The People's Court - General Discussion

[Brattinella]

2 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I you do not like being saddled with a sex horndog, you just a-leave!

Period!!

(As one judge on another court show would say)

And I do not care care how much you may have been socially conditioned to be passively accepting of such behaviour.

I understand your point, but why is it an either/or?  Men just can't HELP themselves, is that it? 

I have exited a relationship for just this reason, but there can be sexless relationships.  As in companionship.

[Florinaldo]

1 minute ago, Brattinella said:

Men just can't HELP themselves, is that it? 

That is YOUR point I believe since you wrote "Men are horndogs, by and large."

[Brattinella]

20 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I you do not like being saddled with a sex horndog, you just a-leave!

What you are saying is:  A woman's only options are to TAKE IT, or to leave, right?  There is no third option for the man NOT to be a horndog?

[Florinaldo]

17 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

What you are saying is:  A woman's only options are to TAKE IT, or to leave, right?  There is no third option for the man NOT to be a horndog?

Again, that is something YOU said.

If any couple of any age are entirely compatible as to their mutual sexual expectations (from a lot of it up to complete abstinence), they should enjoy the situation. If not, a-leave! (Or a-kick him/her out.)

Edited September 26, 2017 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

52 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

That is YOUR point I believe since you wrote "Men are horndogs, by and large."

This subject if very complicated, but I just must say - The vast majority of women we see here and on JJ would be probably be happy if whatever cretin they picked was only a horndog. THEY choose men who are: convicted sex offenders, jailbirds, abusers, drunks, cheaters, liars, druggies and bums who don't work or support the children they made with other sad, pathetic women. What are we to conclude about this? I don't understand it, but I know it often makes me embarassed to be a woman, even though I've never felt  this kind of desperation. We saw a woman here recently - a young, attractive and intelligent woman with a career who was ready to kill herself over some big zero - a mommy's boy sloth! I concur with JM's disgust and bafflement when hearing this.

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Ridiculous, since the landlord did nothing wrong but JM is so freaked out by the mention of bedbugs she chose to just believe everything plaintiff and her crude mother said.

Oh, no, you're wrong, MM said the mother was lovely!  Right when the cretin accused the landlady of having bedbug bites on her arms. 

At the end, MM told the plaintiff she was lucky the landlady didn't countersue.  There's probably nothing stopping her from filing a new suit against the tenant, right?

[Florinaldo]

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The vast majority of women we see here and on JJ would be probably be happy if whatever cretin they picked was only a horndog. THEY choose men who are: convicted sex offenders, jailbirds, abusers, drunks, cheaters, liars, druggies and bums who don't work or support the children they made with other sad, pathetic women.

The sampling of humanity we see on these shows is frequently very depressing, so often representing the drecks of the species. And that applies to both genders since many of the epithets you list also apply to the women litigants.

Which is why it is always such a surprise when one of the litigants is a well-spoken person who is not trying to abuse the system or shirk their responsibilies; it's even better when the two litigants fall under this category and just need an objective third party to resolve a disagreement.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Which is why it is always such a surprise when one of the litigants is a well-spoken person who is not trying to abuse the system or shirk their responsibilies;

I know. When that happens I get excited, especially if it's an interesting contract case and no one has spit in anyone's face, gotten drunk and wrecked someone's car, bleached their clothes, or duked it out in the street.

 

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

And that applies to both genders since many of the epithets you list also apply to the women litigants.

For sure we see nasty, skeevy, marginal women here, but I was referring to relationships and 9 times out of 10 when a relationship goes wrong, the plaintiff is a woman suing some creepy loser POS boyfriend/baby daddy or whatever, because she gave him all her money, bought him a motorcyle, paid his rent, bailed him out of jail after he beat her up, put his car in her name,  on and on,  because she Loooooves him and she's a "good person with a big heart."

[SRTouch]

busy today, so only watched the first case

bail money loan: oh dear, all kinds of stuff wrong with these idiots. Back story... defendant and then-gf, Mona, get in drunken fight. Defendant has a no-contract order issue, and the case is pending. Mona gets evicted, and plaintiff rents her a room in his house (she had been living there a couple months when the whole arrest/bail incident happens). At this point, plaintiff has never met drunken defendant who punched poor dumb Mona. One night, Mona tells plaintiff she's headed out for the evening. Next thing he knows, he's getting a call from Mona... she's stranded, no ride home... Turns out she and bf hooked up to celebrate his bd, despite the no contact order for the pending domestic abuse case. Plaintiff is older guy, and MM wonders if maybe he and Mom a might be a little more than friends. Seems strange that plaintiff not only hopped in his car to go pick her up (at 11pm). Now, I  can see going to pick up a tenant if they call crying in the middle of the night - but once he gets there he ends up putting up the money to bail out drunken gf beater who has been arrested for violated the no contact order - oh, and remember, at this point in time plaintiff had never met the gf beater and didn't know about the charges or why defendant was arrested. Now that, bailing out a stranger, THAT I don't see myself doing. Today's case... plaintiff wants to be repaid the bail money. Don't even need to say it, yep, defendant's defense is that the loan was to Mona, as he has never met plaintiff... sure he was happy to be bailed out, but if plaintiff wants the bail money back he needs to get it from Mona... oh, and classy defendant broke up with Mona, and brought his latest gf to court to enjoy the free lunch. (Mona was too sick to cone to court, but sounds like plaintiff still rents to her.) MM just about has to drag everything about dirtbag's arrest  from him... yep one of those litigants who makes his already dirty laundry sound even worse by not just owning his misdeeds. Other part of the case, after they actually met, dirtbag borrowed money from dummy plaintiff to buy an engagement ring... again, defendant says guy was actually loaning the money because he was always buying Mona stuff, so he needs to sue Mona.... huh? I'm at a loss here, but even plaintiff says defendant was going to get Mona to pay for the ring. Plaintiff is one of those "giving" people  (according to his daughter, who is his witness) with "SUCKER" on his forehead, while defendant is a taker who is fine with someone else "helping" him, but doesn't understand that just maybe he should do more than take the help and leave the sucker out in the cold. Oh well, Mona still has the ring even though they broke up and he has a new sweety. Not even sure what to say, maybe defendant is right to tell him to go after Mona - who, BTW, still rents from plaintiff (that is, she lives there, but I kind of doubt she pays rent). Too bad Mona isn't here, I kind of order WTF she looks like. Anyway, MM is getting tired of hearing how Mona is skating on the whole thing, and asks plaintiff why he isn't suing both Mona and defendant. MM says the ring part is easy, he owes for the ring (and I assume he should sue Mona to get it back.) The bail isn't as easy... sure defendant was the one bailed out, but he's correct when he says plaintiff loaned Mona the money since they hadn't even met, yet. Ah, but I think defendant talked himself into losing that part of the case, as well, when he says he "doesn't remember" ever promising to pay it back. Could have easily gone the other way, but when plaintiff and defendant met with the bails bond lady and plaintiff forked over the 3 grand, MM says she bets defendant promised to pay. MM lectures both sides and tells them to "put on their big boy pants" - but nobody listens - though plaintiff does say he'sgoing to kick Mona to the curb. Doug asks new gf what she thinks of what she heard - she didn't learn anything, either, she's standing by her man.

