SRTouch October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 43 minutes ago, mk04447 said: Really? This must be one of her worst and most egregious decisions I've seen. That poor guy simply wasn't articulate enough to defend himself, he should have never been ordered to repay the mother. The guy has an obligation to pay child support, not his ex-wife's rent. Why would he pay twice? You seem to be caught up emotion, like the judge, and cannot seem to think clearly. Paying the ex-wife is perfectly logical, he wanted credit for the payment in regards to his arrears; he didn't care about her apartment and shouldn't, that's simply what she needed the child support for. The dirtbag here is the daughter, clearly the mom had reservations about giving the money directly to her, the ex-wife should repay the mother. The guy needs a lawyer, or a better one. Terrible case and worse decision. Hmmmm well, of course there is a lot more to the divorce than we saw in 20 minutes... the loving couple have been divorced for awhile now and are still in and out of courts squabbling. Since daughter/ex wife was not in court we don't know much about her...she may be a deadbeat who is playing at being a stay at home mom and refusing to get out and get a job, instead relying on alimony, child support, and Byrd's big pockets to survive. We know nothing about her, whether she works or not... and really why should we, she's already in and court all the time with Carlo, and isn't a litigant here. Doesn't really matter much, Carlo is the stereotypical deadbeat dad who owes enough in back support that his ex could pay her $2100 rent in advance for 6 months and still have money left over to put to the arrears... right, he owed almost 15 grand when they went to court the previous Wednesday and family court demanded he pay 10 grand. But, of course TPC case was not about child support - despite MM spending 15 minutes of the 20 minutes case talking about it. No, it was about plaintiff loaning HIM $2100. From everything we heard, the loan was to HIM, and it was clear that he was to repay the PLAINTIFF, not his ex wife. Maybe he did give $2100 to his ex - we don't know, but if he did I missed any evidence he did... doesn't matter a bit to me, he knew he was to pay the plaintiff, and she is still waiting (well, guess not anymore, TPC paid her, so he skates again on his obligations.) If he DOES have proof he gave ex $2100, let him prove that in family court... maybe they'll credit that towards the thousands he owes. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 17 minutes ago, teebax said: Don't you just hate when women get all emotional and insist men pay for their children's support? Clearly she's menopausal and hysterical, ranting about how a man should have to feed his own children. Why, if poor guy weren't so inarticulate, he could have come up with an acceptable reason, I'm sure. Speaking of "dirtbags"... 6 Link to comment
mk04447 October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: califred said: Or the new wife. Calling the ex a "dirtbag" makes me think that may be the case.;) Neither actually, just had a few minutes and that was a shit decision legally. Link to comment
DoctorK October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 After all the teasing with the preview of the guy getting thrown out by JM, I missed all but the first minute or so today. Was it as good as it looked in the previews? 1 Link to comment
Broderbits October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 23 minutes ago, DoctorK said: After all the teasing with the preview of the guy getting thrown out by JM, I missed all but the first minute or so today. Was it as good as it looked in the previews? He was an obnoxious moron who told the judge he considered her a joke, and he had this weird "shoulder-flicking" thing that must be some kind of in joke that I didn't understand. It reminded me of Howard Stern fans and that word they try to sneak into on-air conversations. Plus, Levin said the guy's fly was open for much of the case. Classy. 1 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 14 minutes ago, DoctorK said: After all the teasing with the preview of the guy getting thrown out by JM, I missed all but the first minute or so today. Was it as good as it looked in the previews? Yes... and no. Well, I'll qualify that by saying that if you're not eating while watching, then yes, it's probably good although plaintiff obviously has some mental problems and whose room looked those I used to see on "Hoarders." JM throwing out the def was excellent. He was so unbearable and such a little wiseass, bitchy a-hole that she said, "Get the hell out of my courtroom!" She detested him from the start, with good reason. If that obnoxious little irritant hasn't had the shit beaten out of him by someone by now, I just know it's going to happen sooner or later and no one will have deserved it more. Even his goofball-looking buddy was trying to shut him up in the hall. Oh, and he's a liar too. Gee, you invite total strangers to come live with you because you can't get a place you can pay for yourself, and expect nothing bad to ever come of that? Funny thing, but after this case I decided to listen to Levin for the first time in years, stupidly thinking he might have something interesting to add, and what do I hear? "Oooh, don't know if you all noticed but that guy had his fly open the whole time!" No, Levin. I did not notice that. It must just be you who zeros in stuff like that. Well, that's it for listening to the blabbermouth, dirtbag shyster for another five years. Well, for everyone who hates "I bought an old car and it has problems so I