The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM thought he was a smart, attractive man who could get a nice, decent woman, but personally I think he is - as Judy Judy would say - "a nut."  Somehow I don't think nice, decent women ring his bell.

But... but.... she was smart and looks like a supermodel ?

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, quarkuud said:

God, I had to stop watching.  Not before I heard about the picture of her back sent to his close friend, the best dermatologist in the world.  Wasn't he claiming it was pityriasis rosea?  If so, it isn't fungal... they think it's viral.  I guess when you are the curer of toe fungus, you might be biased towards seeing fungus everywhere.

It was pityriasis versicolor.  Can't believe you didn't pick up on that after he said it 30,000,000 times.  

From my primary care physician (WebMD):  "Tinea versicolor is a fungal infection of the skin. It's also called pityriasis versicolor and is caused by a type of yeast that naturally lives on your skin. When the yeast grows out of control, the skin disease, which appears as a rash, is the result."

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

But... but.... she was smart and looks like a supermodel

Maybe it was the massive bazooms, or maybe plaintiff has a Dr. Henry Higgins complex?

 

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Can't believe you didn't pick up on that after he said it 30,000,000 times.

That conversation was little short of awesome:

Dr. Henry HIggins: " ...pityriasis versicolor."

JM: "Why did you call her your fiancee?"

Dr.H.H: " ...pityriasis versicolor."

JM: "Why did you call her your fiancee?"

Dr.H.H: " ...pityriasis versicolor."

Repeat another dozen times.

[patty1h]

I thought husbands and wives couldn't sue each other?   I started watching this case (man suing woman for non-payment of mortgage) wondering why JM was even entertaining the lawsuit - I was sure she was going to let them ramble and then tell them married couples can't take each other to court.  Has the law changed or because they are separated/he filed for divorce, it's a viable case?

Edited September 13, 2017 by patty1h
took out random words

[Katy M]

19 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I thought husbands and wives couldn't sue each other?   I started watching this case (man suing woman for non-payment of mortgage) wondering why JM was even entertaining the lawsuit - I was sure she was going to let them ramble and then tell them married couples can't take each other to court.  Has the law changed or because they are separated/he filed for divorce the court, it's a viable case?

Well, I'm certainly glad that they've filed for divorce, because otherwise, it would truly be weird for them to sue each other.  I would think this is something they would handle in their divorce settlement.  But, no, I know of no law that bars you from suing your spouse, other than common sense.

[Jamoche]

28 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I thought husbands and wives couldn't sue each other?

Google says that used to be true, but got struck down as being one of those outdated "wife is property"-based things. Makes sense to me that you can - of all the people in your life who might drive you to a lawsuit, your spouse has the most opportunities.

 

Today's rerun first aired in January and last aired less than a month ago - the hoarder with the "meats" and the propane tank, and JM's story about a nosy landlord in her law school days. Come on, show, you've got years of reruns, don't recycle them so quickly that I still remember the comments!

[SRTouch]

1. exes fight over mortgage payments: this couple are married, but split up when wife started a second job... except they still share the same residence - even hot bunking in the same bed. Later on we learn that he filed this case a while ago, but just recently formalized their split by filing for divorce - but really just a tool to force her to pay her share. Poor gap-toothed wife, so worn out from her two jobs she can't keep her eyes open through her bangs as she's talking. Despite working 7 days a week, she stopped paying her share of the mortgage - hence the lawsuit. She says he expected her to slave away, working two jobs, yet still clean, cook, and wait on him while he plays video games, so her remedy was to go on a renter strike. Ah, course his story is different, says when they married they originally agreed to split expenses 50/50. But she had a lot of old debt, so came to him asking him to cover the mortgage while she covered the smaller bills, utilities, cable, phone etc, and while catching up on her outstanding old debt. Oh, and he supposedly earns more in his one job than she does working two jobs - and the house and mortgage are in his name as he brought them into the marriage. So, according get to him, he agrees to her proposal in 2015 to alter their previous 50/50 split of expenses so she can pay those pesky old debts. Ah, but he says, after the new agreement, she not only didn't pay her previous share of the mortgage, bill collectors started calling him about nonpayment on those old bills... so where was her money going. Oh, and no more mention of hubby being a lay about video gamer wanting her to be his domestic while working 2 jobs. So, for over a year she has not been paying per their new agreement. Ok, I've only known this lady for 10 minutes, and I'm already fed up with her and her attitude. MM just told hubby that since the house is not marital property, he may well be within his rights to evict her as a tenant who has not paid as per their agreement for the last 18 months. She turns to defendant, and defendant tells us that, yes she promised to start paying her share again, but never really intended to, she's hardly ever there anyway, and doesn't see why she should pay half anyway... uh, maybe you should pay half because that was the agreement - and, I'm still curious about where her wages go from those two jobs (she did say something about garnishment for back taxes). She's still claiming she has been paying the utilities etc, as per one of their previous agreements, but now hubby provides proof she doesn't always pay those bills, and since the bills are in his name he sometimes pays off past due bills. Anybody have a guess on why this lady has bad credit? She presents her bank statements where she pays the bills sometimes, and figures she should get credit for always paying those bills... meanwhile, since the bills are in his name every late payment is going against him. MM doesn't mince words, she says she doesn't like defendant not doing what she agreed to, not even telling hubby she's not going to. MM tells dude he really needs to go ahead and evict her. Back to the case, defendant agrees she was going to go back to a 50/50 split, which means they each would be paying over $1200 monthly.  So, looking at defendant's bank records, MM determines defendant is paying around $400 less than her share each month. Soooo, rough justice, add the amount plaintiff paid on bills she had agreed to pay but didn't, plus $400 a month since she had agreed to restart a 50/50 split, so he gets about a grand - would have been more but she only admits to 2 months while he claims an additional 4-5. And, after all that, hubby says he would consider dropping the divorce if she starts paying her share.... dude! Why!?! Sounds like a marriage in name only, and the longer you stay married the more chance she's going get to tank YOUR credit. Oh, and my thoughts on where her money goes.... drugs. - I can just hear Greg Mathis telling her to stop her crackish ways.
2. botched auto repair: plaintiff says she took her car to the dealer because of a recall, and ever since it hasn't run right. Dealer argues the work done dealt was a suspension problem, and has nothing to do with her current engine complaint on her 20yo car with over 100,000 miles. Sooo, she wants 5 grand for an old junker... yeah, sure, riiiiight. The junker was a recent purchase from some other dealer, and had problems from the get go - yep suspension was bad when she bought it (over and above the reason for the recall)... ah, but the engine sounded good. So, she takes it for needed suspension work and it shakes and shimmys all over the road, and mechanic tells her she has a cracked frame, but there was a recall for this and she needs to take it to the dealer. So, defendant is the dealer, who is only to do recall work on the struts - she'll still need major suspension work. Ah, she says there's a loud engine knock, the thing is in 4 wheel drive, and barely runs, when she goes to pick it up. Hmmm, anyone think maybe she just has buyers remorse - had the thing 2 days and already looking at big money.... maybe looking to get a bonanza from the dealer instead of where she bought the heap (more on that later). Ok, service manager comes up, says there was a snow storm, and admits the vehicle was in 4 wheel because a worker put it in 4 wheel to drive to the body shop... hmmm, ok 4 wheel needed to get to the shop - could it have, perhaps, gotten stuck and some yayhoo beginner driver over revved engine trying to rock it out of a snow bank (3 of the 4 vehicles I've owed have either been AWD or 4WD, and I would NEVER buy a 4WD without a good warranty - too many people don't know how to drive them). Uhhhh, and someone at the shop left it in 4WD because they needed to drive to the shop... really... and when the owner comes to pick it up she needs help because she doesn't know how to get it OUT of 4WD. Not enough for plaintiff to blame the dealer and win the lottery, but have to say I'm not impressed with the dealer's shop. Ok, this lady not only shouldn't have a 4WD, she shouldn't have any vehicle if she's believing a stranger mechanic when he tells her she's good to go with a knocking engine and oil light flashing... that's assuming you believe her story - service manager says no light or knock (but then his testimony is hearsay - he's just repeating what his guy told him). Ok, time to ask about an expert witness... nah, no expert, but she knows enough to hand over a typed note with scribbled signature. Oh, and a Judyism comes to mind when MM asks "how long did you have the car" P, "about 6 days" MM "Then why does this statement from mystery mechanic say he's serviced the vehicle frequently prior to it being taken to the dealer" P "What do you mean?" MM "That's the first sentence on this piece of paper." Can't you just hear JJ saying "You don't need a good memory if you tell the truth" ? Never mind the outrageous 5 grand claim, plaintiff has no case, and only evidence is phoney. We still have time to fill for this non-case, so MM let's service manager tell us she told him she got the vehicle through someone who bought it at auction, and he contacted the auction for her to see if she might be able to get a partial refund or undo the sale. Uh, my first thought, and MM asks, "does any auction offer a warranty?" Then I realize that, yes, I have seen limited warranties on some stuff on the IronPlanet.com site. Of course, Service Manager, answers, not on a 20yo vehicle with a salvage title. Anyway, that explains why she's going after this dealer, the auction people already shut her down. If plaintiff had ANY case (she didn't) that line shot it down. MM dismisses the case, and plaintiff raises her hand and shouts out "Listen" and MM answers, "no, you listen, verdict is for defendant" and we hear MM mutter "listen" as she walks away. Then plaintiff  unloads on Doug with this defendant wasn't even there, so how could he testify? Doug doesn't get a chance to answer as she storms off, but really defendant didn't need to say anything as SHE HAD NO FREAKING EVIDENCE besides that phoney expert witness statement.
3. rental security deposit: plaintiffs say deposit should have been refunded, and landlord says he's a longtime landlord, knows a thing or two, and has already returned more than they were entitled to - but no countersuit. Oh, and not only the security, but plaintiff claims they had a refundable pet deposit for their weiner dog, and they not only want the deposit and security back but penalties for wrongfully withholding it. Plaintiff claims defendant only noted two things during their walk through. Don'tcha just love it when litigants try to argue points of law with the lady in the black dress. Oh, and it doesn't help when you put in your filing that a lawyer advised you to do something that any viewer of court TV could tell you you CAN NOT do - we all know you can't use security in lieu of rent, (even though we all know people get away with doing it all the time). Anyway, already, without defendant saying anything, we have plaintiff arguing law with a lawyer/judge and spouting nonsense about missing shower heads. Can anyone come up with any reason why the shower heads would be there when they did the walk through prior to moving in and gone when they actually moved in? Nah, they replaced the heads with a hand held or some fancy unit, then took the replacement when they moved and hoped the landlord (who they claim they already had problems with before moving) would just write it off. Ok, assuming any of what plaintiff said is believed, after they were gone landlord started adding additional items to the items noted in the final walk through (perfectly normal, which is why he gets 30 days (depending on jurisdiction, to provide an itemized list and any refund) - some of which plaintiff admits, even though she apparently thinks defendant should have let slide. Not only did they take the shower heads, but they took their ceiling fans without replacing get the original lighting fixtures. Then landlord also claims 8-900 bucks for scratched floors and wall damage - and he has pics to back his claim. Hoboy, now our what-a-be lawyer is arguing the pics, saying they aren't date/time stamped. Nah, if this was a crappy apartment (or the owner lived there - he says he may move in) I might say normal wear and tear, but they were paying enough rent that new tenants, or the owner, shouldn't have to put up with scratched hardwood floors and Spotty spackle in every room where they had tvs mounted on the walls. (Place was freshly painted when they moved in.) Something we don't normally see, plaintiff wants $250 for attorney fees for the poor advice she supposedly received and help in filing her small claims case - and also wants double the amount she claims was wrongfully withheld. As MM goes through the list of damages, right off the bat she tosses the double claim, and looks at the lease to see if attorney fees are mentioned (if she really went to an attotney, they must be one of those who follows the "ask for the moon and hope for the best" lawyers.) Anyway, MM discounts some of the amount that withheld, even though dude has receipts. Some of the claim is speculative since the work hasn't been done and the receipt is pretty generic (sand and paint the walls - whole apartment? Spot paint? doesn't really say and dude admits it hasn't been painted yet.) Plaintiff does get some money ($400), but far short of the $2200 she asked for.

