He quickly changed it to "liquor store run" upon a request to clarify and I don't think JM really got what he said first.

I have never heard of this being a thing outside of the UK.  I've lived in many areas of the country and have never heard this term here.

[AZChristian]

18 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I have never heard of this being a thing outside of the UK.  I've lived in many areas of the country and have never heard this term here.

According to the Urban Dictionary, the state-run liquor stores in Massachusetts are called "packy stores" . . . and it's a common term used by college students.  We learn something new every day.

[Brattinella]

Just now, AZChristian said:

According to the Urban Dictionary, the state-run liquor stores in Massachusetts are called "packy stores" . . . and it's a common term used by college students.  We learn something new every day.

Ah, thanks for the info!  In my area, liquor stores are sometimes called "package stores".

[AZChristian]

Just googled during the commercial (TPC is on here right now).  Our plaintiff, Mr. Boisvert, is indeed in Massachusetts, and was also arrested for an unrelated case of stalking and intimidation after he was kicked out of someone's personal party.  I suspect that's what he's talking about when he says he was arrested for DOI.  He blamed the party hosts for that, and stalked and intimidated them.

Salt of the earth, that one.

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

We learn something new every day.

Indeed we do! I enlarge my vocabulary every day with this show and the comments. We just call those places "liquor stores." I've never heard them called anything else so thanks, Mr. Boisvert, you picture of elegance and grace. 

20 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Salt of the earth, that one.

Someone used that term to describe the people in the area where I grew up (in which, of course, she had never lived). I had to correct that to "Scum of the earth" a category in which I would place Mr. Boisvert.

[roseslg]

On 5/11/2017 at 4:13 PM, 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. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

I know this is super late to the game, but Javier is my acquaintance/coworker!  We've worked together for about 15 years.   I knew this was coming on, but didn't know when.   Hope I can catch it in reruns.  Does anyone know where it's shown online?

[Bazinga]

2 hours ago, roseslg said:

Does anyone know where it's shown online?

Here you are:

People's Court May 11, 2017

Edited July 12, 2017 by Bazinga

[roseslg]

@Bazinga, thank you!  He seemed embarrassed to admit he was on the show when asked, I thought it was great that he was on it.  The PC team actually contacted him about the case, he was just going through the regular court.

[roseslg]

On 5/11/2017 at 5:16 PM, meowmommy said:

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."

Just some background as I know the plaintiff (and his witness who I haven't seen in years), he did go to law school and graduate, but he's not 100%sure he wants to go into law, he is in a great finance position now, so I can see how/why becoming a lawyer and starting over in a new career is not appealing.

[Brattinella]

23 minutes ago, roseslg said:

Just some background as I know the plaintiff (and his witness who I haven't seen in years), he did go to law school and graduate, but he's not 100%sure he wants to go into law, he is in a great finance position now, so I can see how/why becoming a lawyer and starting over in a new career is not appealing.

Interesting post.

[Florinaldo]

11 hours ago, roseslg said:

he did go to law school and graduate, but he's not 100%sure he wants to go into law

Some people do not pass the bar because they do not need it. Their law training is useful and even essential in their job, such as analysis and strategic advice, but their duties do not involve appearing in court or providing services restricted to full-fledged members of the bar. The can't call themselves lawyers, but they can still apply what they learned in law school. At least that is how it works up here in Canada (with slight variations between provinces).

 

11 hours ago, roseslg said:

The one thing she said that I agree on--she's definitely like a cockroach.

Everything about her broadcast the message "Flee at once! Do not ever share living space with her!!"; her looks, her attitude(s) and her speech clearly indicated she would be a self-centered douche, impossible to live with. The plaintiff must have been desperate to quickly find a place to stay since he ignored the obvious warning signs.

[SRTouch]

still with the reruns. I had it running in the background this morning, and caught part of the parvo puppy case.  Guess what caught my attention was MM asking the breeder why her mutt puppies were selling for $500. Hmmm, good question, like MM said, a half chihuahua/half shih tzu sounds like a mutt to me. Defendant breeder tells us that these days these mixed breeds are considered "designer" dogs. Hmph, if you're looking for a cute tiny puppy, why not check the shelters and/or pet finder. Case is about the puppy racking up a bunch of vet bills in the short time plaintiffs had her before she died... according to plaintiff, when they picked up the puppy they were provided with a vet check form, and they immediately took the puppy for a check up. WTH, when the vet finds ear mites and worms. Ok, all together now: I HATE BACK YARD BREEDERS! Actually, I quit watching, so maybe the plaintiff is lieing and this breeder had a defense... doesn't matter, I HATE BACK YARD BREEDERS! Yet another reason to get your mutt from a shelter - adoption fee much less than $500 and (at least around here) you get a pet with up to date shots, no worms or fleas, and already neutered.