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

bail money loan: oh dear, all kinds of stuff wrong with these idiots. Back story... defendant and then-gf, Mona, get in drunken fight.

I really just can't even... just when we thought we'd seen the pinnacle of "No fool like an old fool" we get this guy. He showers money on Mona and her greasy-haired, abusive twink-y boyfriend to the tune of 4,000$ to bail out the creep after he beats up Mona, who sadly couldn't appear here today because "she's very sick." "I'll say," says JM.  Why did plaintiff pay for bail and two different engagement rings (because the first wasn't nearly good enough and Mona really wanted to marry Prince Charming after he beat her up and she got a restraining order on him.) As JM says, if plaintiff just loves to throw large sums of money around ("Why did you do it?" she asks. "I don't know," he answers. Good lord.) there are plenty of worthy causes other than springing some slimy abuser from jail or buying rings for Mona's fingers. Sissy Boy's new squeeze doesn't care about any of that. She's desperate for a warm body, no matter if that body belongs to a complete creep with dirty hair and who is on probation.  How the hell does someone reach plaintiff's age and be so utterly dumb? Def and Mona wouldn't have been able to scam a savvy 12-year old.

 

Then we had the usual - plaintiff, who was either playing the clown or it's not an act - suing his new best buddy from Craigslist when he buys an 18-year old Chevy from him. What could be wrong with it? Turns out a whole lot - surprise! - so plaintiff of course feels he's entitled to a refund because he's special and  not subject to the "As is" laws as are the rest of us. Def wouldn't let him test drive the rust bucket - and not even hidden rust. The whole undercarriage was rotted out and visible to anyone who cared to look -  and he had no problem with that.  He wouldn't dream of having the beater checked out before buying it because plaintiff trusted the word of this total stranger selling him an ancient car, because he likes to think the best of people, oh, and probably also because he didn't want to shell out the 100$. Of course he lost and we got the Indignant "Wowwww" of Disbelief that always comes from plaintiffs when they get told to take a hike. Out in the hall, he informs Doug that JM is "very inconsiderate" because she didn't look at all his evidence. Obviously, the "as is" explanation still hadn't sunk into his thick head.  He stormed off as Doug yelled after him, "Do you know what 'caveat emptor' means?" Hahahhahaha! Guess not!

 

Not much to say about the stepdad suing his stepdaughter for loans. I felt bad for her. She seemed very distraught and spoke about physical abuse from him when she was a child and living with him. When I hear something like that the first thing I wonder is - where was the mother? I do know that some women will allow their children to be abused in order to hang on to a man and I despise those women because I feel they're worse than the abuser when they put their own needs ahead of those of their helpless children. The only thing that caught my eye in this case is that def's boyfriend looked like a low-rent gigolo. Maybe he's a wonderful person. We didn't hear from him so I don't know, but that's just the superficial impression I had.

[babs j.]

Re Case #1:  This is very personal but it might be time for the daughter to become her father's Power of Attorney or maybe even set up a conservatorship.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bail money loan: 

It's difficult to say who was the bigger fool. The plaintiff who is confused about everything including his motivations for lending money to people that can't be trusted and letting profiteering Mona live in his house, or the defendant's girlfriend who is willing to stand by him despite all that was revealed in court (she probably shut her mind to all that stuff). babs j. is right that the guy probably needs someone to take over his affairs because he can't manage them himself.

And why didn't someone sue Mona for the ring? If the wedding did not happen, then it should be returned or she should reimburse it.

 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

When I hear something like that the first thing I wonder is - where was the mother?

A very valid question, but there is another one that comes to mind: why does this accusation come out only at the point when she is being sued for money? It throws her credibility in question at least partially on that aspect.

[catrice2]

On 9/20/2017 at 3:23 PM, 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.

Hm....yes I always did this in previous work, it was a company expectation.  On my new job I was called in and told that people feel that it is an " i gotcha" even though I just recap the conversation and any actions that were supposed to be taken....even on my end.  I sometimes do it with family.....it is just a habit but I can't figure out why it would be threatening to anyone. 

[aemom]

On 9/21/2017 at 6:09 PM, AngelaHunter said:

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.

If some sort of event matters to you that much, that you go through those lengths to celebrate and want the memories for posterity, then hire a referred professional, not some mumbly loser who gives you a good deal.  Clearly I did my sweet 16 wrong.  About 4 of my friends came over, my mom drove us to the movie theatre where we all saw a movie (that mom paid for) and then after we came back to my house, had supper (I can't remember what we ate at all), then we watched rented movies and had a sleepover.  The big splurge was the the R2-D2 cake that my mom ordered from the bakery.  This was at a time where those fancy cakes were quite rare and expensive and not available at every grocery store.  It was clearly a good party, since I still remember it all these years later.

I bet it cost a fraction of that crazy choroegraphed one.  I agree with @AngelaHunter - I can only imagine what her engagement party, wedding, baby shower, child baptism....

As for the dog groomer case.  Wow! Over $500 to groom your dogs.  Not even in a million years would I even spend half of that on myself at the hairdresser, never mind a pet - on his way to his own birthday party.  *Speechless*

[Katy M]

46 minutes ago, AEMom said:

If some sort of event matters to you that much, that you go through those lengths to celebrate and want the memories for posterity, then hire a referred professional, not some mumbly loser who gives you a good deal.

That might not work out either.  I remember a case from a few years ago.  There was a girl who was dying (probably cancer but I don't remember) nd for her Make a Wish wish, she wanted an '80s party for all her friends.  So, they hired a videographer to record it so that she could watch it later, especially if she had to miss some because she got tired.  And, I don't remember what happened exactly, but the videographer was holding the DVD ransom.  I really, honestly, don't remember what happened.  He may not have been paid what he was supposed to by Make a Wish, but gee whiz, have a heart.  This kid wanted to see the video before she died.

[Broderbits]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

A very valid question, but there is another one that comes to mind: why does this accusation come out only at the point when she is being sued for money? It throws her credibility in question at least partially on that aspect.

We don't know what happened in the girl's family to cause her mother to split with the stepfather; we don't know that there weren't accusations made earlier. There might even have been court proceedings, but all we know is they weren't made public here. She didn't really seem "accusatory" to me, just very sad. She agreed the money was owed, and even had the correct total except for the lawyer fee stepdad added on. 

And who wears shorts to court on national tv?

[AngelaHunter]

15 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

We don't know what happened in the girl's family to cause her mother to split with the stepfather; we don't know that there weren't accusations made earlier.

Exactly. Also, if I were being accused of child abuse on television, I don't think I could help butting in to protest in outrage. Stepfather never denied it, at least not in our hearing.

16 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

She didn't really seem "accusatory" to me, just very sad.

Agree, which is why I felt a little sorry for her, although she had no good reason for not paying back the debt.

[Florinaldo]

If the alleged abuse figured in her reasons for not repaying the loan, souldn't it have been mentioned in her written response? It seemed to come out of left field and to be improvised on the spot to bolster her case. But I agree that even if true, she had to pay what she owed.

[TresGatos]

Quote

When I hear something like that the first thing I wonder is - where was the mother? I do know that some women will allow their children to be abused in order to hang on to a man and I despise those women because I feel they're worse than the abuser when they put their own needs ahead of those of their helpless children.