Edited September 13, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

exes fight over mortgage payments: this couple are married, but split up when wife started a second job

This was cut off for me for a news flash concerning yet another maniac shooter, and I had no problem with that.

 

8 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

botched auto repair: plaintiff says she took her car to the dealer because of a recall, and ever since it hasn't run right.

She took her 20-year old hunk of junk to the defendants, which reminds me: JM asked her if she bought the car from a private party. Plaintiff didn't seem to understand those words so JM amended it to "a person".  "Yes," says plaintiff. "I bought it at a dealer." Okay then. Right then I knew how this case would go, even though her story was mostly incoherent,  but she wanted 5K for the ancient beater she bought! The car was probably "salvaged" from the bottom of some lake.

More interesting to me is that there must be people who think that getting 4-inch horror-movie fake claws/talons glued to the ends of your fingers is attractive. Am I the only one who finds that thoroughly gross and hideous?

11 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

rental security deposit: plaintiffs say deposit should have been refunded

LOVED listening to the plaintiff. She's of that very rare (indeed, endangered species) breed of TPC litigants who can actually speak proper English. Oh, joy! Too bad she felt she needed to educate JM on the law, informing her it's perfectly okay for tenants to not pay the last month's rent and tell the landlord to take it out of their security deposit. Now that she's a landlord, I wonder if she'll find that so acceptable if her tenants do the same to her?

[PopTart16]

On 9/11/2017 at 1:17 PM, SRTouch said:

1. exes fight over sons' expenses: mom is suing pop for 3 grand 'cause he won't help to pay for a portion of one kid's wedding. (They've been divorced 25 years or so.) So, pop decides to sue her 'cause he paid the bill for both sons' college - says it cost a couple hundred grand each, so he wants the court max, 7 grand. Both sides claim the other agreed to pay of what they're suing for, but nobody paid - and neither agrees they agreed to pay. What struck me right off, the son who got married was 29yo... sooo, at 29, mom and pops still paying for the wedding? And, if I heard right, the $3100 mom is suing for was the bill for flowers, rehearsal dinner and a brunch? Ah, now when asked why I never married, I'll just say my folks never had the money. Heck, at 29 I was halfway through my Army career, and wouldn't have thought to ask. What struck me next, what's with mom putting thousands of dollars on a credit card for a adult son's (who I gather has an MBA in finance) wedding. According to mom, she laid out the money, thinking pops would pay half, and for months after the wedding he repeatedly told her he'd pay, then 4 months after the wedding he told her he didn't owe a penny. When MM turns to him and to get his version, he says "hi, um, I don't understand... what do you want me to say?" Well, how 'bout was there an agreement to pay half the expenses mom put on her card, and did you let her think money would be forthcoming for months before finally saying nothing was coming? According to pops, before the wedding he didn't agree or disagree to pay a portion... no, whenever mom brought it up he dodged the question and let her assume whatever she wanted. Thing is, sounds like pops wasn't and isn't at all close to these adult sons, who were toddlers when the the divorce occured. MM "What do your sons do?" Pops "They work... I think one's in construction and the other maybe does something in finance." Mom "One is a civil engineering and the other has his MBA and works in finance." Ok, his countersuit is going nowhere. His basis for claiming she owes something for their college is a phrase in the divorce decree that says that both sides "will attempt to agree to pay" a portion of education costs. Well, he figures after his paying 400 grand for school for which she paid zero, she should just eat the wedding expenses.  Hmmmm, maybe so, if they had had an actual agreement, but "attempt to agree" says nothing. OTOH, his claim that he was avoiding talking about his contributing for the wedding before, during and for months after the wedding is false. Nope, another case where a litigant case is torpedoed by their own words in a voice mail (although it sounds like the voice mail came out after MM had already made up her mind). Ok, he doesn't say he'll pay half, but MM says (and I agree) that she thinks he said that he would, and the voice mail telling mom where to put the receipts certainly seems to indicate he was agreeing to pay sonething.... Rough justice, by preponderance of evidence he owes half of her expenses (which now includes interest on her credit card) so she gets the 3100 she asked for, and he gets nothing on his countersuit.
2. dog gets hurt at the groomer: whoa, plaintiff says his dog had a vet bill for almost 5 grand! WTH! Course plaintiff says dog was fine when he took her to the groomer, and when he got there he found the place under new management. He left the dog in their care, but then got a call saying there had been an accident, and the dog had been taken to an emergency vet. Defendants, who apparently refused to provide any insurance info after the incident, say the dog attacked when they tried to get it out of the carrier, it fell and got hurt. (Well, at least these folks didn't pass it off as an "old lady limp" like in another recent case.) Ok, since plaintiff wasn't there for the actual accident, MM changes sides and lets defendants tell what happened. Ah, yet another time when a crucial witness is missing. They tell us the dog bit the employee who was going to bath her - twice - but that employee isn't here. So, the owner/head groomer went to get the dog, and it lunged at him, missed, and fell and broke it's leg. Ok, little terrier type mix, I can buy it might be freaked at strangers trying to pull it out of its crate, and despite the cuteness factors, terriers were originally bred as vermin exterminators, so can be agressive. However, I would expect professional groomers to know how to handle it without injury to themselves or the dog... don't see how they dodge liability for the vet bills. Ah, unlike the other recent case, the owner in this case signed a release before he left his dog. (Any Dr Jeff fans here? Couldn't help but think of him as old dude is talking about the 3-4000 grand estimate for the surgery, and can hear Jeff saying how he'd do it for 3 or 4 hundred. New Season of Dr Jeff coming later this month.) 'Nother ah, MM reads the release, and says it's not enough - the defendant admitted Stella, the terrier, was hurt in an accident he could have prevented in MM's view. She didn't really go into how he could have avoided it, but in my view these folks really need some remedial training in handling skittish and/or aggressive dogs. Right off the bat, lady defendant claimed terrier, Stella, nipped at her through the carrier when owner turned her in. So, did she red flag the kennel so the employee who was supposedly bitten twice knew to be careful. Not an expert here, just someone who has been around a lot of dogs over the years, but holding a towel in front of the open door seems pretty sketchy to me when the dog supposedly just bit someone. Anyway, MM read their release, and determined it did NOT absolve them of liability. Course defendant tells Doug he doesn't agree in hallterview, but what he really should do is take it to a lawyer and get it reworded - after getting that remedial training I mentioned. Plaintiff wins most of what he was asking, just not his travel expenses to the specialist vet who did the surgery.
3. car insurance case: (should have skipped this nonsense - case flipped back and forth so many times i gave up on keeping it straight and i know most of this recap is wrong): hmmm, from the intro, plaintiff charges people to "help" them get car insurance. What does that even mean? And, according to him, he provided defendant with his "help" for $3500. Defendant says he thought plaintiff rates were outrageous, so he went elsewhere. My my, these two are staring each other down while the intro is going on. I guess what plaintiff means is he sells insurance to folks who have trouble getting insured, he sold a policy to defendant, but defendant refuses to pay. He supposedly sold defendant (gap in insurance and history of suspended license) a policy for $2700 for 1 year. Apparently, with the high risk insurance, when the insurance is sold he was committed to pay for 9 months. Ah, but it turns out our high risk dude doesn't disclose everything when he takes out the policy. He has a teenager, which puts him in an even higher risk group. He yaks about how the teenager is actually away at college - plaintiff says he repeatedly asked for proof, defendant says he never got around to it... guess he figured he'd just pay the higher rate - oh, but we're here because he not only didn't provide the needed proof, but didn't pay the extra. So, at the end of the year, he owed an additional 7 some odd bucks.... hmmmm, so, asks da judge, if he owed 700 odd dollars why sue for over 3500. Well, seems dude gave him a deadline for paying off the past due amount if he wanted the policy to continue uninterrupted. Dude strictly observes the Jewish faith, so deadline is the money has to be paid before beginning of Sabbath. Defendant shows up, and pays the past due minutes before Sabbath begins, so policy stays in effect. Ah, but defendant never pays anything towards the second year, which plaintiff claim he is now committed to paying for. Not sure where this will end up.... is defendant legally bound to pay a second year. Ok, VERY confusing, as MM goes back to try to get a clear idea of just what it is plaintiff is charging for - is this the second or third time plaintiff tries to explain? Soooo, what it is us the plaintiff prepays an insurance company the annual premium. Then, for the first 9 months the defendant's monthly payments repay the plaintiff for the money he fronted to get the policy, and the last three months are his profits and administration costs. Hmmmm maybe that makes sense - but I feel a migraine coming on. Soooo plaintiff thought defendant wanted the policy, so he paid the second annual premium upfront, only to learn that defendant didn't want a second year because after being insured for a year he figures he can now get insured cheaper through a mainstream insurance company. So, the question becomes, how much of a rebate, if anything, did plaintiff receive on his front money when the policy is finally canceled. Yet again - Hmmmm, plaintiff just told MM he's still fighting with the insurance company about how much of a rebate he's eventually get on his front money. Right now, he's out a grand, but generally wants 3500 because that MIGHT be what he's out if his negotiations with the insurance company is a total bust. When MM asks, repeatedly, what the cancellation fee is, plaintiff dodges all over while dancing a jig. Nope, he's either brought the case early, or is trying to get money he's not entitled too, and the more he dances the more I hope his whole case is tossed. Ah, but MM is kinder than I would be.... he can prove he's out a grand, so that's what she awards him.

Something was not on the up and up with the insurance Broker, first because you can NOT charge fees on an assigned risk policy and second no agent in his right mind would pay for a clients policy up front without getting something out of it. It's too risky, how do you prevent someone from stiffing you? Nah, this was a huge scam.

[teebax]

23 hours ago, patty1h said:

I thought husbands and wives couldn't sue each other?   I started watching this case (man suing woman for non-payment of mortgage) wondering why JM was even entertaining the lawsuit - I was sure she was going to let them ramble and then tell them married couples can't take each other to court.  Has the law changed or because they are separated/he filed for divorce, it's a viable case?

I don't know the answer to your question, although I guess they can sue each other since these two did! What my comment is about this case is that the defendant is one of the most unattractive women I've ever seen. I was watching this with my mother, and my mother said, "I can't find a single feature on her face that isn't ugly. Bless her heart." I always feel bad for people (especially women since our society judges us based on our looks) who got the worst nature could offer. However, this woman was a piece of crap, so I don't feel bad talking about how ugly she is.