[DoctorK]

Quote

up to date shots, no worms or fleas, and already neutered

Hmmm, sounds like a wish list on a computer dating site.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, all together now: I HATE BACK YARD BREEDERS! Actually, I quit watching,

Amen, and I stopped watching as well. Before computers people may have had an excuse of ignorance to line the pockets of backyard breeders and puppy mills, but no more. Take two dogs of different breeds (which may have come from the street, from a mill or a "free to good home" CL ad) who of course have no heath testing of any kind and have never been shown, put them together, call them "Designer Breeds" (aka MUTTS) and presto - make lots of money in your spare time from the uterus of an unfortunate animal because dimwitted idiots like the plaintiff abound! I'm glad JM had some words about this disgusting "business" because anyone can get a dog of nearly any breed - and certainly mixed breeds -  either at a rescue or a shelter. All my dogs came from rescues and were all wonderful and lovely dogs. One person's trash truly is another's treasure.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Amen, and I stopped watching as well. 

Two of us at work were having a late lunch (it's shown here at 2:00) and when the plaintiff was talking about feces and worms we both (in sync) put down our sandwiches and rolled the top of our chip bags.

Then we looked at each other and couldn't stop laughing. 

I still have heartburn.

[patty1h]

I had the show on but not paying much attention because reruns, but looked up as the first case was announced.   I remember this case of the tenant suing landlord Geraldine Dametz but I didn't remember her daughter (or granddaughter?) strutting in wearing her finest hooker-in-court outfit.  It's been a while since I've seen the tight knit dress and knee-high boot combo, but Miss Thing was proud to keep this retro look alive. Also, what kind of accent does Geraldine have?

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Also, what kind of accent does Geraldine have?

Her accent is Irish and she nearly got the boot because she couldn't keep her big loud mouth shut. Her daughter looked like 10 lbs of potatoes in a five-pound bag, as my mother used to say. The fact that she must have looked in the mirror and thought, "I look so fine this way!" is mind-boggling.

[AZChristian]

All I can think of is that I love my daughter too much to allow her to embarrass herself by dressing like that (1) in court, or (2) ever.

[Jamoche]

On 10/28/2016 at 1:54 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Anyway, did def. have some sort of disability that caused her head to flop to the side, or did she think it made her look appealing? Loved how JM mocked her.

Just caught this on the rerun and that really stood out. I think she was going for a cutesy disbelieving head-tilt. Sad thing, it probably works on 99% of her "clients".

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Jamoche said:

I think she was going for a cutesy disbelieving head-tilt. Sad thing, it probably works on 99% of her "clients".

I have a feeling her "clients" (if we judge by plaintiff) are not overly discerning or demanding.

[Jamoche]

On 1/24/2017 at 1:10 PM, NYGirl said:

Ok..today we dealt with idiots in all 3 cases!

2.  Idiots who say they don't like wedding pictures because the artistic element is way over their heads.

 

I lost brain cells during this hour.  I kid you not.  I was slack jawed at the end.

Wow. Those were done by the less-skilled photographer? They really are nice photos - of course, if you then have them printed at Walmart...

Plaintiff's lucky she didn't get married at the tourist-attraction church where I sing - you show up nearly 2 hours late, there's another wedding happening and you'll be sent packing with no refunds.

[AngelaHunter]

OMG, when you've fed yourself to a level of obesity where merely speaking and breathing is a laborious struggle and when you can't open your eyelids all the way, a lifestyle change should be seriously considered. Listening to and watching Mr. Hot Dog was painful and uncomfortable in the extreme. If he and his wife want to be around for their daughter they better make changes.

[SRTouch]

Hmmm, almost time for new episodes... from what I read Sept 4th will kick off season 21. For my lunchtime viewing I've been watching other stuff, but switched over to TPC yesterday. Yep, reruns, but since there're from early February they're old enough it takes me a few minutes to remember. 

