The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

Quote

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

I don't think so. That asshole was stupid, angry and had anger management issues. If Doug had asked him anything about his stupidity, that guy may well have attacked Doug. Producers and "security" notwithstanding, a bad guy within reach of a victim can do a lot of damage before anyone else can intervene. I am in about the same age bracket as Doug, and injuries that would have been a couple of days in the hospital when we were in our twenties and thirties would now be fatal or permanently disabling. I hope they got that guy to sign the paperwork as fast as possible and got him the hell out of there. Stupidity, propensity towards violence, and lack of self control is a dangerous combination.

Maybe it is just me, but here and on JJ, it seems that we are seeing a significant number of litigants who are not entertainingly odd or unstable but really into the dangerously deranged category over the last year.

[AngelaHunter]

40 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Maybe it is just me, but here and on JJ, it seems that we are seeing a significant number of litigants who are not entertainingly odd or unstable but really into the dangerously deranged category over the last year.

This deranged looneytoon even kicked the gate on the way out. He had the lack of impulse control normally seen in toddlers and which most rational people grow out of. I still have no idea what he wanted def to do and can't imagine how he gets anyone to work for him when he can't even use whole words or speak in comprehensible sentences. Jeeze! Maybe Douglas should become a real officer and start packing some heat.

[teebax]

I found both of them impossible to understand.  It's no wonder they couldn't agree on anything! 

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

This deranged looneytoon even kicked the gate on the way out. He had the lack of impulse control normally seen in toddlers and which most rational people grow out of. I still have no idea what he wanted def to do and can't imagine how he gets anyone to work for him when he can't even use whole words or speak in comprehensible sentences. Jeeze! Maybe Douglas should become a real officer and start packing some heat.

If I'm not mistaken, Douglas IS a real officer; this is his part-time job.  Sadly, he can't carry a gun on the set.

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, AZChristian said:

If I'm not mistaken, Douglas IS a real officer; this is his part-time job.

I can't seem to find out anything other than he's an actor, or "TV personality." If anyone with more patience and better Googling skills than I can find out, it would be appreciated.  

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I can't seem to find out anything other than he's an actor, or "TV personality." If anyone with more patience and better Googling skills than I can find out, it would be appreciated.  

I've just Googled a bit and could not find proof of what I said.  So I Googled some more and realized that it's Juan - the bailiff on Judge Faith - who is actually in law enforcement.  Got my good-looking bailiffs confused.  Sorry!!!

[SRTouch]

1. Custom dressmaker case: plaintiff wanted special dress to wear to fancy black tie event. Hired little dude (ok, obviously not into fashion here (you'll usually see me in bib overalls) but if I WANTED a custom outfit, I would not choose someone wearing this guy's outfit - to make her dress as per design she choose... oh, and maybe it's me, but if I hire someone who needs to match my "vision," well I think I would like someone I'll understand - I turned on CC as soon as this guy answered MM's question of whether he's a designer. When it's finished she hates it, doesn't look like her design, wants full refund and wants dressmaker dude to pay for the replacement dress she ended up buying for the event. This is one of those cases where I'm out of my element... like hair salon cases. So, I'll ignore the fashion stuff - after all, it's really a contract case. Dude was hired to perform a service, either he did the job or not - if he did, he gets paid, if not, well no money - if he did work, did plaintiff get the dress or refuse delivery because it was not what she specified - even if it was a total botched job, is he out of pocket for materials - oh, and no way would he be on the hook for a replacement, well unless she can show she paid more at the last minute, then he may have to pay the difference from what she would have paid because she was waiting on him. Seems plaintiff took so picture of what she wanted, and put down $100 to get him started. .. hmmm, sounds like she wanted more of a seamstress than a designer. Ah, but I see a couple problems as she's talking. Big problem... she's going to him beginning of March and asking for delivery first of April - then she gets sick and puts off going in for measurements for a week. When she finally goes back, she has changed the design and fabric of what she wants... so now she wants a custom made dress in 3 weeks for peanuts - ok, like I said, not my thing, but sounds like she's asking a lot - especially as she noted in her testimony this would be a time where he may be swamped with prom dresses and the like. Ok, more she talks the less case I see. She shows a picture of the new design she wanted, but says she wanted him to modify the design. Oh, and something MM picks up on that I wouldn't have thought about, her choice of fabric wouldn't work with the dress in her picture... oh, and she brought him a picture of her fabric choice instead of an actual sample... and, besides, the picture she showed is of a flowing silky dress on some skinny model - she's a plus size woman and her choice of heavy fabric looks like embroidery, so her expectations seem unrealistic. Ok, maybe still doable, but to get it done she'll need to really work with the guy to be available for measurements, fittings, etc. Ah, but that's not what happens, as the first actual appointment for a fitting isn't until March 29th (remember her event is April 1). Then, he cancels the 29th, putting it off an additional day. So, she shows up on the 30th, and says it's nothing like she asked for. Ok, bunch of yakking about design and why dress isn't what she wanted which I FF through and MM going down and examining his completed creation. Basically, what we have is multiple changes made by the customer. Defendant attempted to comply with her different visions, and actually had a dress for her to try on... and when she brought him the picture of the second dress and the fabric choice, he told her he couldn't do it, and sketched a new design that he ended up making. Surprise, not being a mind reader, their visions differ - but he did work, so deserves to be paid something get for his out of picket expense plus time. Since things are going pretty fast, only at minute 22 on according to my DVR, MM calls a recess so she can see plaintiff in the dress he brought to court... more for the audience than anything else, cause in my mind her case is over, and the only question will be does he win his countersuit for the balance owed on the dress. Ok, i get it... her vision is sexy sleek silky, with loads of cleavage and slit up to the model's hip, and what she got reminds me of Aunt Jermima. More yakity yak with defendant which I can't make out,  apparently he also made a dress for plaintiff's witness. More FF out to hallterview. Plaintiff upset, MM didn't let her talk etc, leaves Doug talking to her back as she leaves.
2. roommate fail: plaintiff rents a room off craigslist, doesn't like the living arrangement, starts withholding half her rent, locks changed, big kerfuffle ends up in court. Defendants, well after last case I think these two, mother and son, might be dressed for a black tie event. Ok, both sides seem to agree things were fine in the beginning. Ah, but things start going bad, and two sides have very different versions of the beginning of the dispute. Plaintiff claims defendant, lady she was paying rent, moved in her mom to sleep on the couch. Then, defendant and her teenage son get in fight outside plaintiff's room and plaintiff begins to feel place may not be safe. She goes to visit her bf, and decides it might be a good idea to move. Now things get sketchy for her. She says her jurisdiction only requires 15 day notice. So, what she does is pay half the monthly rent and gives notice that she'll decide mid month if she's staying. If she stays, she'll pay the rest of the rent, otherwise she leave at the end of the month. Ok, MM says, but what she was doing is expecting her landlord to commit to her being there for a full month, but only paying for half - so she'll be late for half the month is she stays. Anyway, she's doing all this, she's off visiting bf in Canada for a few days, meanwhile defendant, her landlord, is stuck trying to make up the shortfall on HER rent. Understandably, defendant not happy, and calls to say she needs the full month's rent paid on time or rental agreement over. She comes back to town form her visit on the 3rd, to find locks changed and driveway blocked  (HOA tows vehicles left on the street). She can't get in, and calls cops, but even the cops can't get an answer to their knocks. Ok, over to defendant, who admits she changed the locks. Hmmmm, no way is it cool to lock out any tenant who is three days late with rent and has been renting from you for three months. Hell, this tenant had actually paid half the rent and had put down zero deposit when she moved in, so defendant changed the locks before she was even out anything. Oops, here I thought that was defendant's son standing next to her - nope, turns out that's defendant's gf/fiance. Part of defendant's defense is that the Canadian bf talked mean to her fiance. Hmmm, her timeline seems to be all out of wack. First I thought she was saying she changed the locks because plaintiff didn't pay full rent, then I just heard her saying locks were changed because bf was agressive on the phone. But, I thought he was agressive BECAUSE the locks were changed... something isn't adding up. MM let's defendant ramble, and nothing I'm hearing is a reason for locking someone out... finally, MM says she hopes defendant has taken the time to finally educate herself on what her jurisdiction requires of a landlord before locking out a tenant (oh, and part of plaintiff's case is that defendant was illegally subleasing a room).  Defendant is going to lose this one, but sounds like plaintiff may be jacking up her claim. Defendant wants back all her deposit, rent for half the month that she paid, plus hotel moving expenses, etc. Ah, have to laugh when we get back from commercial. MM, "hope you've taken to he time to educate yourself..." D "no, maybe you can education me..." MM "yeah, Florida (their jurisdiction) doesn't like illegal lockouts, and says when a landlord does it costs them 3 months rent." Oops! Turns out plaintiff wasn't so far off in her claim. She doesn't get everything she asked for, but gets a big chunk.
3. Contractor just wants to get paid: plaintiff says he did the work, defendants gave him a great review on Home Adviser, but he's still waiting for final payment.... hmmm, not the best judge for defendants is true. After a bathroom remodel, defendants decide the grout color is wrong, so they not only won't pay, they want plaintiff to pay for another remodel. Apparently plaintiff did a series of jobs for these folks - and they loved everything until the last one with the great grout color snafu. Ok.... contractor admits there was a problem with the grout, and told homeowner to contact the manufacturer and, depending on the answer he'd try to fix the problem. Not what homeowner wanted to hear, he's paid this guy tens of thousands of dollars, and feels dude is sidestepping. 2-3 times, contractor says, he went back to try to treat the grout and get back the original color. I agree with MM, after multiple attempts, why the heck not just redo it instead of sticking on a bandaid. I mean, from the numbers this guy was throwing around, these folks paid like 30 grand on the bathroom! They don't like the color of the shower grout, just replace it. Heck, he admits it's not the color, it's that the grout color changes in spots from light gray to black - so the shower and floor will always look dirty. So, after months of fighting, finally things break down completely, homeowners admit they owe $2200 from the original contract, but feel that's offset when they bring in a new contractor who manages to fix the problem the first time. Ok, dude, you did the original install, went back three times over several months, and failed to fix the problems you admit existed. New guy fixed the problem the first time and charged homeowners $1600. At best, I only see homeowners owing the difference, meaning you're owed $600. Yep, that's the judgement.