want my money back" might want to skip that case here. Plaintiff bought a car with 120,000 miles on it four years ago, and now she wants ALL her money back since she figures she's paid much more in interest and repairs than the car is worth. This is not some 18 year old kid, but a 27-year old mother and this is what she really thinks she's entitled to . She doesn't relaly remember or have proof of anything she's saying, because it was so long ago, but trust her - she deserves her money back. Oh, and she's had the car repo'd three times in the years she's had it. Woman with the broken industrial mixer was mildly interesting, but I don't feel like going into it, since the only part I found noteworthy is that she wants def. to pay her 5,000$ even though the used machine cost her 3200$. She gets 250$ since she doesn't bother finding out what it would actually cost to fix, and she gives the mandatory "Wowwwww" at the end, because she thinks she should get the whole 5K of course. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 (edited) Odd Couple +1: but this Oscar Madison had two roomies. hey, this is the case they've been showing clips of where MM goes off on dude! Intro paints plaintiff as the ultimate slob, complete with left over food left out for his six legged pets, stinky laundry left scattered around, etc. The two other roomies have the gall to enter his private space to collect his garbage in attempts to mitigate the stench and roach problem, then give up and lock him out. So, he's here charging an illegal eviction, and he wants back his security and pre-paid rent. Hmmm, ok, he might have a case... I might choose to toss out the bum if he were my roomie, but I would expect I might have to pay a penalty for the pleasure of seeing the last of him. The two roomies, defendants, argue they had the right to lock him out because of extreme nastiness, in fact they spent a lot more than what he paid to make his room fit for a new roomie. Ok, getting in to the case, Oscar has a month to month agreement, but says he was to pay first and last two months to month in, total of $2400, $800 monthly. Dude claims that two weeks after moving in Carlos (Felix #1 in this scenario and the guy who collected to rent from all the roomies to give to landlord) started texting him complaining about the condition in his room, and says Felix flips out when Oscar ignores the texts. (Ah, second dude standing at defendant table is NOT Felix #2, he's here as a witness... so why isn't he sitting down?) So, Oscar passes up pictures of how he lived in his room, and paper copies of the texts (of course MM asks for and gets the phone so she can snoop through ALL the texts in the proper context). Ok, his pictures are worthless... get could be living in the middle of a dump, clean it up a little and snap a few pix, then let it descend back to chaos. Ah, but Felix has pictures of the natural chaotic state - not only a mess, but left over food (lots of left over food) out to feed any passing rodent or roach. (Oh, and MM zooms in to show a skillet of left over fried chicken - so, hey, at least he wasn't eating all fast food... wait, maybe fast food would have been better as not as many leftovers and easier to toss out the trash.) Now Oscar brings out the silly "it wasn't me! Carlos must have snuck in and trashed my room when I wasn't there!" Sounds pretty pathetic, but then Carlos DID collect $2400 for a $800 a month room and then lock Dude out after a couple weeks. Then it goes from pathetic defense to silly, when Oscar finally stops yakking and looks at Felix' picture, he glances at the pic denies it ever looked like that, Carlos, must have staged it for court (of course that means he trashed the room, took the pictures, then cleaned up). Hmmm, maybe Carlos really wanted that $2400. But... really doesn't matter in the case - nah, case is about Felix locking Oscar out in the middle of the month after he had paid rent, and then keeping over two months of prepaid rent money. The still standing witness for the defense really should hit the mute button on old Carlos. When MM starts reading the texts and asking Carlos where he gets off threatening to toss Felix's crap a half hour after texting him to clean his room, Carlos starts running his month, interrupting and talking over MM. MM tells him to be quiet, then when he keeps yakking she looks to Douglas and tells him to find the off button and press it, because she's about to lose it. Nah, can't lose it yet, still another 5 minutes alloted. Maybe Carlos knows he's going to lose, but wants to heap ultimate humiliation on Oscar while he has the chance. Yep, when Carlos tells him to get out that night, he says he didn't really expect Oscar to leave THAT night, but Oscar went back to mommy and daddy's basement. Ah, now we hear Carlos' new defense (guess when he saw his first line of defense being blown out of the water it was time for plan b) - I returned the prepaid rent in cash. Sort of hits MM's pause button, as she looks down for a second to take in this development, then she starts reading his sworn statement aloud. Oh boy, I predict a major eruption of PO'ed judge as MM gets all soft voiced and calm acting at this new - never mentioned before - defense. Oh, yeah, this is when I finally realize it's the case we've been seeing where MM has a hissy fit and kicks dude out.... "do you think this a joke?... do you think it's a joke!"