1. first episode today... plaintiff wants $7000 for a $700 junker: no really, $7000 is the max in their jurisdiction, plaintiff bought a 16yo Malibu for $700 as a private-party as-is sale, but now thinks she should get her state max. Actually, she's saying she paid $800 for it, since the heap needed a new battery to start up. Says once it was running she dropped it off for the mandatory vehicle inspection, which it failed. Oops, plaintiff tries to pull one over on da judge, presenting a copy of a "failed inspection" which MM says is not in the normal inspection format. So, major paper shuffle while plaintiff and her witness look for the original and MM switches over and asks defendant WTH. Defendant claims plaintiff started harassing texts about the inspection results, so now litigants on both sides of the aisle are looking for evidence. Nope, plaintiff can't come up with normal failed inspection form, but does have the original of the print out she presented which said mechanic had concerns about a rotten frame. MM's perusal of defendant's phone leads to discovery that plaintiff was homeless, and buying the Malibu as an apartment as well as a vehicle - oh yeah, she did say she found the car while apartment hunting. Ah ha, this is the lady who is homeless because she has all kinds of pets. Soooo, she's claiming she spent $13,000 boarding her animals, and feel defendant should kick in 7 grand towards her boarding fees. Uh, she says she had 13 animals, 8 of which are geckos.... hmmmm just what did she board - and for how long - that ran up thousands in fees? Oops, going through the texts MM gets concerned that defendant sounds like she's offering a phoney inspection... both sides are looking shady here. Sort of feel for the emotional plaintiff who claims her animals are all that keeps her going, but really, why would defendant have to pay towards boarding her critters... oh, and she also wants lost wages - apparently she had a job lined up, but when the car deal fell apart so did the potential job, then more in car rental than the car she was buying, etc etc etc. Oh yeah, her buddy witness wrote up a letter claiming the lost job would have resulted in over 10 grand in wages... but her buddy is just an employee at the place, not manager or owner. Ah, that's where most of the $13000 in damages cones from - 10 grand in lost wages at the job she never had. MM is mad at everyone.... plaintiff and her witness for the ridiculous overreaching, and defendant who offered to shop around for a place that would slap a sticker on an unsafe car. What it boils down to is that these folks come from a state which will undo a used car sale on any car that fails the safety inspection, but you have to have the failed inspection noted on the proper form. Plaintiff doesn't, so she loses her $ 7000  700 case. Then plaintiff wastes everybody's time arguing with MM as she's ruling "how was I supposed to know I needed the form... I'm just a consumer... wah wah" MM gets fed up and leaves while plaintiff is crying that the world is against her. Last we see of her she storms past Doug, not slowing down for a hallterview. When Doug talks to the defendant we learn she somehow got the car back, got it inspected at the place she recommended to plaintiff, and now her son drives it. Hmmm, don't know if the inspection was legit, but have to wonder if the plaintiff had stressed that car was returned to defendant instead of all that inflated damage nonsense, would she have gotten back the $700 she paid. Heck, I would have even agreed with the $120 battery if she had a receipt, even without the proper inspection form, under the "unjust enrichment" theory.
2. Oops, watching the first case has reset my internal clock, and I recognize the second case as plaintiff enters - something about a silly case where plaintiff buys a house at auction for stranger defendant because they come from the same country, but the deal falls apart because she is underfunded and now he wants her to pay for what he's out.... could be wrong, but remember it as a dud the first time and FF through it this time.
3. Silly plaintiff loans money to dude she met online, they break up, she wants the money back. Nope, didn't watch it this time, just shook my head at the needy stalker plaintiff who apparently loans strangers $500 after meeting online - oh and if intro is right got a tattoo of dude's name, which is what scared dude off.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Silly plaintiff loans money to dude she met online

I dont' remember that case. I wonder what my friends would say if I told them, "So I met this guy(who appeared to be wearing longjohns on the show) on Snapchat(??) and one month later he asked me to pay his car insurance. Of course I said yes. Who wouldn't? He said he'd pay me back - someday, maybe. He was going to,  but he never did, so I thought the best thing to do would be to get his name tattooed on MY BACK. Anyone see a problem with that?" I almost  felt sorry for her. She was so pathetic, desperate and inarticulate, but really - this is insanity that requires forcible psychiatric intervention.

[Guest]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:52 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I almost  felt sorry for her. She was so pathetic, desperate and inarticulate, but really - this is insanity that requires forcible psychiatric intervention.

I hear you.  I actually did feel sorry for her because she clearly needs counseling and someone to help her think and make rational decisions.  In other words, not getting a tattoo of Prince Charming's name ten minutes after meeting him.

Dammit too because I had some sharp comments about bunny-boilers, sleeping with said Prince eleven minutes after meeting him and like you Angela I was not impressed with his choice of wardrobe.

Guess I'll just have to file away said comments for another day and another plaintiff/defendant.

[SRTouch]

Hmmm, this rerun supposedly ran back in January, but here it is hallway through second case and I'm not remembering any of this... must have been busy that day.