[patty1h]

I am 75% sure that this tailor Carlos Anthony has been on TPC before, or on some other court show, with a sewing dispute.  Unfortunately, Google was no help - too many random hits.  Anyone else remember this guy?

[Broderbits]

Re: Carlos Anthony, the show doesn't air here for another hour, but I checked some of his designs on Instagram and they look like what hookers would wear just lounging around waiting for customers. This should be a good episode of PC!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Custom dressmaker case: plaintiff wanted special dress to wear to fancy black tie event.

If she had kept to the dress we saw in the drawing, with the "fox" wrap-around, it would have looked good. But once she picked out that heavy lace stuff, and considering her size, there was no way it would not look mother-of-the-bride matronly.  I say that as someone who knows nearly zero about fashion and fabrics., but she got what she asked for, IMO. Did plaintiff mutter, "Son of a bitch" at the end, when she found out she'd lost? patty1h  - I also had a distinct feeling of deja vu when I saw def and am also positive we've seen him being sued before.  I was not amused at his, "If it does not fit, I will quit" because two innocent people being brutally murdered has not yet become funny, to me at least. I know he probably has no clue what he's talking about, but still - STFU.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

roommate fail: plaintiff rents a room off craigslist, doesn't like the living arrangement, starts withholding half her rent

Someone else who wants to be a landlord, but only thinks about the money. Def has no idea what landlord/tenant laws are and thinks someone should pay rent after she locks them out. Was the "fiancee" sporting a tux, complete with boutonniere? As I said, I'm no fashion maven, so don't know. Maybe they were going to hitched right after the show. Def was sleeping when the cops beat at her door and all but broke it down. I"m with JM and, with my insomnia problems, I  want some of whatever she takes to make her sleep like the dead. Plaintiff is a bit weird, with her long-distance, jealous boyfriend, Russ, but I did appreciate the way she was trying to educate JM on FLORIDA law.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Contractor just wants to get paid:

I didn't really know who was right or wrong, but after hearing that plaintiff used grout in the corners of the bath/shower tiles, I have to conclude he screwed up. I just had a bathroom remodel and even I knew you must put silicone in the corners because grout will indeed crack.  My contractor knew that too, and that contractor plaintiff didn't know it makes me wonder what else he didn't know or do correctly.

Contract work and plastic surgery - two places where you should never cheap out.

[AZChristian]

I just watched the case with the dress designer/unhappy client.  That dress that he made was not that difficult - any decent home seamstress with a Simplicity pattern could have made it.  More egregious was the jacket he made for himself.  He added the trim before joining the shoulder seam, so there is an obvious "bump" on each side.  Had he done the shoulder seam first, he could have used a solid piece of trim that would have not required that bump.