[SRTouch]

1. canceled bar band gig: plaintiff has a band which was booked into defendant's bar. Problems arise when a bar regular clues in owner to some of plaintiff's tweeter posts. Seems there's more then a little racist, white supremacist (along with homophobe, pedophile... along with just about any other bigotry you can think of) tone to dude's posts, which the owner fears may rile up his crowd of regulars - so he cancels the gig. Hmmm, plaintiff sounds intelligent, is wearing an old 82nd Airborne t-shirt and a jacket... hope he's not the bigoted a-hole defendant claims. Anyway, band was hired, contract signed for a couple months, everything looks good to go, then bar owner sends an email saying there's a problem 2 weeks before the big event. Plaintiff calls to find out WTH, and is told by bar owner that his political views are too radical for his bar. Ok, I  googled plaintiff - didn't read any articles, but there's enough there to make me take a step back. Heck even if defendant just thinks the rumors of posts are true and could hurt his business, I say he can back of of the deal - doesn't let him out of the contract, though... he can't just cancel without an out on that piece of, legally binding, paper. Plaintiff denies he posted the crap, says the posts is a cyber bully out to ruin his band. Ok, hope that's true. Really don't care to hear more hate spouted around, and don't see how it matters to the case. It's a contract case - did defendant have a right to cancel the gig? Is there a penalty clause? If he didn't have the right, then he owes damages as plaintiff... it's up to MM to read the contract and determine who owes what. I hit the button and zip ahead. I stop in time to hear MM tells defendant that racists can enter contracts like anyone else, and those contracts are legally binding. Then she turns to plaintiff and says she hopes he's telling the truth, that the posts are cyber bullying and he's not a hatemonger, because that will make her feel better about his win - but even if he is a hater, the law would be how his side. So, no escape clause for the defendant, he has to pay as per the contract - plaintiff gets $2300
2. cell phone repair shop kerfuffle: plaintiff says her phone was busted, so she took it in to be fixed. Defendant says he fixed it, called to tell her it was ready, she didn't pick it up, so after 60 days it became abandoned property and his to do with as he liked. Some folks should really pay for that insurance. This lady drops her phone in water.... $150 to defendant and he fixes the phone. Everything works for 6 weeks, then it acts up. Back to the shop. She says dude kept putting her off, saying he's waiting for a part. Every couple weeks she calls, but it's not ready, still waiting for a part. Easy peasy, no doubt she has phone records of her calls. Defendant's version is different, but from the beginning is fishy.... don't you hate when these yayhoos come in with no evidence. First, he disputes the model of phone, but has no work order. She claims she paid, he says she didn't, no evidence either way. I get her not keeping a receipt, I've been known to lose them even when I have something in the shop being repaired. But, what's his excuse? Says this was way back in 2016, he tosses stuff after a few months. Uh, MM asks, don't you need your business record to file taxes? Anyway, MM says, when your defense is that items left over 60 days are considered abandoned, you need more than flapping gums to show items were in fact there more than 60 days. Hmmm, plaintiff doesn't need phone records showing she made multiple calls, this dude has nothing backing his defense. Nope, plaintiff going great to lose. Now, what's with the ridiculous damage claim. Even with the dispute of what phone was lost, she isn't claiming it was top-of-the-line, extra fancy, does everything phone. Nah, but she wants over $1200 because she wants dude to pay her top dollar for her non-waterproof, admittedly old, busted phone (that she says she bought in '14 for $500, plus buy her a brand new replacement - oh and for the loss of those irreplaceable pics she had on the phone that she didn't think to back up in the 6 weeks after it went for a swim and was fixed. She doesn't even have the good grace to act embarrassed when MM points out how unreasonable her claim is - nope she says she never expected to get $1200 - another "ask for the moon and hope" yayhoo. She gets the value of a working phone the same as the model dude admits he disposed of, $200.
3. car repair fail: little bitty plaintiff took his nissan sports car in multiple times... says defendant failed to fix his baby (maybe cause his baby is 13 years old), which shut down when driving at high speed on the highway. So, after 4 attempts by defendant, dude took it to a dealer mechanic. Dealer supposedly tells him none of the repairs were actually done. Hey, after all the bogus cases where people try to get a shop to pay with no evidence, maybe this guy has expert testimony and is going to expose a crooked repair shop. Intro has plaintiff saying he took his car in 4 times and paid defendant $3600+... as we go to commercial defendant says he's never seen plaintiff in his life. After break, plaintiff is saying he took the car in for the same problem multiple times over a year period beginning in 2014 and never saw an improvement... wow, this guy sure is patient, I might of thought of getting a second look a bit earlier. Ah, another misleading clip to get us to tube in after the break. Defendant doesn't deny working on the car, just denies dealing with the plaintiff, says a woman brought it in (plaintiff chimes in with that was his daughter's mom). Both sides have copies of the work orders of work supposedly done. Finally, after over $3500, guy tows it to the dealer - not a daily driver, obviously. Dude has dealer run a diagnostic. As MM goes down the list of want nissan says the car's needs, there's a question of overlapping problems with what mechanic says he did. Dealer says coils faulty - mechanic say he replaced 2 if the six coils, and report doesn'the say which, or if all the coils are bad (even if they WERE bad, defendant says they were under warranty and he would have replaced them at no cost). Same thing all through nissan report. Here's a problem, defendant says yeah the repair is under warranty. Report says it might need head gasket. Defendant says he replaced head gasket. Well, "might need" doesn't mean "needs" or it wasn't done. I think the real problem is this is a car that is not driven, and any vehicle, especially a sports car, NEEDS to be driven to stay running right - heck it's been sitting 2 years since he towed it to nissan and got their report. This mechanic was fixing bits and pieces, slapping a bandaid on the bad stuff but not really fixing the root problem. Rust in the radiator... flush it out and park it for a few weeks/months but don't fix the cause. Don't think much of the mechanic who wasn't doing complete repairs, but don't see a case for a full refund... I mean some of this stuff was done 18 months before the dealer report said it "might need" to be redone - and despite what plaintiff said I didn't hear a single time where the report said something wasn't done that was on defendant's work orders. If nissan put in a head gasket when they said it might need one, (they didn't, but if they had,) it might need replacing after sitting for two years since they looked at it. Nope, not hearing a case here, once again the judge doesn't read what the litigant says is in the evidence. Case dismissed..

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

canceled bar band gig: plaintiff has a band which was booked into defendant's bar.

I don't know if plaintiff is all the things he's accused of being, but seriously? In these days of "anything you say WILL offend someone" could he really be stupid enough to appear here in front of the world,  willing to have all that stuff brought up, for 2K? Just the fact that he hangs out on IMGUR (which he called "ImAgur" and Reddit, which contains the most disgusting, sick-making hardcore pornography imaginable - who knew the world really wants to constantly post pictures of their genitals?) made me think the accusations could be true. His testimony - including all the "ahhs" and "ummms"  seemed annoyingly rehearsed. Too bad def. thinks that sending letters in the mail is unthinkable and something he would never, ever do even when required on a contract he signed. Had he gotten over that stumbling block he could have saved himself an appearance here.  

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

cell phone repair shop kerfuffle: plaintiff says her phone was busted, so she took it in to be fixed.

Both of them, with their really bad "had went" and "me and her talked" grammar was bloody annoying, as was the fact that both of them had the "I have no evidence of any kind to prove what I'm saying" argument, not to mention plaintiff wanted 1200$ for her 196$ phone and struck major hand-on-hip, eye-rolling, chicken-necking attitude when told why that wasn't going to happen, had me hitting the FF button.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

car repair fail: little bitty plaintiff took his nissan sports car in multiple times...

Yeah, because it's really shocking when a 13 year old Nissan has mechanical problems. The only interesting thing here was that tiny, trollish plaintiff is separated from his baby momma, yet still lives with her. I was glad when JM shut down his desire to give the whole story behind that. I liked the def. who answered in a seemingly honest way and has been in business for 44  years. It was also kind of cute the way he and his wife/women held hands in the hall. Aww!

[Bramble]

So after seeing the posts on what appears to be Joseph Cumia's facebook account about his appearance on The People's Court I totally believed he posted the things claimed. He's posted an absolutely horrendous misogynistic thing about Judge Milian.