1. Dude wrecked MIL's car: gap toothed mother in law loaned her spare car to daughter, and the son in law totals it. She does NOT like the SIL, and proceeds to tell us she thinks the accident happened because he had a hooker in the car cheating on her sweet daughter. Thought maybe her witness was the daughter... but no daughter stayed home to take care of the herd of rug rats she's produced - witness just came for the free lunch. Dude insists the woman in the car at 4AM was not a hooker, NOOOO, she was one of his other baby mommas - an ex-wife. Sounds like he might have been sneaking around on darling daughter with the ex, as his story of why he drove from New Jersey to Brooklyn in when wee hours is mighty lame. Gap tooth momma is highly pissed at dude, her daughter and his current wifey has moved out, and everything coming out of his mouth is a lame excuse... accident wasn't his fault, yeah he ran light, but the road was icy... had to make the trip into Brooklyn to talk to the ex about his son, no real explanation of why they were driving around at 4 in the morning to talk... ridiculous story of why he left the car in storage for weeks building up storage fees, tried to say he was told it would cost more to tow the car back to Jersey than it was worth, yet gap tooth momma was able to tow it home for $400. Not really sure how much momma was out, but she got their statutory max of 3 grand.
2. girl just wants to get paid:  plaintiff gets a part in a low budget production of A Streetcar Named Desire. Talk about low budget, they rehearse at Starbucks and the actual venue is going to be upstairs over a restaurant - oh and to raise operating captial, producer/director puts in the contract that everybody in the production has to buy a bottle of perfume from him. Ditzy actress plaintiff, who is going to be Blanche Dubois, gets all upset over the unprofessional producer defendant asking her to buy him some wine.... big kerfuffle and she either quits or is fired. Now she wants all her expenses paid for the time she was studying the part - including the glass of wine she bought him, and is asking for over a grand. MM asks ditzy Blanche why she thinks defendant should pay for her travel, food and lodging (she took the part even though she lives in Boston so was commuting to NY for readings and rehearsals). These folks have a written contract, and MM points out none of that is covered. Ditzy says she knows, she doesn't expect defendant to pay those expenses. Uh, why is she suing for those expenses when she agrees defendant shouldn't pay? Seems everybody got fed up with each other after the kerfuffle and started acting like spoiled brats. According to the written contract, ditzy was supposed to be paid 100 bucks for the photo shoot they did for the cast, but defendant won't pay. Also, she paid for the perfume, but never received it. So, defendant owes her $140 (or $100 and a bottle of perfume). Defendant (and how is this guy not burning up - he came to court wearing a beany pulled down over his ears, a buttoned jacket and a fur vest) even says ditzy offered to forgive the photo shoot money if he refunded the perfume money... but nooooo, he refuses to give a refund, so she sues and adds on everything she can think of, even knowing most of it is frivolous. Hmmm, can we order him to pay her the $100 and give her the perfume, and make her pay the court cost... nah, though most of her case is nonsense, he does owe her money according to the contract - oh and a bottle of stink'em. MM says defendant owes $140.
3. Tenant wants out of her lease: now I'm sure I didn't watch this the first time around. Hefty plaintiff enters the courtroom, bypasses her lectern and I guess thought she was going to sit in the judge's chair. Then defendant comes in and stops to figure out how that pesky swinging gate that separates the litigants from the audience works. Surely I'd remember that. Other than the funny entrance, not much reason to watch this one. Plaintiff wants out of the lease and her security back because she claims there were all kinds of problems, including wacky electric where circuits kept getting overloaded and tripped out. Ah well, here at the start I see/hear a couple things that turn me off.... first, one of those patented Harvey one liners which make no sense - "hoader? We hardly knew her!" ... second thing was the plaintiff's thick accent has MM asking her what she's saying. If the case looked promising thus would be where I turn on the CC, but instead I stopped watching.

[AngelaHunter]

56 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

wacky electric where circuits kept getting overloaded and tripped out.

No, it "chipped out" which had nothing to do with her overloading every circuit.  I enjoyed this rerun, if only for the def,  a landlord who actually knows tenent/landlord rules, and who was intelligent, well-spoken and beautifully dressed. No cleavage hanging out, no neck tats and no shouting out of turn. This type of litigant is so rare on this show I just had to watch again. Plaintiff was a nutty hoarder, who, like all hoarder focuses on irrelevant issues - "I had this MEAT!" and completely ignores questions about why her apartment looks like an overstuffed storage locker, piled nearly to the celing with crap and why she has a ton of "smelly" clothes in the common area of the buidling. The Meat!! I could have done without the maggot picture (when I was renting I had people living above me who dropped their garbage bag on my back balcony releasing a zillion maggots I found when I came home from work) but I could listen to the defendant all day. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to be a landlord and dealing with all this insanity.

 

56 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

as his story of why he drove from New Jersey to Brooklyn in when wee hours is mighty lame.

Mama and desperate daughter were looking for Sir Lancelot, and instead got him, a pot-bellied, cut-rate Captain Ahab who can't even afford to buy his own old beater car, yet plaintiff's daughter thought he was the ideal mate with whom to have a bunch of kiddies. Hahahha! Sir Lancelot, even in full armor and on a horse could have travelled from New Jersy to Brooklyn in less than the eight hours it took def.

[Brattinella]

11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

dropped their garbage bag on my back balcony

I am SO sorry you had to go through this!  Eww!

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I am SO sorry you had to go through this!  Eww!

Thanks. It was beyond disgusting, and those pigs didn't even have the decency to clean it up. I can just imagine how thrilled def's other tenant was when the hoarder moved out.