However, I do think the plaintiff had made so many changes in fabric and design that the finished product was never going to look like the picture.

[Eliza422]

My very first thought when the dressmaker walked in was that I've seen him before...

[aemom]

Watched the case with the plumber, the bike, and the bail money.  No dog, car sale, or security deposit, so that was exciting.

Wow, in the plumber case, I think the plaintiff and defendant added up to one full set of teeth between them.  That plaintiff had some serious anger issues.  I'm still not sure I understand what the plumber did actually do in that case.

For the bike, I noticed myself that the defendant looked nicely dressed and had his fancy sunglasses with him, but he was too poor to pay his buddy back.  Not even $20 so far.  I loved that MM called him on just that and then made him pay his now ex-friend back.

For the bail case, I laughed so hard when she said she didn't know where he was so she called the jail.  I agree with MM, when I can't find my husband, the jail is the first place I call too!   *eyeroll*

I'm always amazed at the litigants who receive money for some emergency and their excuse for not paying it back is "well, I didn't ask for it, they offered it to me."  Yes, they offered it to you because they are nice people so that you can solve whatever emergency you have and then you can pay them back.

I never cease to be amazed at how many of these litigants have such a lack of teeth and command of the English language.

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, AEMom said:

Watched the case with the plumber, the bike, and the bail money.

Hey - that could be a good title for a movie, like "Bell, Book and Candle" only it will be a screwball comedy with lots of pratfalls. 

[meowmommy]

Am I the only one who's getting tired of MM's reliance on text messages?  To the point where she expects all communication to be via text so she has a record, and pretty much assumes that if there was no text there was no communication?  (She criticized the tailor for responding to the plaintiff's text by picking up the phone and calling her.)  When life is happening in real life in real time, people don't always see a need for all conversations to be preserved for posterity.  Given that ubiquitous text messaging is a relatively new phenomenon, it just seems like lazy judgeship to expect a written record.  Ten or maybe even five years ago, she would have had to rely on her ability to evaluate witnesses' veracity.

23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, i get it... her vision is sexy sleek silky, with loads of cleavage and slit up to the model's hip, and what she got reminds me of Aunt Jermima.

I think that image might have been intensified because of the wrap she had on her head.  The color was garish and I thought the sleeve length was wrong, but otherwise the dress was ok, considering her body type.

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

 

I didn't really know who was right or wrong, but after hearing that plaintiff used grout in the corners of the bath/shower tiles, I have to conclude he screwed up. I just had a bathroom remodel and even I knew you must put silicone in the corners because grout will indeed crack.  My contractor knew that too, and that contractor plaintiff didn't know it makes me wonder what else he didn't know or do correctly.

Oh, but he knew it on the second or third re-try, so you should give him credit for that!  And then he says, when MM asks him why she shouldn't deduct the bill from the other contractor from what he's owed, "But they were completely happy."  Of course they were!  That's why they brought you back three times and finally gave up and hired someone else to fix the problem.

[SRTouch]