[Brattinella]

4 minutes ago, Bramble said:

So after seeing the posts on what appears to be Joseph Cumia's facebook account about his appearance on The People's Court I totally believed he posted the things claimed. He's posted an absolutely horrendous misogynistic thing about Judge Milian.

I looked and couldn't find this facebook account.

[Bramble]

2 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I looked and couldn't find this facebook account.

Not sure why, although I found his twitter account first, which linked to facebook.  Its not hard to find, its just https://www.facebook.com/JosephCumia

[Brattinella]

Wow page not found!

I did see his posts on twitter, though.  Thanks!

Edited September 15, 2017 by Brattinella

[Silver Raven]

2 hours ago, Bramble said:

So after seeing the posts on what appears to be Joseph Cumia's facebook account about his appearance on The People's Court I totally believed he posted the things claimed. He's posted an absolutely horrendous misogynistic thing about Judge Milian.

Wow, he really is as disgusting as he was portrayed to be.  And calling himself "Deplorable".

[AngelaHunter]

Gee, he doesn't seem as reasonable and nice as he did on the show. What a loser.

I see at least one person made sense:

 

Quote

Joe...y'ever think that maybe you're just VALIDATING what she said about you on the show by posting something like this, and that maybe, MAYBE on this one; you should just keep your mouth shut and be happy the decision was ruled in your favor (re: the money owed)?

[Zahdii]

Is that legal to post topless pictures of someone and then claim that they're of JM?  Joseph Cumia is truly disgusting.

[teebax]

17 hours ago, Bramble said:

Not sure why, although I found his twitter account first, which linked to facebook.  Its not hard to find, its just https://www.facebook.com/JosephCumia

What a steaming pile of shit he is. I don't know if he's a racist or not, but I wouldn't hire his "band" anyway. While I won't judge him based on his brother's actions, I feel completely comfortable judging him based on his own. What a loser.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, Zahdii said:

Is that legal to post topless pictures of someone and then claim that they're of JM?  Joseph Cumia is truly disgusting.

I'm pretty sure there are topless pictures of her out there, nude beach stuff.  I saw them a couple years ago.

[SRTouch]

1. friends no more after roommate fiasco: these two Michigan ladies, who have been friends since school, 50 odd years ago, rent a place in Las Vegas, fight over the house rules, and defendant moves out - leaving plaintiff to play an extra $500 in rent. They lived together about 4 years before the blowup. Apparently, plaintiff's out of state kinfolk viewed the place in Vegas as some sort of time share, coming to "visit" for a couple weeks at a time. Defendant got tired of them yakking it up late at night and using her bathroom (she's sick, sometimes needs the toilet IMMEDIATELY). These folks sometimes showed up without defendant getting notice. Heck, plaintiff's "guests" would sometimes show up when plaintiff was out of town, leaving defendant to host plaintiff's kin. Says this type of thing was ongoing from the beginning. Some of these folks were repeat customers (as she says this, I notice plaintiff's witness nodding, and witness later confirms she visited 4-5 times a year). She says she didn't always mind, but also she made her displeasure known. Finally, one night, when she has a headache, plaintiff's guests are again yakking away late at night. She gets out of bed and asks them to be quiet... kerfuffle ensues. Witness says she told defendant they'd keep it down, offered some Tylenol, and advised her she would feel better if she took something for the headache and went back to bed. Enough was enough, that was the straw that broke the back. Lease was coming up for renewal in a couple months, and she says she told plaintiff she was moving at end of the lease. Plaintiff says she told defendant she'd try to find a new roommate - didn't find anyone and renewed the lease alone. Guess she felt defendant would change her mind. Says it really wasn't as bad as defendant is making it sound, and after saying she was moving out she did, in fact, later say her doctor was telling her maybe she shouldn't live alone, so she might stay. So, plaintiff is saying the guests were no big deal, and defendant recanted her notice to leave, so she owes money. Hmmmph, if I were the defendant, paying half of all the bills, I'd be fed up with these bed and breakfast guest/kin plaintiff is bringing in, and hearing her "it wasn't that bad" statement while at the same time saying she was told defendant's doctor was questioning her living alone... yeah, that would firm up my mind, and I'd leave, too. Ah, but it appears defendant sent a text in November that she was "out of there" that day - so she didn't stay till end of lease.... and THAT's what the lawsuit is about,  her portion of December rent. Ok, defendant agrees, she did leave mid-November and lease didn't end til December 31st. MM, "So, you would still owe Dec,  right?" D, "no, she told me she had found a roommate coming from Texas." And plaintiff is over there shaking her head. Hmmm, probably just a misunderstanding. Plaintiff says a Texan friend WAS discussed, but never confirmed. Ok, MM breaks out her pencil to figure things out. Defendant owes $500 for December rent since they were both on the lease... but she paid half the security 4 years ago when they moved in, so plaintiff owes defendant  her part of the security - plus defendant says plaintiff owes her half of the cable bill, which was in defendant's name... seems she left the cable boxes and stuff when she moved, plaintiff switched to a different provider, but still has the equipment, and defendant owes money, which she wants plaintiff to pay, because the equipment wasn't returned. So, these two are feuding-n-fussing, and ending the 50 year friendship, over that little bit plus the $80 difference between what defendant owes on rent and plaintiff owes on security. MM takes a recess to figure out how much the cable bill is... or maybe just to calm down before she sics Douglas on them. Ah, seems there might be some double dipping at defendant's cable company. Despite fact defendant terminated her service at end of November, they're not just billing for not returning the equipment, they're billing for the service. During the recess, MM figured out that defendant's cable bill. Sooo, now defendant owes $80 for rent. As for the outstanding cable bill, well that's on defendant to work out with the cable people. MM says the bill will probably be cut in half when the equipment is returned, and arranged for plaintiff to return the equipment, but really that's something for defendant to negotiate with the cable people (and really, why didn't she take the equipment when she moved out and canceled the cable in November - plaintiff has had a different provider since December 1st, so no way she would have to pay.) In hallterview, defendant says, yeah, she'd prefer yhen friendship healed, but it's over after being sued for $80. Plaintiff says she'll treat defendant same as she always has... not sure that's all that good - in my view she was out of line letting those kin folks in for days and weeks as if it was HER place, when defendant should have been being consulted all along. Another thing, defendant told us repeatedly that she was paying half the bills for those 4 years... how much did plaintiff or her "guests" pay defendant when they were visiting?
2. feuding neighbors are fighting over a vet bill: plaintiff claims neighbor's dog bit hers at their joint fence. Neighbor says her dog didn't do it, would have had to stick its head under the fence, which is impossible - nobody witnessed the bite, maybe plaintiff's dog was just hurt playing in its yard while unsupervised. Hey, plaintiff says she was playing ball with her dog and saw defendant's dog's snout reach under the fence and bite her dog, besides, she says, that nasty neighbor mutt is always digging under the fence to get at her sweety. Enough of this, if the dogs have repeated encounters at the fence, which she just described as "her" fence,  why in the world hasn't she reinforced the fence to make sure it's secure... oh, like maybe putting a row of cinder blocks along the fence line - maybe with a narrow flowerbed to hide the blocks. Hey, I haven't seen the yard/fence, but do SOMETHING besides yell "Taz, get away from the fence." Anyway, I zip to the judgement and hear MM suggesting chicken wire nailed to the fence,  and the plaintiff start in that it's the defendant's dog that digs, so they should do something to stop the digging.  Don't you just want to slap her up-side her stubborn round head? At some point her husband appeared, and MM asks why hasn't he done something? His answer, no time. Cross the aisle and ask defendant. Apparently, her dog is a know digger (hmmm, I suspect a terrier or maybe a dachshund, but not going to rewind to find out), and in the past her answer has been to wait til he digs a hole, then put a cinder block down.... nah, lady, you would need to Line The whole fence, not jyst where a hole is dug. Anyway, sounds like, after loosing a $1000 judgement she now plans to put down chicken wire on her side. Oh well, MM heard enough, and orders defendant to pay the vet bill. Love Doug in the hallway! After the hallterview are over, and winning plaintiffstreak start to walk away, Doug's parting comment to hubby... "fix the fence!"
3. car repair shop kerfuffle: hmmm, wonder what kind of look plaintiff was going for with his red/brown afro top and blue lanyard thingy and ill-fitting jacket. Anyway, he says he took his car in for repairs, kept getting the runaround, and after a month had to get the cops involved to retrieve his (still not fixed) car. Mechanic, T Ward, says he replaced the heads gaskets on the '05 Pontiac, but junker needed additional repairs. Says when he told Maurice, bozo plaintiff, he had a tantrum, and refused to pay for completed repairs, never mind the additional stuff. Maurice says a friend diagnosed husband junker as a bad head gasjet, and T Ward came recommended from mom friend at work. He takes car to T, and is told get can start on it that day if M gives him $350 deposit - estimates $700 total, and job to take 3-4 days. Well, M wants the thing fixed, so he gives T 400 to get things rolling. Oh, got a receipt, too. M eagerly waiting the return of his ride, sitting by the phone waiting for the call, but no joy. Gives T an extra couple days over the week end, then goes in. The tells him he did the head gasket, but still not running right, needs more time. Another week passes, car still not fixed. This is getting old, car isn't done, no call or texts, and when M goes in he just gets the runaround. M drives by the shop just about everyday, and there sits his Pontiac out front, doesn't appear to move or be worked on. Eventually, M goes with reinforcementsome (sounds like he's ready to say mom one time, and grandpops another, but MM cuts him off and tells him too much info, get on with the story). Over to T, yeah working after he changed the head gasket, but then he got busy with other customers. His story is all over... he had the time, but he didn't have the time to falling commit to M's car... finally, MM gets him to admit he couldn't figure out what was wrong and didn't have time to chase down the problem, and told M to take it to someone else a few days after that first time M came to get it (when it was already late). Huh, then why did M need the cops to get his car? Nope, as we hear from the little old lady with the white lace collar, if it don'the make sense it's not true. Anyway, now T says he released the car and settled for the $400 deposit. Hmmm, so M gets his car back with new head gaskets after paying only $400 on an estimated $700 job... needs additional work, but why is he asking for 3 grand. Seems when he finally got the car, the second shop listed a whole mess of additional needed repairs, and he wants T to pay for those. Oh, and he says the second place said the repairs T did were faulty. When he passes up the proof from the second shop that T did a bad job... well, once again his proof doesn't prove what he wants it to. As if that isn't enough, he wants T to pay not only for the discounted head gasket, the bill from the second shop, but also gas, transportation costs, lost wages. Wow, says Maurice, when MM laughingly dismisses his case for complete and utter lack of evidence.