[AZChristian]

LOL from MM:

MM:  "Did you have a hooker in the car?"

Def:  "I had my ex-wife in the car."

MM:  "Is your ex-wife a hooker?"

[Jamoche]

"Ditzy Dubois" would make a great stripper name.

[AngelaHunter]

58 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

MM:  "Is your ex-wife a hooker?"

I mean, c'mon - who but a hooker expecting to be paid would be in a car with that giant, pukey zero at 4:00a.m.?

56 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

"Ditzy Dubois" would make a great stripper name.

Bwahahhaha!

[Jamoche]

The hoarder case also gave us a fun story of the time when JM was one of five law students renting an apartment and the landlord made an unannounced "inspection" while they weren't in, which resulted in him sending a letter about lots of nit-picking details, including JM's underwear being on the floor. To five law students. I'm sure they had a lot of fun writing a reply, going by her description of her reaction at the time.

[SRTouch]

RERUNS

1. Ah, all I can come up with is SILLY WOMAN! Tongue tied plaintiff loaned/gifted/paid off bf's lawyer to take his multiple DUI cases. Not sure how many cases he's had, as bf defendant helpfully points out that she has the cases confused, says he paid for the case she has evidence of payment on, she paid for a different case. Anyway, both agree she paid for one case, just no one seems to know which case or how much. Oh, and he figures it was just a couple's thing, he paid for stuff - she paid for stuff... so his theory is his legal fees are just part of the deal. Anyway, after three years of almost-married bliss, he moves out and stops paying her back. Hmmm, accusations of his cheating with her bestie. ASIDE: saw the same thing on Hot Bench recently. Dude insists they weren't in a "relationship". On Hot Bench they were "just" friends who happened to have sex. In this TPC case, they dated for years, lived together, co-mingled finances - but were NOT in a "relationship."  Yep, this dude has a strange way of looking at things... as shown in this little exchange: dude "I don't deny I owe her some money" MM "so, how much do you think you owe her?" Dude "nothing." Ah well, this is one of those cases where it's obvious the woman was supporting the bum (oh, at least part of the time they lived together in their non-relationship bliss he was unemployed), the problem is figuring out how much he owes. She really has no evidence besides ambiguous texts where he admits he owes, but not how much he owes. Today in court, he says he owes nothing... well, maybe he owes $750... well he admits in text owing $1000... oh wait, there's a text from her saying he owes $1650, but she's in court suing for $1700. Heck, sounds like neither one knows what is owed, and just want MM to pick a number. So, should the case be thrown out because plaintiff can't prove what is owed? Nah, MM points her gavel at plaintiff and says "you're disorganized," pointing at defendant "but you're dishonest" and awards plaintiff  $1650.
2. don't take the rental to the BIG CITY: This plaintiff has a car rental place and rents a car to the defendant. Ah, but P has an ongoing feud (and apparently pending litigation) with NY City. All his rental cars are registered to his company, so every time a rental gets a ticket the car gets impounded until all the tickets on all the company cars is paid off. So, the company owes thousands in tickets, and it's cheaper to just let the car sit in impound and be auctioned off. Sooooo, plaintiff includes a provision in his rental contracts that expressly prohibits taking rentals into the City, and warning that if you do and the car is impounded, you have just bought the car. Should be a straight forward contract case... defendant violated the contract so should have to pay the penalty as stated in the contract. Thing that makes it complicated is the plaintiff is so danged unlikable I just want to smack the smirk off his face. Defendant isn't much better - his defense seems to be he needed to make a humanitarian visit to the Bronx, oh, and he didn't read the contract before signing it. Sooo, MM has Douglas carry him a copy of the contract so he can read it... oops, he doesn't have his glasses... MM, "ok, Douglas give us a dramatic reading" Douglas, as he holds the contract at arms length and squints, "uh, unfortunately I don't have my glasses..." not worth the 15 minutes the case takes for this chuckle, cause like I said, simple contract case. One more funny (only half a chuckle)... defendant, who clearly violated the contract, has a $700 counterclaim. Seems he wants the rental agency to pay him for his time, inconvenience and aggravation when the rental was towed even though he took it to town and left it while he spent the night at a friend's place - oh, and for the other rental he had to rent to drive home. Yep, unrepentant defendant expects to be paid because he didn't follow the rules. Ok, the countersuit is going nowhere. Smug plaintiff is going to win, he knows he's going to win, but he wants a little extra so tries to pad the value of the impounded car. As we all know from watching these shows, book values run the gamut based on the condition of the car, and the value for this one goes for under 2 grand all the way to $4000 - so of course he values this car at 4 grand. Rough justice time, MM settles on a mid-value, and awards plaintiff $2600. Oh, and this is the case where MM gets up and, as she starts to leave, comes back and announces she needs to go take a shower after listening to slime ball plaintiff bend the law and get over on his customers. After her little speech, she says as she's leaving she still doesn't feel any better having said her piece after having to rule for the plaintiff... and the camera shifts over and shows slime smiling.
3. Bedbug infestation:  plaintiff (tenant) claims place was uninhabitable because of creepy crawlers, so wants her money back - oh, not just her money back, but she wants the max of 5 grand because all her stuff was ruined. Landlord (defendant) says P was there 6 months before she complained, and when P complained she tried to get rid of the bugs but P broke the lease and moved. Yep, I remember this one, as we go to commercial after the intro our brilliant plaintiff is saying she thought the bedbugs were Ladybugs. Anyway, when P complains defendant brings in an exterminator. Problem is, the bug dude sprayed some high powered sh't, and P didn't feel safe staying the night after it was sprayed. Ok, wasn't just her, she had 4 kids, including an infant, better safe than sorry, so D put them up at a hotel for 2 nights. Oh, no, she could still smell the spray, so she sealed up the bedrooms and she and the kids spend the next two months on air mattresses (purchased by D) in the living room  with 7 fans and open windows (and I guess clothespins on their noses) - WTH did the bug dude spray, anyway? Ah, problem is P has a bunch of half truths and parts of information she accepts as gospel on how to get rid of bedbugs, and refuses to hear anything anyone says that disagrees with what she believes. D tried her best, brought in the exterminator three times, but P refused to do her part in getting rid of the bugs. No way was she going back into those bedrooms after they were sprayed, not with her asthma. Yep, this is the brilliant lady(?) who, when confronted by bedbugs decided everything in the place was ruined. She's in court wanting, among other things, 4 TVs replaced (yep 1 adult, 3 kids and an infant- of course they need 4 TVs)... yep, those nasty creepy crawlers hide in the TVs and jump off onto her and the kids, so the tvs had to be left behind... everything has to be trashed, cause, don't you know, anything you have has to be trashed as bedbugs lie in wait for two years to jump on any human who walks by. Actually, if I had been the landlord, I think I would have let her out of the lease just to get rid of her and end her, no doubt, constant complaints. Especially after hearing the landlord's story, where the exterminator gives the poor single mom money out his pocket to go get everything professionally cleaned. For some reason I'm thinking no job, welfare, section 8, food bank, and of course multiple iPhone, 4 TVs - including a 65 inch, a 55 inch and 2 32 inchers, cable with a gazillion channels - maybe not section 8, as no mention of it was brought up and usually we hear about housing inspections and what not with section 8. Yep, one of those tenants a landlord celebrates when they move out. Something I wondered about afterwards was if any of that 5 grand P was asking for was rent or the security, because D didn't have a countersuit, even though P broke the lease and left bags of trash and 1 small TV in a closet. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Ah, all I can come up with is SILLY WOMAN! Tongue tied plaintiff loaned/gifted/paid off bf's lawyer to take his multiple DUI cases.