Probably being abused herself and, quite often, when the Mom is being abused she takes it out on the only people around more helpless than she. At least that's been my experience although I would never in a million years, under any circumstance, ask to borrow money from one of my (ex) stepfathers.

[SRTouch]

1. Sort of a dog attack: sad sack plaintiff has been practicing his opening statement for two years. I can't even work up much emotion over the clueless dog owners, since this guy is so pathetic. Two years ago, two neighbors are out walking their dogs - separately. Dogs are all leashed - plaintiff has 1 dog while defendant has two. They run into each other, stop for a chat, and for doggy sniff action. For some reason, maybe plaintiff's dog gave somebody the stink eye - one of defendant's two dogs go after plaintiff's. Poor pitiful plaintiff trips over the leash and ends up on the ground in the middle of the scuffle - grabs his pup in a headlock, and is laying on the ground punching at the defendant's mutts. One of defendant's dogs, the non-aggressive one, is some sort of Sheppard mix... herding instincts kick in, and he decides to nip at the aggression human in the middle of the fight. Seems perfectly understandable to me, dog wasn't trying to hurt the guy, just break up the fight between his dog buddy and plaintiff's dog and the strange human who apparently is attacking his own dog while lashing out at defendant's. I used to watch Cesar Milan, and I can hear him ask why neither of these two humans were acting as their pack's leader. Anyway, defendant manages to pull his dogs away, defendant gets up apparently none the worse except a little "road rash" on his hand. Dude must not have even washed the abrasions when he got hone, since he doesn't realise there's a couple little teeth marks from the Shepard mix nipping him. He supposedly sought medical advise, and was just told to keep it clean and put bacitracin ointment on it - claims he did, but this is the dude who didn't even know the teeth broke the skin until the next day. Four days after the "bite," plaintiff was involved in some traffic accident - apparently not this guy's week. While getting treated for those injuries, he says medical folks noted the "bite" was infected. He contacts defendant, who admits he saw his dog nip dummy. At the time, defendant provides plaintiff with his home owners insurance info, and accepts responsibility. Now, two years have gone by, and he, understandably, can't remember all the details since he thought the whole thing was done with... yeah, I'd think so, too, especially as his home owners insurance settled the claim and cut plaintiff a check for a grand. Sooo.... not sure where this suit comes from if dude settled and cashed the check. Apparently, he's trying to blame the infection from the bite for the car crash (yep part of this case is seeking car damage cuz the infection caused him to crash). Says he had thousands in medical bills, his insurance covered most of the bills, and now he wants defendant to cover his out of pocket expenses. Just a couple little snags - not even counting the whole settlement issue. First off, MM isn't reaching the same conclusion he makes that everything was because of infection from the bite. She reads us a snippet from the medical records about his "unspecified altered mental state", along with hyperthyroidism and the dog bite. (I think the home owners insurance was pretty generous with a grand for a couple teeth marks that I would argue would never have gotten infected if yayhoo practiced halfway decent wound care... can't get over not even noticing the bite until the next day.) MM does her best to make the non existent case somewhat entertaining, but sad sack isn't giving her much to work with. Not sure how many times she told him nothing in his records said the dog bite caused his "altered mental state", he keeps insisting it did, after all, why else would his discharge papers include a note on his treating the bite. Course, plaintiff totally disagrees with the judge, and tries to rehash his practiced case with Doug, but Doug shuts him down with, "you already said that." When defendant comes out, I finally get to hear him voice. Yeah, he said a few sentences inside, but it was so early in the case I have to really think to remember him saying anything.
2. parking lot bump: time to break out the white board and toy cars. Really, not sure why, since it's he said/he said and we know somebody's lieing. Actually, defendant's version doesn't help his case much. He admits he was backing out of his parking space, but says plaintiff should have seen him and stopped. Uh, who does this guy think has the right of way, here? Oh, that's right, he's one of those who feels the rest of us should automatically grant him right of way. Great look from the judge, after he places the toys where he wants them and tells his story, MM asks "And you think that exonerated you?" As MM starts to get into her incredulous "who do you think had the right of way" the plaintiff pipes up with "I have a video!" (SIDENOTE: plaintiff is head honcho of the condo association, so of course he has full access to the parking lot surveillance camera footage.) Yep, video shows exactly what plaintiff claims - he was driving along, saw idiot backing out, stopped (no sound, but I'm sure he was laying on his horn like he claims), idiot backs into him while plaintiff is stopped. Really, only way plaintiff could have avoided collision is by slamming he car into reverse to get out of idiot's way. Ok, don't like either of these guys. Plaintiff is smug and playing up to the audience - but then he knew there was no question he'd win with his slam dunk video. Defendant tried to argue nonsense, then smiled when he realised the video made him out a liar liar pants on fire - no shame at all. Oh no, after being made to look like a fool with how accident happened, now he wants to argue the damage claim. Right after MM questions why plaintiff only has 1 estimate, then says the estimate is reasonable to her, defendant wants to argue that the estimate of the damage he caused to the front of the car is out of line because plaintiff has scratches to the back bumper - oh and he has pictures of the scratched rear end. Oh, and we get the defendant putting on a shocked face when MM rules against him, which has judge yelling "is there anyone in the sound of my voice that is shocked" over her ruling.
3. tenant/landlord dispute: Candi Lauper lookalike tenant loses her case... couldn'the figure out why they sued... BORINGGGG

[AngelaHunter]

Dog bite case: Both plaintiff(looking for a really big boe-nanza) and def are dumb enough at their mature ages to think it's "pleasant" to let all their dogs mingle and tangle their leashes together - a recipe for chaos, IMO. Dogs feel trapped and they lash out. This did happen and plaintiff got a bite on his hand. He didn't bother going to get it checked out anywhere, but claimed against def's insurance and got 1000$ for a bite which cost him nothing to treat. Def. readily admits his dog did bite plaintiff but I guess he foolishly thought the 1K from his insurance would end the whining. Days later plaintiff blacks out and has a car accident. The hospital report mentions "Hyperthyroidism" but still, plaintiff claims that bacteria from the dog bite made him black out so it's all the fault of the def and now he wants 7,000$ from him because his world was tilted on its axis and his life a shambles and his car wrecked from this dog bite, which, if you remember, he saw no need to have even looked at by a doctor. I wonder if plaintiff is a lawyer. If so, he'd be a great friend for our personal in-house shyster, Levin.  Plaintiff gets zippo and he's very indignant in the hall. Why shouldn't def. have to pay for everything plaintiff has suffered and will suffer in the future, well, except that def did nothing WRONG, you little shit. He did the same stupid thing with his dogs as plaintiff did with his. Plaintiff got the worst of it. Too bad, so sad.