Edited September 15, 2017 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I'm pretty sure there are topless pictures of her out there, nude beach stuff.  I saw them a couple years ago.

? I blame you guys! If you hadn't posted a link to his page I wouldn't now be haunted by those images... oh the horrors! ?

Actually, I remember reading about them a couple years ago, and a quick google search just now brought up the unedited topless shots caribbean vacation, apparently in 2013 - big deal, fuzzy telephoto shots of her topless at a beach proving that she has tan lines, and, yes, she does have breasts - even nipples... oh my... simply scandalous ?

Course, they're so fuzzy, about all I'd swear to in court was that they appear to be MM, and probably real pix because there are no doubt several better photocopied fakes out on Internet.

Edited September 15, 2017 by SRTouch

[Brattinella]

6 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

? I blame you guys! If you hadn't posted a link to his page I wouldn't now be haunted by those images... oh the horrors! ?

Actually, I remember reading about them a couple years ago, and a quick google search just now brought up the unedited topless shots caribbean vacation, apparently in 2013 - big deal, fussy telephoto shots of her topless at a beach proving that has tan lines, and, yes, she does have breasts - even nipples... oh my... simply scandalous ?

I never was able to look at his FB page, so don't blame me for that! :) 

Yep, really scandalous stuff.  On vacation, on the beach, whooptee-doo!  I saw them at the time and admired her very much.  She looks pretty great!

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Yep, really scandalous stuff.  On vacation, on the beach, whooptee-doo! 

Whoever took those photos is truly a bottom-feeding, lowlife creeper, but JM has nothing to be embarassed about. She looks FAB for a 52-year old mother of three, if those pics ARE of her.

59 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

car repair shop kerfuffle:

A bunch of very boring, ho-hum cases with mostly very annoying litigants (the dog case people? Couldn't stand any of them), but this one? Had me wondering how someone raised and living in an English-speaking country can get along in life speaking in a way that had me wishing for subtitles. Seriously, his garbled speech was so bad (mostly the only thing I could make out were his constant "He's like" and "I'm like") he made defendant sound like Laurence Olivier. Anyway, no dice on getting 3K for his POS, 13 year old Pontiac. He couldn't go to work. Or he used his sister's car. Or something. Next!

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I never was able to look at his FB page, so don't blame me for that! :) 

You didn't miss anything. I didn't look at much, but from the little I saw, he commented on his appearance and focused on her statement that she would object to having him in her club if he really said the things defendant claimed. Then proceeded to say she was a failed Hollywood actress and not a real judge, etc etc. Following by a couple pics from that long ago vacation... and, then it went downhill with a whole slew of comments from his FB followers

And, yes, from the little I DID see, I think the bar owner was right to have second thoughts, I think plaintiff is a dirtbag - but dude still has to take responsibility if he decides to cancel because, as MM said, there WAS a binding contract in place

Edited September 15, 2017 by SRTouch
Removed "probably" from "probably a dirtbag" ... you all convinced me even though I'm NOT going to read his posts

[SRTouch]

21 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Whoever took those photos is truly a bottom-feeding, lowlife creeper, but JM has nothing to be embarassed about. She looks FAB for a 52-year old mother of three, if those pics ARE of her.

And that lowlife creep is probably someone ole Harvey would hire for his other show

Edited September 15, 2017 by SRTouch

[Schnickelfritz]

Reddit is having a grand good time discussing Mr. Cumia's appearance and their part in it. Makes for some interesting reading to be sure. There are links to some stuff he posted in the past. What a piece of....

[AngelaHunter]

14 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

And that lowlife creep is probably someone ole Harvey would hire for his other show

I could certainly see him, holding his giant sippy-cup and sending his geeky teen-aged posse out to take such pics. Someone who had them pawing through Britney Spear's garbage would stop at nothing, no matter how despicable.

 

6 minutes ago, Schnickelfritz said:

Reddit is having a grand good time discussing Mr. Cumia's appearance and their part in it.

 Link, please. The fact that someone is more of a slimy dirtbag than Levin fascinates me.

[Schnickelfritz]

https://www.reddit.com/r/opieandanthony/comments/704h3w/this_joe_cumia_peoples_court_appearance_is_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/opieandanthony/comments/704il0/judge_so_youre_saying_these_people_terrorize_you/

There's more if you care to dig, but these are a start

These links are within the first thread. (In case someone didn't dig thru his twitter account)

http://archive.is/LQSNf

http://archive.is/VXlUA

http://archive.is/sMfwp

http://archive.is/jwMdN

http://archive.is/5li0P

http://archive.is/3z7Y2

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

And that lowlife creep is probably someone ole Harvey would hire for his other show

I was just thinking that in a normal world, given what the lowlife creep did after it aired, this segment would never be re-run and would be allowed to die off, but given that Levin runs this show, they'll probably re-run it once a week.

[AngelaHunter]

Thank you, Schnickelfritz! Interesting reading indeed. Joseph is like Charlie "Why is everybody always pickin' on me?" Brown.