This case was new to me. Def, a fugly little creep, has a drinking problem and can't stop getting arrested. Of course plaintiff - another pitiful desperate woman *sigh* - thinks he's worth showering thousands of dollars on to pay for his lawyers. Well, HE says he paid the lawyer (even though he says he didn't. He does owe plaintiff money. How much? "Nothing") and he would show JM the receipts, but he doesn't have them with him. OH, he also quit his job in the middle of all this DUI, lawyer business. So, he won't work, has no money or credit and is a drunk and a criminal and a liar. No problem. He had plaintiff willing to give him anything and an ex-wife AND some girlfriend (or maybe it was the ex-wife - I couldn't keep track of the women in his life) who seemed to be very possessive of this stellar hunk of man. Are males who have a pulse - which seems to be the only requirement of the Women of Court TeeVee - becoming an endangered species, that women are willing not only to settle for such losers, but rain money on them?

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

This case was new to me. Def, a fugly little creep, has a drinking problem and can't stop getting arrested. Of course plaintiff - another pitiful desperate woman *sigh* - thinks he's worth showering thousands of dollars on to pay for his lawyers. Well, HE says he paid the lawyer (even though he says he didn't. He does owe plaintiff money. How much? "Nothing") and he would show JM the receipts, but he doesn't have them with him. OH, he also quit his job in the middle of all this DUI, lawyer business. So, he won't work, has no money or credit and is a drunk and a criminal and a liar. No problem. He had plaintiff willing to give him anything and an ex-wife AND some girlfriend (or maybe it was the ex-wife - I couldn't keep track of the women in his life) who seemed to be very possessive of this stellar hunk of man.

But, remember, he only "dates" one at a time.... does that mean he alternates which days he dates any particular woman?

Quote

Are males who have a pulse - which seems to be the only requirement of the Women of Court TeeVee - becoming an endangered species, that women are willing not only to settle for such losers, but rain money on them?