Then we had a cartoon character, fake flowers in her pastel hair, giggling and sounding like Betty Boop, who, along with her oily-haired b/f (is oily hair in style right now?)is suing her former landlord for her deposit.  She also has a rather wordy tat written acoss her chest in honor of her deceased cousin because nothing says love like spending lots of money to have ink permanently injected under your skin on a prominent area of your body. Yeah, the giggly stuff was all so cute, until she claims all the bad stuff def is complaining about in the apt was like that when she moved in.  She and b/f made a mess of def's apartment. Plaintiff says marks on the floor were there when she moved in, as was all the terrible mold in the bathroom yet she signed a form stating that the apartment was in fine condition upon move-in.  OH, but - giggle giggle - you can't expect her to know or read anything she signs, can you? Giggle! Ooops, she also signed a form saying that if she painted or altered the place in any way she would be subject to a 500$ penalty. Guess she didn't read that either! The painting looks like it was done by a first-grader, slapped and spilled and dripping all over, plus they started painting the gorgeous dark woodwork white, but lost interest halfway up the door frame so it will all have to be sanded down. It's pretty outrageous, considering both plaintiffs are adults and she's a parent.  I'm not sure why JM went so easy on those two, Plaintiff has a child yet sounds and acts like a child herself. Not cute. At all.

In the fender-bender case, the def was another one who was beyond outrageous. He just backs out of a parking space without bothering to even glance around and hits plaintiff's car which had the right of way. Plaintiff was going too fast! he cries, but oh wait - there'a  video! As soon as skeevy def saw it (plaintiff had come to a complete stop and honked his horn but def plowed into him anyway) he shrugs. Busted. HIs next defense is that the repair bill is too high because he was told, blah blah. By now JM is not listening to this liar and awards plaintiff the amount he was seeking, which - by the way - is miminal as it's impossible to get body damage fixed for under 1000$, generally speaking.

 

ETA: SRTouch, I wrote this as you were writing your recap. I strive to attain your wonderful level of review, but always fall short!

Edited September 27, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Jamoche]

Bumpers are not cheap. They aren't just big hunks of chrome to keep your nice paint job from being dinged anymore, they're complicated first line of defenses against damage to the driver. Somehow I think the oblivious driver expected the other guy to just take a hammer to it like they did when he was young. (See also: why everyone hates the Liberty Mutual bumper "tapper").

 

I knew as soon as I saw her makeup and dye job that her interior decorating skills wouldn't be all that hot.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Jamoche

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

1. Says he had thousands in medical bills, his insurance covered most of the bills, and now he wants defendant to cover his out of pocket expenses. Just a couple little snags - not even counting the whole settlement issue.
2. parking lot bump: time to break out the white board and toy cars. Really, not sure why, since it's he said/he said and we know somebody's lieing. Actually, defendant's version doesn't help his case much. He admits he was backing out of his parking space, but says plaintiff should have seen him and stopped. Uh, who does this guy think has the right of way, here? Oh, that's right, he's one of those who feels the rest of us should automatically grant him right of way. Great look from the judge, after he places the toys where he wants them and tells his story, MM asks "And you think that exonerated you?" As MM starts to get into her incredulous "who do you think had the right of way" the plaintiff pipes up with "I have a video!" (SIDENOTE: plaintiff is head honcho of the condo association, so of course he has full access to the parking lot surveillance camera footage.) Yep, video shows exactly what plaintiff claims - he was driving along, saw idiot backing out, stopped (no sound, but I'm sure he was laying on his horn like he claims), idiot backs into him while plaintiff is stopped. Really, only way plaintiff could have avoided collision is by slamming he car into reverse to get out of idiot's way.
3. tenant/landlord dispute: Candi Lauper lookalike tenant loses her case... couldn'the figure out why they sued... BORINGGGG

Why did the guy keep saying he wanted to reimburse the insurance company?  Who does that?  And his accident was at "1 mph"?  You can't even touch your toe to the accelerator without going at least 5 mph. 

And on what planet does someone backing out ever have the right of way over someone who's coming down the lane?  As much as the driver at the tail end of a wreck is always to blame, even if they're not.  To argue the other side, though, I've come to loathe parking lots even more than I used to, because you can be in a perfect space and when you come out there's a giant SUV on one side and a monster pickup with mag wheels on the other, and pulling out of the space safely turns into a white-knuckle nightmare.  On the subject of white boards, didn't they once use Google maps to show the accident scene?  I would ask why they don't use that technology regularly, as the whiteboard is cheesy and lame and the litigants, much less the viewers, can rarely visualize how the accident actually happened, but then I remember the horrible courtroom set that has never been updated and that this is a Levin production, so there's that.  The video really sealed the deal though; I could see if the defendant was already halfway backing out and the plaintiff roared up like a bat out of hell...but of course that's not what happened.

49 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

I knew as soon as I saw her makeup and dye job that her interior decorating skills wouldn't be all that hot.
 

I think we have a strong competitor to last week's winner of TPC's Worst Dressed contest.  Three toned hair (four if you count the black roots coming in), multiple facial piercings in odd locations, bizarre tattoo word necklace plus black choker and white necklace, see-through black sweater, eyeliner halfway up her face...

Quote

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?

Edited September 27, 2017 by meowmommy

[AZChristian]

16 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Why did the guy keep saying he wanted to reimburse the insurance company?  Who does that?  And his accident was at "1 mph"?  You can't even touch your toe to the accelerator without going at least 5 mph. 

. . . To argue the other side, though, I've come to loathe parking lots even more than I used to, because you can be in a perfect space and when you come out there's a giant SUV on one side and a monster pickup with mag wheels on the other, and pulling out of the space safely turns into a white-knuckle nightmare. 

IF the plaintiff's health insurance company thought that the medical bills were caused by the man passing out because of the dog bite, THEY would file a claim against the defendant's homeowners insurance.  It's called subrogation, and it happens every day in the insurance world.  Mr. Plaintiff was just trying to get more money in his own pocket.

. . . Parking lot phobia is why we almost always do a "pull-through" when we go into retail parking lots so that we are ready to pull forward into the driving lanes.  We try to NEVER back out of a parking place.  We live in a community similar to the one on the video in today's case, but we have assigned parking; there are NO SUVs, vans, or large vehicles on either side of us.  But we are EXTREMELY cautious when we back out.  We're about to move to a place where we have a carport wall on one side and the house wall on the other.  There's not a lot of space from the end of the driveway to the beginning of the house, so we're already discussing whether we should back into the carport.  It's a senior community, and defensive driving (and parking) are a good idea.

[AngelaHunter]

51 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I've come to loathe parking lots even more than I used to, because you can be in a perfect space and when you come out there's a giant SUV on one side and a monster pickup with mag wheels on the other, and pulling out of the space safely turns into a white-knuckle nightmare.

You and me both! Everyone where I live has to have a van/SUV/Jeep as soon as they have one kid to transport. You'd think they had to traverse uncounted miles of tundra every day rather than driving on smooth, paved roads, and it never fails that they all park on either side of me. It's infuriating. Now I try to always get a drive-through parking space, or back in,  to avoid the frustration of backing out one inch at a time.

29 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

IF the plaintiff's health insurance company thought that the medical bills were caused by the man passing out because of the dog bite, THEY would file a claim against the defendant's homeowners insurance.  It's called subrogation, and it happens every day in the insurance world. 

Interesting. Thanks. Agree money-grubbing plaintiff was looking for a lottery and wanted def. to pay for everything bad that happens to him from that day forth., even though he was equally to blame for the original incident.  

[califred]

In Hawaii I'm one of the few people who doesn't back into my spot.  If i can pull through I will.  There aren't a  ton of huge suvs here which is nice.