1. 'Nother failed room for rent case:  plaintiff rented a room, but claims when she moves in the defendant/landlord goes nuts, turns into a bully, threatens her, etc, so she wants back the money she paid to rent the room. Defendant agrees the room rental was a diaster... but according to her she was happy plaintiff finally left - in fact she says she called the cops to have her thrown out. And, that's the thing.... plaintiff is suing for money she paid, and defendant is saying she never paid, which us why she told the cops she was a SQUATTER. Ok, plaintiff sounds like a nut... says she's a "background actor and print model". Her story is defendant came home late one night, had a hissy fit, and announced the rental wasn't working, so she wanted her tenant out. Six days later, flighty tenant is on a jet plane to California (first trip to California) cause a producer friend once told her she get find work in Hollywood. Ah, but out flighty little out of work actress is a native New Yorker, and already homesick and regretting the move when the wheels down in Cali. Ok, nutty actress gets in contact with ex-landlord, who is vacationing in Florida, and discusses coming home to NY and moving back in. This case is about that second occupency... which has been arranged on the phone from across the country. First time she paid rent and security, but this time she says she's not supposed to pay a deposit. Ah, but when she gets back to NY her new/old crazy landlord has switched gears yet again, room not available, she's not welcome yada yada. Since she doesn't have anywhere to go, defendant let's her stay, but tells her to be gone at the end of the week. Heck, according to plaintiff, the flighty nutty actress/model, defendant even helps her set up one of those beggar GoFundMe accounts to raise money from her many fans. Oh yeah, at one point she lists some of her credits,  Sopranos, Law and Order, Blue Bloods... she tells us of her upcoming big part where she'll play the "prisoner in gray uniform about to get an orange uniform."  A mutual friend supposedly acts as a go between, and tells actress girl defendant will let her stay the month if she raises the rent. She manages to raise a month's rent (this is Feb 16th) and is told she can stay til April 1st. Ok, breath of relief, she starts hunting for someplace to move cone the  end of March. Soooo, she clains, on March 2nd the bipolar Jeckel/Hyde landlord/defendant switches again, starts yhreatening to shot her and starts ripping up a stack of mail she claims belongs to plaintiff - and we hear the first word fron defendant. Plaintiff says mutual friend Anna witnessed the destruction of the mail, MM asks if Anna is here, defendant says no. And, as we go to commercial we hear, once again, the old "cash doesn't leave this hand to this hand without a receipt." Yep, when she paid the $600 to stay til April, no receipt, nothing in writing, only evidence the missing Anna, and Tommy, another mutual friend, who is here in court but testifying for Mr Hyde. Ok, time to give defendanut a chance to speak. Surprise, she starts out by saying most of ditzy actress story is correct. Main difference, she says she let plaintiff back in after the California trip without ever receiving any money and an agreement to stay til April. She says she checked with her local precinct to find out how long someone could stay as a "guest" before they became a "squatter" where she would have to go through housing court to evict her - 30 days - which became the deadline for her leaving. Nope, never received any $600. Tommy, the mutual friend who plaintiff claims saw her pay comes up - he knows nothing, saw nothing, heard nothing. Doesn't look good for gray uniform girl. Ah, but MM says she has 8 inches of back and forth texts, with numerous references to plaintiff giving defendant $600, and never once does defendant ask what $600. Plaintiff texts that she's found an apartment but can she PLEASE get $400 of the $600 so she can move in the new place. Again, not what $600, but instead glad you found something. Now things are going against defendant, she starts thumbing through the multitude of texts on her phone. MM tells her to stop playing with the phone and look up, she starts talking over MM and we see Tommy elbowing her to shut up just as MM is telling her the same thing. Ah, now I'm wondering if Tommy may not be getting a split of poor ditzy girl's money. Yes, I know plaintiff has not been a "girl" for a few years, but then she acts like a lifelong immature snowflake. At one point we hear that she turned to her mommy and various siblings, none of whom would help keep her from being homeless, before turning to this friend of a friend. Oh, and plaintiff has a letter from another "friend" who supposedly wired her 500 of the $600, and called defendant asking if she received $600. Well, not sure how much that letter is worth in court - she does have a copy of the wire teansfer, but of course nothing proving where the $500 went after she picked it up. Not liking what I hear from defendant's side, but not sure Ditzy has enough to reach that "preponderance of evidence" level. Ok, time is more than up on this one, we'very already spent a half hour on it. Finally, MM calls a halt, says while she hadn'the heard enough for a criminal conviction, she HAS heard enough in a civil court to decide for the plaintiff - mainly, the repeated texts from plaintiff about paying $600 without defendant asking WTH. Plaintiff gets her money. When asked by Doug, defendant says plaintiff is a very good actress... hmmm, could this all be a scam to get plaintiff some publicity a little money to split between the litigants.
2. 'Nother bail case - with a twist. Ok, from the intro, what happened here is plaintiff is in lockup, has the money for bail, but no access. Sooo, she gives her PIN to good friend, who proceeds to rip her off. Course, defendant denies ripping her off - says she took out the bail money, and has a receipt where she paid the jail. Ok, nobody has said a word, yet, looking at her, but I'm wondering if plaintiff might not be used to being bonded out by a pimp - then we see the preview clip and she admits she's something of an expert at being bonded out - she's been in jail before, hee hee, head shake while sticking out her tongue. Ok, when we get back from commercial, maybe not a hooker. Apparently, she was arrested (this time) because "she had an incident with another female" and the "police rode up on me" while she had her newborn with her and hauled her to jail - ok, MM gets a clarification, a warrant was issued after the incident with the "female" and the infant was there when the cops came to arrest her, not at the "incident". Uh, does that mean she was out partying and getting into "altercations" with "females" while pregnant, or was the incident long ago, or maybe infant was with grandma or a neighbor while she was out running the streets... no, don't really what to know. Ok, case ended up being dismissed before trial, bail was released, but since defendant signed the form she gets the money - which of course came out of plaintiff's account (or maybe from one of those welfare credit cards - can you tell I am NOT IMPRESSED with her ghetto trashy talk and choice of outfits?) Oh boy, over to defendant and she's just as ghetto trashy as plaintiff. She admits the money was released to her, but figures she should be paid for her time - besides the plaintiff started bad mouthing her and accusing her of stealing the money before it was even released. So, yes she picked up the money, but she's wants to be paid for her troubles. As if this enough enough, somehow they get to feuding and fussing in court about their kids dating each other (defendant brought her daughter to court to witness mommy fighting evil jailbreak - lots if finger pointing, head shaking, and fast talk nonsense as she talks over everybody - and no doubt for the a free lunch.) Thankfully, this turns into a short case - not sure if I could stand these two for a whole 20 minutes (plaintiff turns out to be the classy one). Simple case. Defendant trying to say she is owed something for her time and aggeavation, but had notjing, verbal or otherwise, saying she was getting anything out of the bail money. She leaves court after interrupping and talking over Judge in court to goes out to talk trash to Doug... ah, what an example for her sweet daughter - probably need to head straight out and get some mace. (Referencing Lil Macey girl from yesterday on JJ.)
3. Busted home appliance: looooonnng day so far with not very entertaining cases. For the third case (yep, short case with ghetto girls has us back on track) two plaintiffs come out in suits - ah, at least they look like they knew they were coming to court, now if only they can speak half way intelligently. Hey, actually both sides are a refreshing change from the first two cases. Defendant not as nicely dressed, but I understand him without subtitles - looks like he became service manager because he can load appliances without a dolly. OK, not sure why dude is suing, big case for $165. Intro says when his dryer wasn't working he called defendant. Defendant diagnosed it as a problem with a computer control board/module, but wanted too much money to replace it. Guy buys the board and replaces it himself, but same problem. He calls someone else, who says all he needs to to clean the vent. Duh, if you're not sure what's wrong, start with the easy cheap fix before jumping to big bucks fix... you know, car battery keeps dieing, clean the terminals and tighten the cables before buying a battery and/or replacing the alternator (I know, bad example since now days you can get the battery tested for free). Anyway, I guess he figures the first repair guy was wrong, so he wants a refund of what he spent for their diagnosis - plus the money he thinks he wasted buying the part they claimed was bad - wants a whopping $165. Defendant says he offered to return half his service charge for the diagnosis. Says the first board was bad (both sides agree he took it out and tested it). Ok, maybe vent being clogged contributed to dryer not working at 100%, but he is being paid for the service call, not for fixing the dryer. If he had been hired to fix the dryer he would have replaced the board and cleaned the vent, which plaintiff ended up doing, and fixed the problem. Plaintiff... dude... don't know how much total time service guy spent getting to your house and fiddling with the dryer, but he offered to accept half of his normal $165 service charge! I say you should have taken him up on the offer, because, if it were me, I'd make you pay full charge now that you refused the offer and dragged him to court. Ah, but thing is that in the back and forth between repair guy and homeowner dude where guy was trying to fix dryer himself, at one point repair guy supposedly offers to return all the money if it was misdiagnosed. Hmmmm, maybe we need an expert opinion. Just so happens, homeowner dude says when get decided repair dude was wrong about the diagnosis, he called in an authorized repair guy from the manufacturer. Ah, easy peasy, so he must have a statement from this expert saying dryer wasn't blowing hot air because of the vent. Yep, he does have just such a letter. Ah, but can he prove he returned the replaced board, and machine is in fact working fine with the old, original board in place - if he proves that, than repair guy has already admitted he said he'd return the whole service charge. MM calls a recess for homeowner guy to contact the place he bought the board from to prove he returned it. Hey, he actually comes in with the proof, so he's a winner. Only downside... for some reason my channel chopped off the end mid ruling, so I don't get to see how defendant took the ruling... hopefully he accepted defeat gracefully in the hallterview and didn't spout "it is what it is"

Edited September 20, 2017 by SRTouch

[Katy M]

54 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Am I the only one who's getting tired of MM's reliance on text messages?  To the point where she expects all communication to be via text so she has a record, and pretty much assumes that if there was no text there was no communication?  (She criticized the tailor for responding to the plaintiff's text by picking up the phone and calling her.)  When life is happening in real life in real time, people don't always see a need for all conversations to be preserved for posterity.  Given that ubiquitous text messaging is a relatively new phenomenon, it just seems like lazy judgeship to expect a written record.  Ten or maybe even five years ago, she would have had to rely on her ability to evaluate witnesses' veracity.