Hey! I've got a pulse. How come when it rains all I get is wet?

Edited August 18, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

19 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

How come when it rains all I get is wet?

You're probably falling way short of the requirements to be a Chick Magnet. Do you have warrants? No credit? No money? No job? Multiple baby mommas? Have you been arrested for not paying child support? Driving drunk? Selling drugs? Domestic violence? If you answered "No" to any or all of the above it's easy to see why you don't have women tripping over each other (or challenging each other to fight for you) to win your favours and "conversate" with you. Get with the program.

[Jamoche]

I tuned in midway through the second case: plaintiff looks like he came straight from central casting for "used-car salesman": Orange open-collar big lapels, suit jacket with a gray plaid with matching orange accent, smarmy car-selling grin. And then he said "car" and I thought "of course he did".

[TresGatos]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

You're probably falling way short of the requirements to be a Chick Magnet. Do you have warrants? No credit? No money? No job? Multiple baby mommas? Have you been arrested for not paying child support? Driving drunk? Selling drugs? Domestic violence? If you answered "No" to any or all of the above it's easy to see why you don't have women tripping over each other (or challenging each other to fight for you) to win your favours and "conversate" with you. Get with the program.

Don't forget the super sex-ay neck tattoos.

[AZChristian]

2 minutes ago, TresGatos said:

Don't forget the super sex-ay neck tattoos.

And extra points for face and head tats.

[SRTouch]

59 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

And extra points for face and head tats.

Ah ha, now I get it. Also probably need to knock out a few teeth and stain the rest green and brown.

[Silver Raven]

5 hours ago, AZChristian said:

And extra points for face and head tats.

And a gold grill.

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

And a gold grill.

And ridiculous looking facial hair that is supposed to conceal the fact that the wearer has no chin, but it never works.  Oh, and have a douchebag hairdo AND ask a woman to pay for repairs to your 1996 Grand Prix.  SRTouch, I really feel you're not trying hard enough.

Today's landlord case had me wracking my brain to figure out why def - who got piss drunk and screwed... some guy she met at a store who has arrest warrants (another thing that drives women mad with lust. Take note, SR) then met his main squeeze in the store and, of course, wanted to fight her for the favours of this criminal prize, and then gets burn marks on the carpet because she felt the urgent ( I guess all that drinking and screwing is tiring) need of a nap and left her three-year old unsupervised with an iron. She blamed the kid, saying he plugged it in but I don't believe her and she really seemed to feel that all that was just SO cute and adorable, instead of disgusting which is the way normal people would see her activities.

I was really surprised JM didn't wipe that stupid grin off her face and rip her a new one for her parenting skills.

[teebax]

I've been on hiatus like the show, but caught a new for me episode today involving a dude who ordered glasses but wanted to cancel after opting to have cataract surgery. He was one of the most stubborn defendants I've ever seen. She offered him two choices: nothing or glasses with his new prescription. He chose... neither. Three times. I was completely exasperated by him. MM had the patience of a saint. I was cursing him from my Lazy boy.  

[SRTouch]