Quote

He was holding back a blubbering at the end interview he was twitching and blinking like he was going to have a stroke

He certainly seems to be well-known among those posters. Reading all that makes me even more puzzled as to why he would choose to appear on TV, and on TPC, of all places. Hahaha - a mature man mentioning the big ol' meanies on "REDDIT" - of all ridiculous things -  in his argument. What a douche.

[aemom]

On 13/09/2017 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said:

This was cut off for me for a news flash concerning yet another maniac shooter, and I had no problem with that.

Same here. I just caught up on YouTube. It wasn't a dog, car, or security deposit case, so I was intrigued. 

Quote

More interesting to me is that there must be people who think that getting 4-inch horror-movie fake claws/talons glued to the ends of your fingers is attractive. Am I the only one who finds that thoroughly gross and hideous?

You definitely are not the only one.

[teebax]

Thanks for posting the links. I'll have to rely on the conversation here to see if there was anything interesting. I refuse to click on Reddit for anything. There's way too much bigotry over there for my comfort level. That he couldn't just win his case and be happy shows what a moron he is. MM clearly was saying that even if all the allegations were true; she wasn't saying they were true. And, like every single litigant to whom she has said this, he completely misunderstood it. Yep, he's an ass. I wish he'd lost, but I can understand why he won, from a legal standpoint.

[AZChristian]

Anyone else feel like sending the club owner/defendant a book of stamps so he can use the USPS to mail cancellations, like he should have?  If he had had a stamp, we would not have been exposed to this scumbag plaintiff.

[AngelaHunter]

47 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

  If he had had a stamp, we would not have been exposed to this scumbag plaintiff.

Well, if he had bothered to read and understand the contract he willingly signed, he wouldn't have been exposed to this lunatic or have lost his countersuit. He needs to take some responsibility in this. "I never use snail-mail" or "I never read what I sign" is not a good excuse.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Well, if he had bothered to read and understand the contract he willingly signed, he wouldn't have been exposed to this lunatic or have lost his countersuit. He needs to take some responsibility in this. "I never use snail-mail" or "I never read what I sign" is not a good excuse.

I think he specifically said, "I haven't used a stamp since online banking started."  We've had to search around for stamps on occasion, too - but if you NEED a stamp to fulfill a contract, it's WORTH LOOKING FOR ONE.

[teebax]

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I think he specifically said, "I haven't used a stamp since online banking started."  We've had to search around for stamps on occasion, too - but if you NEED a stamp to fulfill a contract, it's WORTH LOOKING FOR ONE.

Also, it's not that archaic to mail something. You can ger stamps at the grocery store,  post office, and many convenience stores. He made it sound like he was asked to send a telegraph! 

[AngelaHunter]

6 minutes ago, teebax said:

He made it sound like he was asked to send a telegraph! 

This made me burst out laughing. I'm still laughing, actually.

[AZChristian]

46 minutes ago, teebax said:

Also, it's not that archaic to mail something. You can ger stamps at the grocery store,  post office, and many convenience stores. He made it sound like he was asked to send a telegraph! 

I checked after seeing your post.  Apparently, you CAN still send a telegram, but not through Western Union.  There are companies online that you can use, and they deliver a paper telegram to the door.

Makes no sense, but there it is.

[AngelaHunter]

I see that, AZChristian. Who knew?  I guess it could come in handy if you need to get in touch with someone who has no landline, no cell phone and no computer. And if you send a first-class telegram, you can also send a FREE "PhoneGram" but obviously not to the same person who is getting the telegram since they have no phone, but whatever. I'm picturing the recipients of all these telegrams and phonegrams, thinking, "WTF?"

I was visualising something like this: (not that it would have done any good because Joe specified mail)

 

 

[quarkuud]

On 9/13/2017 at 10:46 AM, AZChristian said:

It was pityriasis versicolor.  Can't believe you didn't pick up on that after he said it 30,000,000 times.  

From my primary care physician (WebMD):  "Tinea versicolor is a fungal infection of the skin. It's also called pityriasis versicolor and is caused by a type of yeast that naturally lives on your skin. When the yeast grows out of control, the skin disease, which appears as a rash, is the result."

I guess I was just cringing too hard to hear it right!

[SRTouch]