Where I work, anything that we even think might be an issue that we discussed on the phone, we send a follow-up email just confirming the details.

[SRTouch]

42 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Am I the only one who's getting tired of MM's reliance on text messages.

Yep, I not a texter. Maybe cause I grew up old school, when phone messages were recorded on actual tape and 640k was all the memory you could possibly need, but when I get a text, I read it then delete it.

42 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

 I think that image might have been intensified because of the wrap she had on her head.

Definitely, her head wrap as much as the dress probably had me thinking of Aunt Jermima. As far as the dress of what she wanted versus what she actually got... well sort of reminds me of those kitty pictures where they show an image of a tabby hissing, and a lion roaring... what we think we look like isn't what we really look like - I know I don't picture a fat old fart when I think of myself, nah I'm still the same guy I was when a was an Army NCO 30 years ago.

42 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

 Oh, but he knew it on the second or third re-try, so you should give him credit for that!  And then he says, when MM asks him why she shouldn't deduct the bill from the other contractor from what he's owed, "But they were completely happy."  Of course they were!  That's why they brought you back three times and finally gave up and hired someone else to fix the problem.

Ah, contractor dude, what a STUPID thing to argue. They never said they didn't like the completed job when they first saw it... the problem was that as time went by the color changed - which you admitted in testimony, and made repeated attempts to remedy. More the dude argued, the more it sounded like shoddy workmanship. 

[DoctorK]

Quote

hopefully get he accepted defeat gracefully in the hallterview

Yep, he did. A graceful exit. My only question about the case is what supplier allowed the plaintiff to install the new boards and then take them back for full credit? All the vendors I have gotten electronic components from will not take them back if they have been installed. Not relevant to the case, just something I wondered about.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

'Nother failed room for rent case: 

Well, that was interesting. Plaintiff is usuing her acting skill and really wringing the "Oh, poor little me!" thing for all she can, but def really is a big, coarse brute who, frankly, would scare the hell out of me. "Tommy" was obviously too frightened to say very much. I have no idea if he was telling the truth or not.  Also, "The Sopranos" is only my all-time favorite show and I determined to check and see what role she played on it, but as usual I forgot her name before the case ended and cant' be bothered restarting to check. I must also mention that whenever I hear an adult say, "I wasn't allowed to ... " about anything, I immediately discount whatever comes after that. Only children should be saying that.

 

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 10:23 AM, AZChristian said:

So I Googled some more and realized that it's Juan - the bailiff on Judge Faith - who is actually in law enforcement.

Just must mention this: Sonia Montejano, late of "Judge Joe" and now on "Hot Bench" really was in law enforcement for many years as a cop and a deputy and appears to be carrying a gun on Hot Bench, although I guess it could be a prop or maybe fires blanks.

https://soniamontejano.com/bio/

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

'Nother bail case - with a twist. 

I just... I couldn't. The wigs, the SHOES(Like, OMG - did you SEE the towering orange "Hookers on the Point" shoes??), the grammar, the newborn baby(!!) the arrest, the bail, the endless shrieking and talking over JM. I couldn't do it.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Busted home appliance: looooonnng day so far with not very entertaining cases.

Very, very boring. Little weiner plaintiff, who gets cut off when he tries to launch his rehearsed, dreary speech, "I moved into a beautiful new house with my beautiful new wife... " Yeah, whatever. Get on with it, you weiner.  So much ado about an old dryer. For all the def was well-spoken and seemed reasonable, I totally believe his employee was ripping off plaintiff, maybe at his direction but who knows? Is anyone on the planet stupid enough to pay 500$ to fix an old dryer? Oh, those dryer ducts - my dryer wasn't doing the job and surprise! It was because the duct was packed with lint. I would imagine a repair person would think of that first, well, unless they want to get 500$ for nothing.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

Where I work, anything that we even think might be an issue that we discussed on the phone, we send a follow-up email just confirming the details.

I had a boss I learned could not be trusted, as MM would say, if her tongue had been notarized, so I learned to ask via email any question where the answer might matter, but in the course of normal communication, the spoken word is still pretty common and generally reasonable.

[AZChristian]

41 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Well, that was interesting. Plaintiff is usuing her acting skill and really wringing the "Oh, poor little me!" thing for all she can, but def really is a big, coarse brute who, frankly, would scare the hell out of me. "Tommy" was obviously too frightened to say very much. I have no idea if he was telling the truth or not.  Also, "The Sopranos" is only my all-time favorite show and I determined to check and see what role she played on it, but as usual I forgot her name before the case ended and cant' be bothered restarting to check. I must also mention that whenever I hear an adult say, "I wasn't allowed to ... " about anything, I immediately discount whatever comes after that. Only children should be saying that.

Just 'cause I like you, I made note of it when PC came on here a few minutes ago.  Here's her IMDB link.  It does not match what she testified to under oath.

[Schnickelfritz]

This is the GoFundMe mentioned in the first case. I would love to know the back story it alludes to. Her life has certainly become a mess.

https://www.gofundme.com/vur2bu-im-homeless

And if anyone has a job for her

https://www.starnow.com/317131

Claims she is also a photographer on her facebook.

That's enough stalking of the plaintiff... I was just mildly curious about her acting credits and fell down a rabbit hole. (Including a YouTube video under the name of Star Sira.)

Edited September 20, 2017 by Schnickelfritz

[meowmommy]

21 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Just 'cause I like you, I made note of it when PC came on here a few minutes ago.  Here's her IMDB link.  It does not match what she testified to under oath.

Dollars to donuts, if she was ever near any of those sets, she was an extra.  I don't think they give acting credits if you're an extra.  And if she's a print model, it must be for books in Braille.

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, meowmommy said:

Dollars to donuts, if she was ever near any of those sets, she was an extra.  I don't think they give acting credits if you're an extra.  And if she's a print model, it must be for books in Braille.

Yes, when Judge Marilyn asked her what part she played on "Orange is the New Black," she said, "It's coming up next season.  I play someone in a gray uniform who is supposed to move to an orange uniform.  Yep.  Leading role, that one.  LOL.