 

I couldn't believe how astounded the backing out guy was he hit a stationary car.  Nor the audacity of the "dog bite" guy.  

[Eliza422]

WHen I back out of a spot I inch my way out - I have a small car and also routinely am surrounded by giant SUVs.

of course this doesn't help at the mall where my knit group meets and people regularly drive the wrong way down the angled parking rows. I don't get it - they are always unashamed doing it - like the jerk woman in Harvey's crowd who thinks people backing out have right of way.

how has the human race survived???

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, Eliza422 said:

how has the human race survived???

Probably because everything has bigger and more warning labels that keep even the likes of Levin's moronic fan club alive, e.g. on a bottle of bleach: "DO NOT DRINK."

 

10 minutes ago, Eliza422 said:

the jerk woman in Harvey's crowd who thinks people backing out have right of way.

Every day I give thanks for "FF" so I don't have to hear a word from that obnoxious little shit, making himself feel superior by hanging out with the dimmest of the dim.

[teebax]

Now that I'm no longer driving an expensive new car I've decided to let the next asshole who backs out like that to just hit me. I don't know when people started doing that crap, but I'm exasperated by it. They back out and just expect everybody to stop for them.  My new (oldish) car came with a few scratches that don't bother me, but I'd happily let the next jerk who does this repair them. Sorry for the rant. This and people who don't return their shopping carts are two of my pet peeves.

Speaking of unlikable litigants, the dude making a federal case out of a dog bite should pay me for sitting through his nonsensical case. What a tool.

[galaxychaser]

Today's client Patricia.  Woof. The moustache,  the bad bra, the pink shirt.  Oy.  The hair on the way out saw the long fake hair.  The front teased to the ceiling.  

Does she own a mirror?  

And the friend with no benefits.  Lol. 

[SRTouch]

1. almost married couple fight over rent: oh dear, another litigant dressed from the discard bin at clown school... all I can do is look at defendant and shudder. Retired NY cop and 6 year main squeeze break up and are fighting over who should pay the rent. While in NY he paid the rent while she covered the rest. Then she has a job offer in Florida, so they head south. Now, when they move he loses some retirement benefits, so he says they had a new arrangement where everything is split down the middle (both on the leases). Ah, but once they get to Florida the job offer vanishes, so he never pays her share. Right off the bat, defendant is dodging around not answering questions. MM asks what she was doing all day and defendant answered she has a job - but when questioned it comes out that the job is fairly recent, for months she was leaving each day to hang out with great best friend, her witness - the witness tells us in the hallterview that defendant spends all her waking hours at her house. Anyway, dude never put anything in writing, not the original 50/50 split agreement or any requests for back rent.  Which is disastrous for his claim, because the first time he has anything asking for rent is the papers he filed in April. (He tries to say he filed in March, but no, MM has the papers showing the date.) So he has nothing, and she's claiming they had no such agreement, so he was covering the rent as you would expect in a 6 year relationship when one of the couple is out of work. Don't like either side... I get the feeling he's playing with the facts to get revenge for the break up. Then she's also playing fast and loose with the truth... oh, like she claims he pushed her and came after her with a hammer, she was "afraid for her life," so called the cops - oh, but she still lives there rent free. Anyway, decides for the defendant. Hope defendant ends up living with her best friend... rent free, of course.
2. Housekeeper referral fail: case seems pretty easy, since they have a written contract. Plaintiff wants a live-in housekeeper/cook, so signs a contract with referral company she finds on the internet. The defendant owns/runs the referral agency. They get paid $650 to send applicants for interviews, and once an applicant is hired they guarentee the applicant will be acceptable. Ah, but it's not a money back guarentee. Once someone is hired, they guarentee they will work out for at least 90 days. If not, they will find attempt to find a replacement within the 90 days.. note that they will "attempt" to find someone, not guarentee they will, and there is a time limit and a limit on the number of people they have to send to be interviewed. So, first person us hired, but then fired because she's a slow worker and lousy dishwasher. So, a replacement us found, but fired after a single day. Next up, another person found, interviewed, and supposed to start work... but this time the employee fires the employer - deciding she didn't like her after the interview and never actually starting the job. This upsets the plaintiff, who decides she really doesn't want to use defendant's agency anymore and wants her money back. Altogether, the agency found three workers the plaintiff agreed to give a chance, fired two of them and the third quit. In addition, they brought in a half dozen other potential employees that plaintiff met with, and other schedule interviews were canceled by one side or the other. All this took time and effort by the agency, and then plaintiff wants to back out 2 weeks shy of the 3 month contract - and wants back the money. Now, plaintiff is getting selective memory loss and I'm hearing a lot of hesitancy as she tries to choose her words to avoid outright lies the defendant can disprove. Defendant has her calender that shows names, dates and times.  MM asks how many people agency brought in to be interviewed, and is told, no, not what defendant claims, maybe three, maybe two, but more than one... uh, is that even an answer. Yep, as I said from the get go - simple case. Defendant was hired to find candidates for the job, and contract guaranteed to provide candidates, not a satisfactory employee. Case dismissed. Ah, well, plaintiff eventually found someone, just not from this agency...
3. traffic smash up: plaintiff says he was driving along, needed to change lanes, and defendant sped up to keep him from changing lanes... oh and he says he has a dash cam so can prove his case. Not sure what the camera could show that would prove his case, since far as I know you have to wait til it's safe to change lanes, and if the car's collided it must not have been safe. Cops were called, insurance companies did investigations, only one who thinks she was at fault is plaintiff. I had to struggle to stay awake as this guy, who must be disabled as he sat through the case and has a cane, was talking... I swear he reminds me of I teacher I used to have - spoke in a monotone, never looked at the class as he sat writing on an overhead projector. Course, he can't use the toy cars and whiteboard, but it balances out with his dashcam. Defendant does her time playing with the cars, then we watch the video. Uh, not sure what he thinks the video shows, but I see it as dude changing lanes and hitting defendant. Course, all we see is straight ahead, but it was dark, and from her headlights I bet she was in his blindspot. Her lane was moving faster than his - reason for his lane change, so she was passing on his right as he pulls into her lane. Once again, a litigant's best evidence is presented by the guy on the other side of the aisle. Then, dude tries to argue what our eyes are seeing, even as MM goes slo-mo and freeze frame. Not that the video is needed, since his insurance already determined he was at fault and paid her damages... no all the video does is show how some folks see what they expect to see. He's still arguing after MM tells him his evidence helps her, not him. Not wanting to admit he's wrong about the video, he switches to still photos... nope, no matter what everyone else sees and/or concludes, in his mind he's right and everyone else just isn't seeing straight. 

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

almost married couple fight over rent: oh dear, another litigant dressed from the discard bin at clown school... all I can do is look at defendant and shudder.

You weren't the only one. She had a free ride and is still riding it (although MM ruled that starting in June, she has to pay rent unless she has moved out), while the plaintiff was a bit vindictive in trying to rewrite their accepted practice of the past years; I understand that he feels like a patsy for moving and losing some of his pension benefits all based on a job that never materialised for her, and then having to foot the bill for everything. However, it's his own fault for not trying to enforce earlier the 50/50 split earlier and implicitely accepting his role as sole payer.