1. crooked plumber scam: plaintiff claims he hired defendant to replace some plumbing, paid him $1500 up front on a $2500 job, and all defendant did was have his helpers dig down to his pipes, look and say they didn't need to be replaced, and fill in the hole. Now the guy expects to keep the $1500. Says a different plumber told him his low water pressure indicated he needed to replace the pipes into the house with a copper pipe, and gave homeowner a high estimate. So, defendant gives a lower estimate, and gets the job. Defendant has a different version. He says once the six foot trench was dug, he found that the pressure problem wasn't the pipes, but a faulty valve. Fixed the valve, new pipes unnecessary, so the $2500 job reduced to $1500, and he figures job done. Ah, but he apparently failed to explain things to homeowner, so homeowner feels he was scammed. Poor communications... understandable, between mush mouth and accents I have to turn on the CC to understand these two. Poor MM, she can't turn on the CC button, so when she can't understand mush mouth plaintiff she has to turn to defendant, who is marginally better. Ah, but this guy is going to say what he wants instead of what she wants to know, she has to rein in his ramblings to try to make sense of things, having to warn him not to talk over her and answer her questions. Ok, if I understand this guy, once he and his 4 helpers dig down and expose the pipe, he finds copper pipe, new pipes not needed. They fix a problem with the valve (apparently not turned on all the way, and he figures homeowner should be happy to save a grand. But, nooooo, plaintiff says he hired guy to replace his pipe, and by golly that's what he wanted. Apparently, even though his pressure problem is fixed, he's not happy because plumber dug the trench to expose the pipe, when he could have just fixed the valve. I don't get the guy, and neither does MM. They get into a heated debate, with dude talking over her and getting loud when she asks why he thinks he should get all his deposit back after a crew dug a trench and fixed his problem. Ah, but they didn't do what they were hired to do (saved him a grand, though). Defendant just as bad, interrupting, taking over everyone "to make it easy to understand". Oh, and part of the problem is defendant had his crew there, but he wasn't, so he can't testify what his guys told the homeowner, who WAS there the whole time - and of course he didn't bring any of his crew who were onsite. One of those cases where I imagine MM wants to send Douglas to bop their heads together. MM gives defendant a hard time for not bringing a witness, and defendant starts telling how plaintiff came to his house/office/warehouse and had a temper tantrum, kicking his door, denting his car, ranting and raving. Ah, as he saying this, and MM keeps saying his demand for complete refund is crazy when he admits a crew was there for hours and fixed his problem.... well that whole time plaintiff is at a slow boil getting ready to erupt. Rough justice time, trying to figure out a fair price for the work that was done, because what was done was NOT what was agreed to. Plaintiff DOES NOT like hearing MM talk about the work being worth something, just maybe not the whole  $1500. Dude is fixing to explode, turning his back on defendant, standing there with arms crossed.  When MM rules defendant should return $200, an offer he made when dude came to his house and had a hissy fit, plaintiff has another hissy fit there in court, storms out, kicking the gates open as he leaves. Oh boy, she changes her mind, plaintiff gets nothing. As she's changing the tuling, dude comes back to look in the court to see if his wife/gf/woman is coming and MM starts yelling for him to get out of her courtroom. Ah, best laugh in a while. Apparently dude tries to go the wrong way and runs right smack into the camera... no hallterview for this one.
2. college buddy wrecked my scooter: ah, hope two college men means it's safe to watch without CC - but of course that's no guarentee, so I'll leave it on. Plaintiff comes in carry bits and pieces of his Yamaha, says buddy hopped on his bike, popped the clutch, rode 50 feet, then wrecked it.... yep, I can see that, joker can't ride, hops on a crotch rocket, twists the throttle and runs into a wall or something (way back when, I had a 72 kawasaki 750, known by some as the "widowmaker", and it was quickest bike made at the time, but only for experienced riders). Apparently, plaintiff was selling the bike, and defendant took it for a test drive. Not sure what defendant's defense is... plaintiff "pressured" him into riding the unsafe bike, thing was too low, too powerful, handled poorly, whatever, he clipped a curb and wrecked, plaintiff's insurance should pay for the damage. Dude claims he was there when a potential buyer walked away after claiming the bike was "modified" rear end lowered and no longer safe... so of course MM asks why he couldn't wait to go on a test drive on the unsafe bike. Says he had the same model years previously, and plaintiff "insisted" he take it for a spin. Dude agrees when asked that he should pay since he was the one on the bike, plaintiff has texts where he promised to pay, so, MM asks, why are they here? Ah, never mind all that earlier crap about a modification making it unsafe, now he's changing his defense to the plaintiff jacked up the damage and is asking too much. Nope, not happening dude, plaintiff has debit card statements showing where he paid for the parts. (Part of the claim is $350 for living out on a sale, but no proof the potential sale was going to take place.) Ah, but his statement just shows he bought something off amazon, not what it was. And he did the work himsrlf, so no work order/receipt from a repair shop. Ok, I buy plaintiff's story... may not have all the paperwork but he does have pictures of the damage (also brought damaged parts for show and tell). He's asking  under $700 for the damaged parts, and I can see it costing way more at a shop. Defendant may have paid less if he had made any effort to pay as he said he would, but MM is less than impressed with his saying he's a broke/starving college student. She orders him to pay what plaintiff says it cost to repair - but not the extra for not selling it.
3. Loan for bail: hmmmm plaintiff suing over bail money... can't figure out why cute little kid came as a witness. Yet again, the joker who was bailed out is admitting a friend stepped up and got him out, but saying he doesn't owe because there was no request for a loan. We start out with MM telling little boy all he has to do is sit and act cute. Over to defendant's, who intro said plaintiff was their friend of 20 years. MM asks why dude was in jail - wrecked car and 2nd DUI - but says he wasn't drunk. Oh, boy, things are not going to end well for defendant. Dude admits plaintiff paid his $1000 bail, but is claiming plaintiff did it out of the goodness of his heart and was never asked. Meanwhile, plaintiff has the text where defendant's wife asked for money and a ride to to pick up hubby from lockup... oh, and there's that rubber check that was used to pay him back. MM asks dude if he's ever been in jail before, and dude answers yeah, as if that's the most common thing in the world. When MM asks the wife, she tells us she had been looking for hubby, and calling the jail to see if he'd been picked up... doesn't fit - dude just testified that this is only the second time he's been in jail, but his answer makes it sound like a regular thing, as does wife calling the jail instead of hospital ER. OK wife never used the words, "can you loan me money to get dummy out of jail?" In the text. Doesn't matter, as she gives him a check - cause the banks aren't open - and he gives her the cash for the cash bond. Defendant seems to think the fact that plaintiff knew there were insufficient funds when wife wrote the check means there was no loan... uh, to me that sounds like collateral. When defendant refused to pay back the loan, plaintiff tried to cash the check - and of course it bounced. Hmmmm without coming right out with it, MM seems to be asking if plaintiff and wifey may have been a little more than "friendly"... and hubby hinting that plaintiff might be "too friendly" with others as well... which has me thinking cute kid may be hearing a little more than he should. What makes even less sense, this was a cash bond in the wife's name, so after the DUI case is settled she'll be getting the money. Plaintiff was going to win anyway, but that's all it takes for MM to rule for plaintiff (well, she did need her magnifying glass to see wife's name on the bond form.) When dude gets to Doug for the hallterview, ungrateful ingrate is still insistent ingredients he never asked for a loan.

Edited September 19, 2017 by SRTouch

[DoctorK]

Quote

when dude came to hid house and had a hissy fit

Said hissy fit included kicking the defendant's car and making a good sized dent. My favorite part was when MM looked at the picture of the dent and asked how much it cost to get it fixed. The defendant then explained (with gestures) how he just used a plunger to pull the dent out, producing a good laugh for everybody except the mush mouthed, incoherent plaintiff with serious anger management issues.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

crooked plumber scam: plaintiff claims he hired defendant to replace some plumbing, paid him $1500 up front on a $2500 job

I was wishing for an interpreter or closed captions. What freakin' language were those two speaking? JM struggled to try and understand, "in da pay-ment, da val" and I'm glad she asked for clarification because I could not understand 80% of what plaintiff said. Def's speech was impaired and difficult to understand due to his toothlessness, and his inability to stop talking over JM.  The only thing I know for sure is that plaintiff went nuts and kicked def's car because as we saw here, he has zero impulse control.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Apparently dude tries to go the wrong way and runs right smack into the camera...

That's the only part I enjoyed - the wild rampage in the hall. OH, and JM yelling that he could forget about the 200$ she awarded him.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

college buddy wrecked my scooter: ah, hope two college men means it's safe to watch without CC

Yeah, that's true, but I think I despise just as much arrogant little snowflakes like the def, with his designer sunglasses, his freshly-douchebaged hairdo and his carefully cultivated stubble, (all of which do not make him attractive) trying to weasel his way out of his responsibilities. Ugh. The bike was unsafe, unstable, blah blah, but he just had to ride it to make his good buddy's day. What an annoying, silly little shit he was.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Loan for bail: hmmmm plaintiff suing over bail money...

Something kinda kinky going on there. Don't know why plaintiff wanted his child there to hear about it, but apparently babysitters are not on his agenda. Def, looking like the weird store guy with two heads in "Men in Black" (or like a poor digital copy of Art Garfunkle, without the talent, intelligence or charm) needs bailing out because he got his dumbass thrown in the slammer and not for the first time. At first I was wishing we could have seen the texts between defendant's shopworn wife and the smiley plaintiff, but on second thought I realized I really didn't want to know. JM certainly hinted at some sort of canoodling going on. 

Laugh out loud moment: Def's wife says that of course when she couldn't find her creepy hubby, she called the jail. JM says that she, when unable to locate her spouse, does not automatiically assume he's been incarcerated  and call the local lockups. Hee!

[Mrs Shibbles]

This  episode (9/18) seemed crazier than normal.  I had a headache from trying to follow the two mushmouths (Thanks SR Touch!) in the first case, and MM had no patience for them either.  I loved it when she yelled at the Plaintiff to get out of her courtroom.

 

The last case was really strange.  They must be neighbors in a trailer park.  The defendant with the receding dark 'Art Garfunkel' hair and his wife were interesting.  "We're going to be on TV! Let's pick out our NICE outfits.  That's ok , I washed my hair last week! "   He didn't seem upset with the old lady one bit when MM mentioned the texts between her and the plaintiff seeming "funky", like she had nothing to do with it.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1.  Ah, best laugh in a while. Apparently dude tries to go the wrong way and runs right smack into the camera... no hallterview for this one.

File this under Missed Opportunity:  Doug should have told the guy "it is what it is".......

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, PsychoKlown said:

File this under Missed Opportunity:  Doug should have told the guy "it is what it is".......

Oh, god - yes! even if he had to yell it it at him as plaintiff finally blundered his way down the hall, with his woman doggedly following him.

[SanLynn]

The plaintiff in the plumber case cracked me right up. What kind of idiot proves the defendant's point because he doesn't get what he wants. He clearly had no freakin clue. Felt bad for his Significant Other.

[califred]

First plaintiff needs anger management yesterday.  I couldn't really understand either of them so thx for the recap.

Im glad JJ always sends the kids out.  That child had zero reason to be there.

 

That motrcycle defendant could have sold his Prada glasses to help him pay for the damage.