[AZChristian]

5 minutes ago, Schnickelfritz said:

This is the GoFundMe mentioned in the first case. I would love to know the back story it alludes to. Her life has certainly become a mess.

https://www.gofundme.com/vur2bu-im-homeless

And if anyone has a job for her

https://www.starnow.com/317131

Claims she is also a photographer on her facebook.

That's enough stalking of the plaintiff... I was just mildly curious about her acting credits and fell down a rabbit hole. (Including a YouTube video under the name of Star Sira.)

From her gofundme (which she made sound like an ongoing method of income, on PC):

"During the past year I fell victim to a social media predator, where I allowed myself to become a victim of broken promises and grandeur of illusions, stupid me, but I'm sure I'm not the first, and definitely won't be the last, granted, this stupid act, on my behalf, and the deviant scheme,  of another,  has left me homeless, completely with nothing, including my relationship of 18 years,  and my two cats,  whom I had so long and adored."

She has "nothing" . . . including periods to break up sentences.

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, case ended up being dismissed before trial, bail was released, but since defendant signed the form she gets the money - which of course came out of plaintiff's account (or maybe from one of those welfare credit cards - can you tell I am NOT IMPRESSED with her ghetto trashy talk and choice of outfits?)

Golly, what part of her appearance didn't you like?  The multitone ombre hair, the facial piercing (at least I think it was a piercing if not a really ugly wen!), the canary yellow shirt wrapped at the tits, the horribly mismatched seams on the garish skirt, or the eight inch pumpkin heels?  I don't understand.

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Just 'cause I like you, I made note of it when PC came on here a few minutes ago.  Here's her IMDB link.  It does not match what she testified to under oath.

Thanks. Her "Filmography" appears to be blank? Well, ohter than being the "assistant location coordinator" for that cinematic triumph that is "The Bachelor" (which I shouldn't denigrate as I've never watched it) I see nothing else. I do see where she says

Quote

I am a very colorful and free spirited human being; I have been told that I have a very sexy, mysterious look to me, especially my eyes, where people have told me that my eyes paralyze them. I would be perfect for Mafia movies.

She's very free-spirited, that spirit no doubt being stifled when she's "not allowed" to use the kitchen, etc. But I see she HAS modeled shoes and would love to try a reality show. I dunno, but if that were me, I might mention right off that I had appeared in "The Sopranos".

https://www.starnow.com/317131

 

3 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Dollars to donuts, if she was ever near any of those sets, she was an extra. 

Probably, like another litigant we saw here (or maybe it was on JJ) who claimed to be an actress and her credits were things like, "Suprised woman in crowd."

 

6 minutes ago, Schnickelfritz said:

This is the GoFundMe mentioned in the first case.

I can't look at the "GoGimmeFund", because those things mostly just piss me off. But, hey - if total strangers are stupid enough to give up any of their hard-earned dollars to people who just say, "Gimme" because they can't pay their rent or they decided to pop out another baby or whatever, that's their stupidity.

[Silver Raven]

What was that actress's name?  I'd like to try to look her up.

Why have they suddenly started running commercials for "Coming up this week" episodes which may have already aired, or will not air till the end of the week?  Seeing the same thing over and over again is annoying.

[Schnickelfritz]

1 minute ago, Silver Raven said:

What was that actress's name?  I'd like to try to look her up.

Caroline Siracusa (or Star Sira)

[Silver Raven]

7 minutes ago, Schnickelfritz said:

Caroline Siracusa (or Star Sira)

The only entry in either name on imdb is for a location scout.

Thanks for the info.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4748911/?ref_=fn_nm_nm_1

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Just must mention this: Sonia Montejano, late of "Judge Joe" and now on "Hot Bench" really was in law enforcement for many years as a cop and a deputy and appears to be carrying a gun on Hot Bench, although I guess it could be a prop or maybe fires blanks.

https://soniamontejano.com/bio/

I've posted before that you can spot TV court bailiffs with actual law enforcement backgrounds if you watch when litigants start acting a little squirrelly. Those with actual experience don't always wait for the judge to shut down folks acting out.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Dollars to donuts, if she was ever near any of those sets, she was an extra.  I don't think they give acting credits if you're an extra.  And if she's a print model, it must be for books in Braille.

Ah, now be nice! She may have lovely feet and be a renowned "foot" model... or maybe the before model for those fake Internet before and after pix.

[AngelaHunter]

Okay, so the "I will quit" designer? He was sued here as recently as June:

[patty1h]

I bow to your skills, angelahunter.

[teebax]

I was going to rewatch to see who this actress was who had a major part on one of my favorite shows, The Sopranos, but then I knew if i came here you'd have already done the reasearch. Love you guys! Someone wven mentioned Judge Faith,  who I really like, so I'm thrilled.

I don't have much to add to the cases except to point out that there are ads featuring average looking folks, so it's not implausible for her to be doing print work.  Of course, she's full of baloney, so it doesn't matter anyway.

[AngelaHunter]

44 minutes ago, teebax said:

I was going to rewatch to see who this actress was who had a major part on one of my favorite shows, The Sopranos,

I thought I might recognize her, since I've seen every episode multiple times. Maybe she was a face in the crowd in the Columbus Day ep,  looking shocked when Artie gets hit with a milkshake. I guess that could enable her to say she was in The Sopranos.

[teebax]

10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I thought I might recognize her, since I've seen every episode multiple times. Maybe she was a face in the crowd in the Columbus Day ep,  looking shocked when Artie gets hit with a milkshake. I guess that could enable her to say she was in The Sopranos.

Didn't she say she had a "big part" on The Sopranos? Again, I didn't watch it a second time, but I distinctly remember her saying something to that effect.

[AZChristian]

13 minutes ago, teebax said:

Didn't she say she had a "big part" on The Sopranos? Again, I didn't watch it a second time, but I distinctly remember her saying something to that effect.

Maybe she slurred through "bit part" . . . ?

[AngelaHunter]

Teebax, I don't remember exactly what she said, but I can find no link confirming she was ever on that show, even as a nameless extra.  Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I couldn't find it.

She certainly has  some memorable quotes, though:

""Sometimes we have to stare at the sun,
in order to smell the sunshine."

[Katy M]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The Bachelor" (which I shouldn't denigrate as I've never watched it)

I've never watched it either, but I think we should feel free to denigrate it.

[arejay]

A couple of lines from StarSira lead me to believe she was catfished.  Just a hunch.