Housekeeper referral fail: The plaintiff wanted to apply an "obligation of results" principle to an "obligation of means" contract; if it had been the former the fee would probably have been higher. Like many other litigants, she wanted to pay less for much more. She's not the only person who confuses the two types of agreements; there have been people arguing that their lawyer was legally obligated to get them an acquittal (I doubt there are many lawyers foolish enough to make such a guarantee).

She also seems like a very nitpicky and difficult person to work for; I am no surprised that at least one potential housekeeper declined even a trial run after the initial interview.

traffic smash up: The only interesting aspect of this case was the unshakeable obdurateness of the plaintiff in the face of visual proof he himself provided.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Florinaldo

[AZChristian]

Plaintiff in the first case looked like Captain Kirk from the old Star Trek show.  Defendant's hair looked like Lieutenant Uhura.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

traffic smash up: The only interesting aspect of this case was the unshakeable obdurateness of the plaintiff in the face of visual proof he himself provided.

Plus the ridiculous plaintiff CROSSED A SOLID WHITE LINE to change lanes.  No can do.

[SRTouch]

14 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Plus the ridiculous plaintiff CROSSED A SOLID WHITE LINE to change lanes.  No can do.

Other thing - good for defendant for NOT jerking her wheel to the right when blockhead hit her. Had she actually run up onto the sidewalk as he claimed (where did that come from, anyway) that pedestrian could have been hit - instead she stayed in her lane, but as far to the right as she could go... maybe that's why we tell kids to walk facing traffic

Edited September 28, 2017 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Plus the ridiculous plaintiff CROSSED A SOLID WHITE LINE to change lanes.  No can do.

I was curious as to why no one in the courtroom pointed it out; I started to wonder if in their state a solid line means something different than here in Canada, something like" you can cross it only if you ascertain that there is no one in the other lane for at least 10 car lengths behind you". All the US states I am familiar with, traffic rules are the same as here on that aspect, i.e. Do Not Cross except to make way to emergency vehicles or other rare exceptions. Thanks for clearing that up.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Plus the ridiculous plaintiff CROSSED A SOLID WHITE LINE to change lanes.  No can do.

Came here to mention exactly that. Plaintiff just sailed over the solid line as though it didn't exist.  I guess JM didn't need to bother pointing that out, since plaintiff was so very VERY wrong. Peter, are you kidding us? Your own dashcam was the perfect evidence that you totally screwed up. Still, nothing could convince him that the accident was his fault. This is why I hate driving these days. So many stupid clueless drivers on the road. You have to wonder how Peter survived this long with knowing nothing about the rules of the road.

I enjoyed the housekeeper case because it was a refreshing change from the usual crap.  Poor plaintiff. She got a housekeeper who not only didn't chop the garlic really fast, but took the time to put grease on the plates and cutlery (she must have, since I'm sure they didn't have grease on them when she took them out of the cabinet, right? Am I missing something?) before serving dinner. Bad housekeeper! Bad! Honestly, I probably wouldn't want to work for her either.

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Plaintiff in the first case looked like Captain Kirk from the old Star Trek show.  Defendant's hair looked like Lieutenant Uhura.

Bwahaha! Actually, plaintiff reminded me of our former no-neck Hall Clown, only with even less neck. Seriously, he had to turn his whole body to look to the side. Let's hope he never needs a neck brace because there's no place to put one. Def looked like his mom, only with one of the wildest, huge-est wigs we've ever seen here. She has no problem continuing to sponge off someone who may or may not have planned to attack her with a hammer. After listening to this case, I wanted to go after her with a hammer myself.

[SRTouch]

1. brown couch turned pink: plaintiffs hired dude to clean their stinky old brown couch (anybody else think of the commercial where big dog comes in and sits on couch). Dude admits the couch turned it pink (strange, as it was actually two couches, same manufacturer, color, fabric, everything, but only one changed color) - says he took the couch to his place to try to figure out what went wrong and offered a complete refund, only to have plaintiff file this suit and accused him of stealing the couch. Plaintiffs want over $3500 for the dirty old couch, and defendant says they owe him a couple grand in lost business and for storing the pink couch... uh, the same couch they accuse him of stealing? Ok, after the preview clip where defendant gets admonished for speaking out of turn ("this is NOT a spectator sport where you get to yell out!") I notice right away when MM asks defendant's witness if the conversation plaintiff described happened, loudmouth defendant answers instead of the guy who was there talking to the customer. Hmmm, from the testimony so far I don't think loudmouth was even present when the conversation took place. Actually, so far everything sounds pretty reasonable. Plaintiff well spoken, and his testimony makes defendant out to be perfectly reasonable. Ah, then it happens, big mouth opens up his mouth and tosses out a comment that plaintiff's testimony is "WRONG" and MM jumps on him with both feet. Not sure why she reacted quite so strongly, pretty minimal shout-out compared to some... maybe she can see what those tiny pix are on dude's tie - I can't make them out on my TV  (I really NEED me a 70" TV - maybe I can find someone to "gift" me one, or I'll have to wait til I get my tax check). Ah, I guess things turned bad when defendant wanted to take the couch back to the store (since he said he would end up paying for it through his insurance) and plaintiff didn't want to let him take it until he got the money. 'nother "ah," when defendant shows up to pick up the couch, painters are in the house and the couch was out in the open garage. Plaintiff is saying he told dude he couldn't have the couch until the money issue was settled. Time to hear more from defendant... again, obvious that MM knows more than we do, cuz she's all over his lame excuse for taking the couch. He says he collected the couch for "evidence" and so he could contact the manufacturer. So.... he collected the couch, and has had it in storage ever since (and wants plaintiff to pay storage fees). Like I said, at first this guy was making all the right noises, but man, when he starts down the slippery slope he really goes downhill fast. Plaintiffs have receipts showing price and the fact that couch was only about 6 months old. And, again, as MM is talking to plaintiff about receipt and age of couch, loudmouth loses control and is spouting off. So, MM reverses field, and goes back to defendant (you know it's going to be good, as her volume is rising). She asks if he knew he ruined the couch. At the same his witness, who actually did the work, says yes, loudmouth says no. Now loudmouth is just out there, as he spins a theory with no supporting evidence. Now he's claiming it wasn't anything his guy did, because nothing on his truck could cause the damage, no, it HAS TO BE some cleaning agent plaintiff used which bleached the couch before they called in a professional to fix their botched DUI job. Uh, going with that for a second, why didn't his technician notice that the couch was bleached, and then, when he left after cleaning the furniture say it would be OK after it dried. (Does anyone think these plaintiffs look like DYI'ers?) Now that witness has been reminded of boss man's position, he changes his earlier answer that he ruined the couch to it must have been something plaintiff did. Then we find out WHY defendant went from cooperative and willing to go through his insurance to denying everything. See, he DID put a claim to his insurance... it was denied... then he told plaintiff to put in a claim to his insurance... and of course plaintiffs have the letter from the company saying they had already denied the original claim. Now for the best part... as MM starts to lecture him for the audacity of suing for a storage, he gets lippy again, and says he can deliver the couch to MM if she wants it. More excited lecture, and MM asks if he's  "for real!?!" And yayhoo answers, "absolutely!" MM, sarcastically, "I could listen to you all day long" D "Awesome." Rough justice time, switch gears and start going over the dollar amount of the claim... yep yep things looking good... what's this $800 attorney's fees? Whose your attorney? Plaintiff wife sheepishly raises her hand... nah, scratch the almost grand of attorney's fee. Then, once loudmouth gets to Doug, he tells us the judge doesn't understand the implications of the case - everything plaintiffs said was a lie. Ok, here's another best part of the case... when Doug says he can't go over the whole case in the hallterview, dude turns around and lowers his chin so we can see the two eyes he's got tattooed on his big bald head. All Doug can say is "how 'bout that!" (Uh, how many "best parts" is that?) Guy is so obnoxious he's almost funny... well... he'd be funny after the first six pack.
2. teen manages to hit three parked cars - two belonging to plaintiff (oops!): ok, not a racer, just dumb teen driving like a dumb teen (not sure about his defense, though... says he was knocked out after hitting the first car and being smacked in the face by the air bag, then mean plaintiff came out cussing him out.) (SIDENOTE: not a big fan if multicolor hair, but for the second time recently a litigant actually looks kind of nice - talking about the plaintiff teen in blue. Doesn't quite have the confidence yet to pull it off, as she doesn't look comfortable in the head down posture and heels.) Pretty simple please case, dude admits fault, just feels plaintiffs are overreaching and should be satisfied with what his insurance has already paid. Hmmm, may have a point, too, as plaintiffs are after thousands. And... found it irritating that plaintiff began his rehearsed statement with "As I said in the beginning...." dude, this is the beginning, those are the first words we're hearing come out of your mouth.... ah, ya know MM is gonna just love this good looking 17yo, looks all cute when he admits to be "a little" terrified to be in her court and is oh so sorry. We get to see the pictures and hear about how terrible the kid felt as he admits it was his fault. Sounds like three different accidents, as the two litigants contradicts each other on some minor points, and the intro must have been from some of the completely different scene. Still not sure what the case is about if the kid had insurance. The parts they disagree with each other on is how they reacted at the scene... that's understandable as both admit to be stressed out and not really sure how they were acting. Ah, the case appears to be because teen driver had really crappy insurance with a liability limit of ten grand. So despite there being no question of fault, plaintiff is out way, way, more than what his insurance covered (and remember, plaintiffs' 2 cars weren't the only damage, kid still has another parked car and his own car to pay for... just lucky he and his passenger were relatively injured). Real reason the case is here is because the crappy insurance didn't make the plaintiff whole, and the kid and his mom didn't have the money.
3. landlord/tenant fight over security: plaintiff rented a room off craigslist for a couple years... left couple years ago for an out of state job... now that he's gone and statue of limitations is running out he's suing for wrongfully withheld security. Ok, soon as defendant starts I figure he just didn't have the money to give, and plaintiff will win. His defense is that the agreement required 2 month notice rather than 30 days... course it was in writing, he just doesn't have it. Even after MM tells him his 60 day notice isn't going to fly, he keeps up with his rehearsed statement about that's why he gets to keep the money. Ok, if that isn't enough to lose, plaintiff has all these texts where defendant promises to return the money when he gets it. Yep, promises to send the money, apologies for not sending it, never a mention of not giving a 60 day notice. Ah, I've  been missing it... losing defendant utters those famous words... "it is what it is."