rerun

1. shopping cart bangup: I like the plaintiff. Clean cut kid, actually works, proud of his ride, wish more young adults were like him - thank fully there are more, just we don't see many of them on court tv. Now defendant kid... we see these 18yo entitled a$$wipes all to often - well, actually we aren't seeing him today, no he sent mommy with his power of attorney, oh and and her mommy and daddy. Ok, I totally buy plaintiff's story - just got off work, sitting in his car, chilling, fixing to head out, people watching while defendant loads bags from their cart into their trunk in the next row. Once the cart is empty, 18yo snowflake gives the cart a hard shove sending it into plaintiff's car. Plaintiff is young hardworking dude, proud of his Honda Accord, probably washes it three times a week and has a fit every time he finds a new scratch or ding while waxing his baby. Defendants... not so much, the world owes them... glad to hear MM get on her soapbox and vent about folks who can't be bothered to walk a few steps and return carts instead of leaving them wherever - or worse shoving them out of their way, and into some one else's car. Ok, plaintiff may have over reacted and yelled about a new ding on his baby, but defendants couldn't be bothered. Mommy, comes over and inspects the damage, oh it's nothing, hops in and drives off when he yells he's calling the cops. Ah, but plaintiff whips out his phone, not only gets pictures of defendant's car and license plate, but a picture of Mommy in the driver seat looking at him as she drives away. Oh, and pictures of the ding and repair estimate - estimate not outrageous, under $600. Not sure why this case made it to court - defendant obviously in the wrong and has no defense - well, except of course she and her son should be above taking responsibility when their acts cause damage to the rest of society. Ah, now we find out why 18yo is such an arrogant kid - he learned from Mommy. And... Mommy is a snowflake herself - silent dude standing next to her all this time, the owner of the car, is her Daddy. No only does he provide her with transportation, but when MM asks him what he thinks of Mommy driving away after 18yo grandkid damaged plaintiff's car, he jumps right on Mommy's bandwagon and starts in making excuses for her. Just to round things out, Mommy's Mommy stands up and tries to cast plaintiff in a bad light... we would have paid, but were never notified, yada yada. Well, snowflake Mommy's Mommy, your snowflake drove off and the ONLY reason plaintiff was able to track you down to get his car fixed was because he had pictures to show the police to track her down. Hmmm, too bad plaintiff can't get punitive damages for the time wasted and aggravation of having to track these folks down. But no, MM gives him his damages - doesn't even send Douglas over to spank them.
2. bad wedding photos: tired old story - plaintiffs hired photographer to take pictures of the big day, but aren't happy with the results, and want the statutory max of 5 grand - what they paid, plus pain and suffering, etc. Hold on, says defendant camera lady, they tried to back out before the wedding when hubby to be lost his job, and now they're nitpicking and just want the pics for free. Ok, truth is I skipped this one when the clip as we go to commercial backs up camera lady... hey, I actually liked the pic they showed - groom looking down at the flower in his lapel - yeah the top of his head is cut off, but I think it was framed nicely. Like MM, I thought it was a nice shot, and as long as there were others pix showing him with his whole head. I fast forward, and find MM giving plaintiffs a hard time - not only did defendant fulfill the contract, but she stayed an extra hour and a half because the wedding started late and ran over the contracted time. Surprise, case tossed.
3. potential tenant wants deposit back after backing out of rental: 'nother instance where plaintiff saw an apartment, put down a deposit, then wants out of the deal and starts looking for things to justify getting the deposit back. Best this guy comes up with is that place was in disrepair. Guess there isn't a snappy thing for this circumstance like JJ's "JUST A-MOVE" - "don't sign" a lease isn't nearly as good. Anyway, this case is sort of a dud - though plaintiff's white pants and blue (new, unpressed, fresh out of the package) long sleeve shirt reminds me of a (horrid) outfit I worn in high school. Man, I thought I looked good in those white bell bottoms and pink shirt ?. Anywho, I didn't watch this one, either - though I was tempted when I FF and learned landlord defendant offered to return half the deposit, even though we all know he didn't have to return anything. There's some mystery third person involved, who apparently made off with the first refund, but the mystery wasn't enough to make me go back and watch.

Edited August 22, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

SRTouch, I got different reruns today, and must say I did enjoy rewatching the boyfriends case, where def, who is a precious little Mommy's Boy, used the plaintiff's credit card to the tune of about 5K. The best part is that he's too damned lazy to get off his plump ass and do anything, so ordered Lipozene to get rid of his belly fat and it didn't even work, as we saw in the hall. Yeah, I believe that taking a pill will magically remove fat. Who needs to exercise or moderate your intake of food?  He claims he didn't use the card at all, so it must have been his Mommy ordering all kinds of dumb shit with it.

[teebax]

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

SRTouch, I got different reruns today, and must say I did enjoy rewatching the boyfriends case, where def, who is a precious little Mommy's Boy, used the plaintiff's credit card to the tune of about 5K. The best part is that he's too damned lazy to get off his plump ass and do anything, so ordered Lipozene to get rid of his belly fat and it didn't even work, as we saw in the hall. Yeah, I believe that taking a pill will magically remove fat. Who needs to exercise or moderate your intake of food?  He claims he didn't use the card at all, so it must have been his Mommy ordering all kinds of dumb shit with it.

I wish she'd have gone off on the defendant more. What he did was disgusting. And he's still denying it. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

I wish she'd have gone off on the defendant more. What he did was disgusting. And he's still denying it. 

Totally. Standing there like a 5 year old, denying. "Wasn't me."  It's just too bad he doesn't have to pay back for real all the money he stole, the amoral, lying little shit. OTOH, Mommy would probably get stuck paying the tab.

I would rather have paid all the money back before being sued so as not to let the world know that I'm not only a thief, but that  I'm so dumb I believe Lipozene commercials.

[Guest]

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 10:10 PM, teebax said:

I've been on hiatus like the show, but caught a new for me episode today involving a dude who ordered glasses but wanted to cancel after opting to have cataract surgery. He was one of the most stubborn defendants I've ever seen. She offered him two choices: nothing or glasses with his new prescription. He chose... neither. Three times. I was completely exasperated by him. MM had the patience of a saint. I was cursing him from my Lazy boy.  

He was stupid wasn't he?  Even Doug was stunned that the plaintiff was so stubborn.

And the defendant was so nice.

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:51 AM, AZChristian said:

And extra points for face and head tats.

You might jeer but when you're in a crowd it sure is easy to find your boo.