... "yes"... "get the hell out of my courtroom"... anyway, after commercial no more defendant and Oscar gets his money, but also a lecture on hygiene. Out to Doug, where Felix and witness are waiting so they get a little more air time. Doug, "how do you feel after being given kicked out?" Carlos, "I feel great." More arrogant yakity yak, until even witness has enough and nudges him trying to get him to shut up. When Oscar comes out Doug asks about the "staged" picture.... hey, seemed silly when he said it before, but now I'm ready to believe Carlos might well have staged it. Oh, and I happened to hear a bit of Harvey between cases... Harvey points out that Carlos' had his fly open from the time he walked in... yeah, oh the horror - and I suppose meant as ultimate disrespect - I went back and checked, he walks in showing off black undies and still open during hallterview - now I think Carlos staged it. repairman disaster: plaintiff runs a bakery out of her home. When her commercial mixer breaks down, she hires defendant (medically retired industrial mechanic) to fix it. He takes it apart, but can't get it to work. Now plaintiff wants back what she paid him, money for lost business, probably a new mixer, pain and suffering, and who knows what all... anyway, she wants the 5 grand max. Hey, this is sort of different, no dogs, deadbeat parents, etc. Ah, but a classic case of someone trying to cheap out and ending up having to pay in the end. Don't know what model, but I gather she paid $3,500 a couple years ago for this used Hobart countertop(?) Mixer. Ok, depending on model and condition, some of those things runs into BIG money and pretty much last forever. So, when it breaks down she tries to get it fixed first for $100 by this retired dude. Retired dude doesn't really know this machine, no repair or parts manual, but he takes it apart and diagnoses the problem. Next problem, these things ain't small, takes two people to move it around, so he's working on it there in the kitchen, and it will take a couple weeks for him to get the needed parts. He says he leaves it carefully disassembled, all the parts in order according to when he took them off, and told baker lady not to move the parts. Ah, but this is a working kitchen, so she boxes the parts up and gets them out of the way - oh and she says he didn't tell her not to move the parts. He gets the part in, but now he's not sure how you put it back together since the parts have been moved. He takes the parts he's having trouble reassembling to a friend, but friend tells him parts are missing. Back to the kichen, can't find the missing parts. 2 or 3 months pass with the mixer at dude's house (in pieces) and baker lady finally shows up, demands her machine, planning to take it to someone who actually works on these things for some living. Ah, but inept tinker has now list even more parts when she collects her mixer, and dude can't even remember what they are. Ok, total mess up, but what's the judge to do. Baker lady knew this guy was out of work "TINKERER" who wasn't familiar with this equipment... she was only going to pay him $100 - but never did since he didn't do the work... guy doesn't really to BE paid, he may have spent time on it, but it's in worse shape now than before... oh, and baker never actually took it to find out what a REAL repair shop will charge. Ah, rough justice time... defendant admits he lost parts, even if he doesn't know what the parts were... MM awards plaintiff a couple hundred bucks - remember she wanted 5 grand... and she says Wow ? crooked car dealer: hoboy, at least this isn't one of those as is sales where buyer expects a lifetime warranty... but if the intro is right this case makes even less sense. Plaintiff wants 3 grand because she claims the car she purchased had been in a wreck and totaled, so it's against the law for a dealer to sell it. Defendant says, hold on, she bought the car 4 years ago and never came to him with any problems. huh, where has she been for 4 years? Ah, she's not trying to undo the deal, she says she's spent 3 grand over the 4 years on repairs on the car, which she claims was sold illegally, so that's what she's seeking, the repair money. So, 4 years ago she bought this 2008 Altima with over 120,000 miles. Yeah, bought the old beater - actually had to get financing - and then, after buying the car takes it to a mechanic. Yep, may have taken her awhile to find her way to court, but same old crap... new to buying a car - just had a baby and looking for reliable transportation - car cost to much - evil dealer didn't provide her with a carfax (even though she did NOT request one) etc... anyway when she took the car to a mechanic after the purchase the mechanic that her she paid to much... says she tried to undo the deal two days later, but dealer told her a deal is a deal, her car now. Yep, paper shuffle, with when did she buy the car, when did mechanic say it was no good (heck, no paper there, just flapping gums about what mechanic saI'd way back when). So, two days after the purchase she goes back, dealer gives her a loaner and asks his mechanic if it's as bad as her mechanic claimed. She takes the car, but claims she made many trips back and forth because of problems... ah, there actually was a point to the paper shuffle. Her contract gives her a 7 day grace period where she could go back and undo the deal. Ok, now her claim makes more sense. If she can prove she went back within 7 days she might just have a case - but alas, yet another litigant who figures MM is just going to take what is said as gospel, no need for evidence. And of course when asked, defendant denies the story of multiple returns with problems - and no request for money back within the 7 day window. Oh, and girl bought and used a 3rd party warranty.... hmmm what is she suing for again. Oh, yeah, she figures she should get money because she paid too much, oh, and this over priced car has been repo'ed