"During the past year I fell victim to a social media predator, where I allowed myself to become a victim of broken promises and grandeur of illusions, stupid me, but I'm sure I'm not the first, and definitely won't be the last, granted, this stupid act, on my behalf, and the deviant scheme,  of another,  has left me homeless, completely with nothing, including my relationship of 18 years,  and my two cats,  whom I had so long and adored." 

Edited September 21, 2017 by arejay
to include the actual lines.....sheesh

[TresGatos]

Quote

and the deviant scheme,  of another,  has left me homeless, completely with nothing, including my relationship of 18 years,  and my two cats,  whom I had so long and adored."

I wonder if the kitties have started their own GoFundMe account?

[Jamoche]

21 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Dollars to donuts, if she was ever near any of those sets, she was an extra.  I don't think they give acting credits if you're an extra.  And if she's a print model, it must be for books in Braille.

Nope. Especially not for crowd scenes. My brother was in "Born on the Fourth of July", in the convention scene. Three seconds worth of him shouting with a bunch of other people, which is probably more screen time than she had.

[SRTouch]

1. unusual dog case: no attacks, this case is about two pampered mutts with a $500 groomer fee that the owner won't pay. Can't remember what made up name defendant came up with, but she has some poodle mix breed (picture looks about standard poodle size) that needs regular grooming. Instead of buying a brush and some clippers and learning how to groom her own dogs, which can be a bonding experience dogs love with their person, she takes the dog's to a stranger who charges her hundreds of dollars because the poor dogs matted. So what we have is a dispute with groomer saying she was quoted $200-250 per badly matted and filthy dog, and owner insisting she was told $200-250 total... So, still like the normal dog case... I'm getting mad at a dog owner who is too busy, lazy, or just plain stupid to care for a creature who idolizes them. Anyway, plaintiff appears to have brought his whole staff, and actually has the guys who worked on the dogs are here. Poor dogs, dude is saying it took hours to clean and bathe them because they were so bad. Uh oh, defendant says she has a regular groomer who never charges more then $100 per dog, but she couldn't wait for regular guy because she wanted them to look nice for a party (she was throwing a birthday party for one of the dogs). Hmmm wonder how long these pups go before the filth and Matt's get so bad she takes them to a groomer.  Oh well, as MM tells her, it's her money... but those poor matted dogs! Anyway, we get to hear from the staff, who tell us the customer was quoted the price at dropoff, and then called to adjust the price when they actually started the work and saw how bad the dogs actually were. Geez, not only this owner, either, as they text back and forth they describe and send pictures of a similar dog that was charged $300 because of the terrible condition when it came in. Ah, all this texting back and forth, and nowhere did anyone put in a text how much the charge would be. Next problem, customer shows up, very happy with the look, tries to pay with her CC... none of the people at the shop can access the freeking CC machine. So, happy customer promises to pay later, takes her dogs and goes home... later they exchange texts, overjoyed with the job, no complaint of the bill, but no money forthcoming. Time goes by, a month later text from groomer asking where the money is... I guess as time goes by and new matts appear lady decides she was overcharged, and refuses to pay. Not sure what her defense is. No dispute when she picked up the dogs, ready to pay without complaint, promises to write a great yelp review in later texts, but never complains about price until a month later when groomer gets frustrated and is asking for where the money is. MM rules groomers get their money.
2. bad event photographer: plaintiff hired dude to take video and photos of daughter's sweet 16 party, guy botched it, she wants refund. Defendant admits he lost a memory card of part of the event (oh like the father daughter dance), says he offered a 50% discount, but plaintiff demands his whole fee back, plus more because she wants to hire a new guy, recreate the party, and get the missing pictures. Ah, educational TV. Never even heard of a shoe change ceremony, but after listening, I googled it... yep, it's really a thing where daughter enters wearing little girl shoes and dad helps her change to heels. Anyway, guess this is a cultural thing, and to this Hispanic momma this sweet 16/quincearache(sp) is right there next to a big wedding - heck, she hired a choreographer to choreograph various dances. I think the biggest failing is dude tried to pass off the partial job as complete... "sort of here's your pix on this flash drive," and customers eagerly look through and find significant portions missing. It does not look good when dude doesn't just own up to his goof, and tries to place the blame for losing the SD card on how disorganized the event was. Hoboy, this guy just won't shut up, just heard he dropped the drive off in plaintiff's mail box, no note about missing portion of event, because, he says, he thought the only thing missing was "the main dance." Mommy got smart, did all her complaining by text and email, made yahoo sign for a projector when she returned it, etc. Small laugh when MM compliments her and asks where she learned that, thinking/hoping the answer will be from watching TPC - but no, plaintiff says because she has a MBA. HMMM interesting case, because of dude's failure, it will cost more than he was paid for someone else to recreate the missing portion  (redo hair /makeup, recent tuxedos, etc). Partially because he shows no remorse who his screwup, MM orders he give a complete refund plus extra - was paid $900, but has to pay back $1200 (she wanted 3 grand)
3. tenant security suit:  we see this all the time.  Tenant claims place left fine, wants her security. Landlord says place a mess, cost big money to put right, back rent owed, countersuit for more than plaintiff  wants. Plaintiff wants $800+, while countersuit is for $2300+. Oh dear, clip as we go to commercial doesn't promise much for landlord. MM wants pictures of all the filth and he has one picture from under a sink - not a stack of pix with 1 under a sink, but 1 picture. Part of the problem here is that tenant, plaintiff in the case, is under the common misconception that a landlord has to automatically prorate rent if the proper notice isn't given. She only gave 3 week notice - a nice landlord might charge her a week worth of rent, this guy wants the whole month and is within his rights to withhold it from deposit. Ah, because of her little misconception, she sued. And, because she sued, landlord, who might have let that ride, now has his back up and a countersuit for more than he thinks he can possibly get. Ok, she admits to some holes in the wall from hanging stuff, but she spackled. Says she was there two years, so felt spackle was enough since he would be painting anyway. Landlord went a little nuts, circled every pin hole, but what I see is really normal wear after two years except for a little wall damage on the stairs which she says probably happened upon move out. Maybe dude has stuff MM isn't showing us, but except for the walls and that 1 under the sink pic he has no receipts, no pictures, no evidence of squat. To me, he gets a month's worth of rent, and that's all. Rough justice defendant comes out ahead $575. Overall I agree, though MM charged $100 for paint I would have called normal wear and tear. Oh, and it sounds like part of tenant's complaint was because she was never told WHY he was withholding part of her security. If I heard that right, I think in some jurisdictions landlord would be lose out if he failed to provide an itemized list of what/why he was keeping security.