Edited September 29, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

This was a red-letter day. We had no litigants who murdered the English language, had any "physical altercations", went to jail, "found out" they were pregnant, had warrants, were sponging off the taxpayers or were on parole for drugs or domestic violence. Wow. Colour me impressed.

However, the smarmy, arrogant, smart-mouthed little pig in the sofa-cleaning ep needed a good thrashing. Yeah, I'm sure the plaintiffs were dousing their nearly-new furniture in hydrogen peroxide. They seemed just the type to do that. He was going to pay for the furniture, or he was going to call the manufacturer to see what happened, or he wanted to give a credit, but  - well, he did none of those. He took the sofas without permission and paid not one penny because plantiff had the gall to complain about his now-missing and ruined sofas. How dare he? JM was fascinated with this kind of chutzpah. The ironic part is that pudgy, smirking def says that plaintiff hurt his business by bad-mouthing him, when the fact is that his appearance here and his attiude did more to hurt his business than could anything anyone else could say about him. If Elmer Fudd and Burl Ives had a love child...

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

teen manages to hit three parked cars - two belonging to plaintiff (oops!): 

Maybe it's just me, but again we see MM being harsher to plaintiffs - who were totally innocent parties who did nothing wrong yet had TWO of their cars destroyed - than to def, who destroyed the property, just because he's a teenager and she has a soft spot for teens? Boy def says plaintiff used a bad word. Oooh! "That's not very nice," says JM. Well, I dunno - if I was heading for bed, heard an explosion and found my nearly-new/leased car smashed to bits by some kid I might be a little irrational myself. Anyway, JM is exceedingly nice to def, who is SO sorry, but words are cheap and sorry doesn't pay the plaintiffs for their time and stress and energy and money spent because the kid and his Mommy think he's old enough to drive, yet he panics for no reason, doesn't know which way to turn the steering wheel and can't remember which is the gas pedal and which the brake. If it were up to me, no one under the age of 21 would be driving without an older, licensed driver in the car. Kids just don't get the concept of consequences, which is normal, but can be dire when they're given full control of a vehicle.

Mommies and Daddies - stop giving your baby boys cars to go play with. From what I see these days, 17 is the new 12. The only slightly positive thing that may result from this fiasco is maybe the kid learned a lesson.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ah, ya know MM is gonna jyst love this good looking 17yo, looks all cute when he admits to be "a little" terrified to be in her court.

Yeah, I'm sure that "Gee, golly gosh, aw, shucks M'am" act has gotten him out of trouble before and for sure his Mommy believes anything he tells her. I could be totally wrong, but I bet he's nothing like the wide-eyed innocent cutie we saw here when he's hanging with his friends. Okay, I'm biased against teenaged boys and I'm an awful, horrible, gumpy old person.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

landlord/tenant fight over security: 

In spite of the plaintiff's douche-tastic man bun and the lying, "It is what it is" def, it was still nice to finish the show having not heard a single, "Had went/came," recitations of fistfights, or "We was." Very nice, indeed!

[SRTouch]

22 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Mommies and Daddies - stop giving your baby boys cars to go play with. From what I see these days, 17 is the new 12. The only slightly positive thing that may result from this fiasco is maybe the kid learned a lesson.

Yeah, I'm sure that "Gee, golly gosh, aw, shucks M'am" act has gotten him out of trouble before and for sure his Mommy believes anything he tells her. I could be totally wrong, but I bet he's nothing like the wide-eyed innocent cutie we saw here when he's hanging with his friends. Okay, I'm biased against teenaged boys and I'm an awful, horrible, gumpy old person.

As a grumpy old guy who was once upon a smart ass teen boy driver just let me add to the Mommies and Daddies out there, don't let your kids drive around at midnight with some 17yo boy driver... heck, don't let your own little angel drive with a group of kids... every added kid lowers the IQ of the driver..

Edited September 29, 2017 by SRTouch

[Jamoche]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

maybe she can see what those tiny pix are on dude's tie

Looney Tunes characters. In the halterview I could see Wile E Coyote and Taz as the top two figures. If that's the only tie he owns, he'd be better off tieless.