Edited September 21, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

49 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

unusual dog case: no attacks, this case is about two pampered mutts with a $500 groomer fee that the owner won't pay. Can't remember what made up name defendant came up with

"Labradoodles" a.k.a "Very pricey mongrels churned out by backyard breeders and puppy mills and sold to people who want a "designer" breed" to show off.  A shame. You can get all manner of wonderful mixed-breed dogs at shelters and rescues. (my last dog was an Aussie cattle dog mix, adopted by me when she was about nine years old and a sweeter natured girl you could never find) Anyway, defendant decided the price to groom these two huge dogs that probably were horribly matted (does def not care how painful matting is for dogs or how stressful it would be for them to spend 8 hrs being groomed? Guess not, as long as they looked fancy for the ridiculous doggie B-day party) was too high, so she decided she needn't pay anything at all. The dogs are beautiful. Def was highly annoying, with her silly "OMG"x 20 texts. Doug in the hall had to wrestle her into the right position. I LOL'd.

56 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

bad event photographer: plaintiff hired dude to take video and photos of daughter's sweet 16 party, guy botched it, she wants refund.

First of all, I would never have hired the def. no matter how cheap he was, since as JM often says, "The cheap comes out expensive." He could barely keep his eyes open here, admits he only does his incompetant videography on his off hours. He's busy, so don't expect him to properly do what you paid him to do! I see he had enough time to get an extra, uber-douchebag hairdo (braids?) but he lost plaintiff's photos. So what? What do they want him to do about it?

I'm probably some obsolete cretin, but I never stop being amazed at people who want to spend thousands of dollars on children's and teen's birthday parties, high school graduations or what have you. This do sounded like it could rival a Royal Wedding! The shoes, the ring, the 16 dancers dancing, 12 lords a-leaping... oh, wait. No, it didn't go quite that far, but close. I try to imagine what this girl's wedding will be like, and I can't. It boggles my mind.  Anyway, Douchebag Braids deserved to be publicly humiliated and not just ordered to pay the money back. Loved how JM hated him with such passion she pulled a "Judge Judy" and ordered him to uncross his arms.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tenant security suit:  we see this all the time.  Tenant claims place left fine, wants her security.

Funny. IF plaintiff had just kept her mouth shut, or taken a few minutes to find out the rights of both her and landlord, she could have saved herself this appearance here, where she not only lost, but had to pay defendant. To lose against such a def, who didn't bring a shred of evidence of damages - other than his ridiculous claims that plaintiff somehow damaged the walls behind the shower and created mold - had to be a mite embarassing.

[califred]

Those were golden doodles.   

 

I have a dog with similar hair and it costs about $75 to groom her, even with a matt.  Of course I actually take her regularly and brush her at home in between.  I also don't throw her bday parties. I don't do it myself bc I tried to do my kids hair once years ago and learned it's not a skill I possess. 

[Florinaldo]

On 20/09/2017 at 4:08 PM, SRTouch said:

'Nother bail case - with a twist.

The plantiff was quite a sight. The clashing colors, the haphazard shapes, the akward stylings. And that's only her hair!

I always wonder how people can be under the illusion that they look attractive or stylish in such get-ups. Unless you are correct as to her possible previous occupation.

I hated her as soon as she shrugged off going to jail, as if it is a commonplace occurrence for everyone and part of the wondrous experience of life itself. But as much as I was rooting for her to lose, the defendant came across as worse. She actually had a point, that her time might deserve compensation, but she went about it totally the wrong way: no initial agreement means you can't rewrite the deal at will. The plaintiff could have been gracious and given her a little something, but I got the impression that graciousness is a concept entirely foreign to her.

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bad event photographer: 

I am always astonished by the infinite diversity of silly rituals some parents come up with to mark the coming of age of their children, especially girls it seems. As shoe change ceremony, really? So the father takes of her smelly kiddie slippers and in return she get some uncomfortable heels; is she then expected to audition for a remake of Leave it to Beaver or for one of those Swiffer commercials in which housewives clean their floors wearing ner-stilettos?

And then they fetishize those events, to the extent that some missing video rises to the level of heart-wrenching drama. "Our memories are gone, the pain, the pain!" I understand the disappointment, but this turned utterly ridiculous, especially when she said she wished to recreate the missing portions and record them. Which means they will now have fake mementoes of real events they experienced directly many weeks before.

I think MM's ruling may have been influenced by her apparent regret at not having had such an extravagant party in her youth. The guy did work, some of his material survived and she will now be free to make use of it as a basis for her "sincere" reenactement. A partial refund should have been in order; or else she should return the material he provided. His apparent lack of remorse should not have been a factor.

With the money she got and her attitude, I think this will be closer to a full remake than simply retakes and pick-ups.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, califred said:

Those were golden doodles.

Labradoodles or Goldendoodles or Maltipoos or Puggles - they're all made up names for mixed breed dogs, used by the unscrupulous to suck in the naive or the willfully ignorant, to pay big bucks for them.

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I hated her as soon as she shrugged off going to jail, as if it is a commonplace occurrence for everyone and part of the wondrous experience of life itself.

I know! I've always been amazed at how litigants talk about going to jail the way I might mention I went to the grocery store or the dentist. "Oh, I just gave birth and then I had to go to jail. You know how it is. " *shrug*

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I am always astonished by the infinite diversity of silly rituals some parents come up with to mark the coming of age of their children, especially girls it seems. As shoe change ceremony, really? So the father takes of her smelly kiddie slippers and in return she get some uncomfortable heels; is she then expected to audition for a remake of Leave it to Beaver or for one of those Swiffer commercials in which housewives clean their floors wearing ner-stilettos?

I considered myself lucky to get a birthday cake WITH candles when I was very young. I don't remember even that in my teens. But that's okay and I didn't suffer life-long emotional damage from not being presented at the cotillion. I know different cultures do things differently, but remembering myself as an awkward, shy, fifteen-year old, I think I'd have been vastly relieved at not having a permanent image of my father taking my slippers off, but that's just me.  

 

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

A partial refund should have been in order;

DId the plaintiff get the whole amount she paid back? I know she was trying to get a boe-nanza to create some Hollywood, Cinderella-type extavaganza and I lost sight of how much she actually paid Braid-Boy.

[Florinaldo]

27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

DId the plaintiff get the whole amount she paid back?

Yes, and as I understood it MM added about 300 more because the mother now had to go through the injurious expense of restaging and reshooting the missing parts. So he partly subsidized her little vanity project.