[SRTouch]

6 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

Looney Tunes characters. In the halterview I could see Wile E Coyote and Taz as the top two figures. If that's the only tie he owns, he'd be better off tieless.

But it went so nicely with his old blue jeans  ?

[shksabelle]

Did Morticia and her daughter get a BOGO at the hair salon?

[meowmommy]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ah, then it happens, big mouth opens up his mouth and tosses out a comment that plaintiff's testimony is "WRONG" and MM jumps on him with both feet. Not sure why she reacted quite so strongly, pretty minimal shout-out compared to some...

"Wrong!"  Reminded me instantly of last year's presidential debate, and maybe MM had the same reaction.

 

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

when Doug says he can't go over the whole case in the hallterview, dude turns around and lowers his chin so we can see the two eyes he's got tattooed on his big bald head.

I'm going to have nightmares.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yeah, I'm sure that "Gee, golly gosh, aw, shucks M'am" act has gotten him out of trouble before and for sure his Mommy believes anything he tells her. I could be totally wrong, but I bet he's nothing like the wide-eyed innocent cutie we saw here when he's hanging with his friends. Okay, I'm biased against teenaged boys and I'm an awful, horrible, gumpy old person.

I just wanted to reach through the screen and throttle him.  I didn't believe a word that came out of his mouth about how sorry he was, and I was pissed that he was able to bamboozle MM.  If he says it's his fault and he's sorry, then why did he not just pay what he owes instead of waiting to be sued.  And why did MM consider attorney's fees in the couch case reasonable until it turned out the wife was the lawyer, but not in this case where the plaintiff needed legal advice to respond to another attorney?

[AngelaHunter]

52 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

If he says it's his fault and he's sorry, then why did he not just pay what he owes instead of waiting to be sued. 

Yeah, does he think plaintiff can take his million phony "Sorrys" to the bank? He should have shut up, gotten a job and at least started paying what he owes and his mommy should have seen to it he did. 17 year olds can't even get up in the morning by themselves, they can't watch adult movies or order a beer and yet they're allowed to drive cars that can wreak havoc and mass fatalities. I've never understood that.

 

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ah, then it happens, big mouth opens up his mouth and tosses out a comment that plaintiff's testimony is "WRONG" and MM jumps on him with both feet. Not sure why she reacted quite so strongly, pretty minimal shout-out compared to some...

I think it was the insolent attitude rolling off him in even waves before he opened his big mouth, coupled with the obnoxious "WRONG!" that got him such a smack-down, worse than had he merely butted in with a "That's incorrect" or even the occasional (and always hilarious) "I object!"

[aemom]

On 23/09/2017 at 2:27 PM, Brattinella said:

Seriously, no one else thinks that cooking and cleaning the house 3 times a week, plus LIVING THERE and/or sleeping with him, would cost a BOATLOAD more than 600 bucks??  DO y'all really think that is a fair deal?? 

He seemed like a charming old man if not somewhat naive,  and she, well she was rather frightening on several levels. 

However this appeared to be a deal that was not very sketched out and MM really should have asked the following questions:

"Were you going to pay the monthly bill for the phone if she cooked / cleaned / and spent time with you indefinitely? "

"How much cleaning and cooking and time must she spend with you?"

"Did you just give her the phone and she was supposed to sign up for her own plan?"

While I think that the defendant probably wasn't going to hold up her end of the bargain, especially since she had no ID on her to confirm her birthday,  I didn't really like that MM just kind of assumed that the deal was fair and ruled against her and never tried to figure out the details. She usually tries harder to make sure that the users are indeed just using people. I never got the impression that rent was included in this deal.

 

The pot guy, I felt bad for him and she really seemed like a piece of work. I think he got lucky that the marriage ended so quickly,  because I could only imagine how spiteful she'd be if children were involved. 

[AngelaHunter]

37 minutes ago, AEMom said:

The pot guy, I felt bad for him and she really seemed like a piece of work. I think he got lucky that the marriage ended so quickly,  because I could only imagine how spiteful she'd be if children were involved. 

Who thinks she dumped him because he got sick, needed surgery and "attention"?,  She didn't look like any Florence Nightingale to me and I can't picture her changing bandages, carrying urinals or serving breakfast in bed.

[aemom]

The bail bond story was horrifying.  That old man could not have been a bigger sucker.  I really hope that Mona is gone and that the daughter keeps a better eye on her father.  The defendant's fiancé is an imbecile and deserves whatever bullshit she has to put up with from the defendant in the future.  If being on the show and hearing this whole story is not a wake up call, then nothing ever will be.

 

On 9/27/2017 at 11:24 AM, TresGatos said:

Probably being abused herself and, quite often, when the Mom is being abused she takes it out on the only people around more helpless than she. At least that's been my experience although I would never in a million years, under any circumstance, ask to borrow money from one of my (ex) stepfathers.

I think that there was something to the abuse in this case, because when the camera immediately panned over to him, there was absolutely no indignation or shock whatsoever that registered on his face when she made that claim.

 

The guy who bought the 99 Chevy Lumina could not get it through his thick skull that AS IS means AS IS.  One case of these after another on TPC and the plaintiff never, ever wins.  Why are people allowed to even file these court cases?  There should be a rule about clogging the courts with these stupid 2nd hand car cases.  As MM likes to say: "Sometimes the cheap winds up the expensive."  If you're going to buy a 2nd hand car, get it checked out first.  If you're too cheap to do that, and the car is a lemon, then shame on you, and suck it up buttercup.

[momtoall]

Yes angelahunter, these litigants did speak "proper" English but some of them were sneakier/slimmer than the litigants who speak "improperly".  That "oh-so-sorry" teen was full of it, the furniture guy was an ass, the bad wig lady was a total user.  Good grammar or not they were no different than what we usually see on TPC.  Just a little easier on the ears.  LOL

Edited September 30, 2017 by momtoall
Spelling

[Florinaldo]

21 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I just wanted to reach through the screen and throttle him. 

To me he just came across as another of the many exemples of teens (and sometimes adults) we see on these shows who seem to have found a regular strategy to get out of trouble; like the girls acting cutesy and giggly, the flower-child, the confused dolt with a good heart, the "my-weak woman-brain-can't-handle-such-weighty-matters" pleadings, etc. It seems to work for a lot of them in their lives and I am sure there are a lot of people ready to fall for their act and forgive a fresh-scrubbed kid or a princess needing protection for example. He was no better but certainly no worse than the general standard of behaviour from similar litigants.

I think SRTouch hit it on the head with the explanation that the real problem was that they had crappy insurance coverage and it could not reimburse plaintiff for all of the damage.

The couch-napper seemed to consider himself an honorary member of some CSI team, which gave him the right to take property he does not own "for evidence" and then charge for storage, while making an unfounded hypothesis as to the cause of the color change (no evidence needed there, of course). He was making the rules (and the law) as he went along to suit himself. I wonder if his dumb attitude was perhaps encouraged by the production team to make for better TV. I am sure they give briefings to litigants and can "suggest" some elements to bring up; they must have picked up on his basic foundation of natural dickiness and could have encouraged him to play it up. Litigants have to earn their keep after all since the judgments come from the show's kitty.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Florinaldo