numerous times.... like i said in the beginning, even worse than idiots who expect an as is sale to cone with a bumper to bumper warranty. This girl had some hallway smart moves - the 7 day money back clause in the contract, the warranty, etc... but then doesn't check the car fax and KBB on her phone before signing, then expects MM to award her money 4 years after the fact... well, waste of time, but at least a short case. Edited October 21, 2017 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Intro paints plaintiff as the ultimate slob, complete with left over food left out for his six legged pets, stinky laundry left scattered around, etc. Bwahahaha!!! JM was shocked at the whole plate of rotting chicken sitting around and I believe the laundry went beyond the "stinky" (I was eating and trying not to let too much penetrate my consciousness) stage, but still I blame def. If he can't afford to live in this large house - I guess he wants people to think he's successful or something - then tuff for him. Who does he think he is, ordering his tenant out "right now"? Edited October 20, 2017 by AngelaHunter Edited for the usual reason: Too much wine 5 Link to comment
AZChristian October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 (edited) On 10/20/2017 at 2:42 PM, SRTouch said: Harvey points out that Carlos' had his fly open from the time he walked in... yeah, I went back and checked, walks in showing off black undies and still open during hallterview - I think Carlos staged it. Hadn't thought about that when Harvey mentioned it, but given your description, I think you're right. What a disrespectful jerk. If he had been in "real" court, he might have gotten a fine and a night in jail for contempt of court. Bet those black undies would have been a big hit there. Edited October 21, 2017 by AZChristian Typo! 4 Link to comment
seacliffsal October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 I think Carlos sees himself as a special snowflake who can lock someone out of the apartment while keeping two and a half month's rent (and, took advantage of someone who seems to have some type of impairment). He can also be disrespectful to a judge and believe that he will be a "star." I really wish that JM had somehow been able to grant pain and suffering or triple damages to the plaintiff. You know you're out of line when the person you brought with you (and did the 'dismissive' hand motion with you when entering the courtroom) tells you to stop talking. 5 Link to comment
meowmommy October 21, 2017 Share October 21, 2017 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Edited 1 hour ago by AngelaHunter. Reason: Edited for the usual reason: Too much wine Hee hee! 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Oh, yeah, she figures she should get money because she paid too much, oh, and this over priced car has been repo'ed numerous times. I don't think she understood that on most car loans, you're upside down as soon as you drive off the lot, due to depreciation, but especially with longer term loans. So when you go to sell the car or have it totaled, you may possibly owe money on a car you no longer own. 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo October 21, 2017 Share October 21, 2017 On 19/10/2017 at 3:26 PM, SRTouch said: dead beat dad/son in law: None of the litigants came off well in my view. Defendant was obviously a deadbeat who cannot keep up with child support payments to the tune of many thousands of dollars. On the other hand, mother in law appeared to be overly involved in the whole situation and rather resentful; she said in the hallterview that there were no obstacles to him visiting his kids but she came across as completely insincere and pleased with sticking it to him on that point. I thought she was vindictive by proxy. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Odd Couple +1: Defendant was perhaps playing up the obnoxious side of his personality just to make a memorable impression he could then brag about; predictably, MM took the bait. On the other hand, plaintiff gave off a rather unwholesome vibe on sight and I would never have agreed to share a flat with him; I have no trouble believing that his room was an unhealthy mess that had an impact on the rest of the apartment. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: crooked car dealer: Plaintiff seemed to be complelety incapable of understanding that financing does indeed add charges to the price of a car, on top of the maintenance costs you can expect on any car, new or used. Was she playing dumb or is she really so thick that she cannot grasp that those are responsibilities any car buyer takes on personally? 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 21, 2017 Share October 21, 2017 28 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: I have no trouble believing that his room was an unhealthy mess that had an impact on the rest of the apartment. Oh, I believe (and did so even before seeing the pics) that his lair was in a condition that would give a hyena the dry heaves, but whose fault is that? Inviting strangers into your home, something I cannot imagine doing, is a gamble and sometimes you lose. 30 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Was she playing dumb or is she really so thick that she cannot grasp that those are responsibilities any car buyer takes on personally? After listening to the whole case, I must reluctantly conclude that it's the latter. Thick she was. I love the way we've seen so many women on this show wailing, "I was pregnant" or "I had a baby" as though that should release them from any and all obligations they took on - as though strangers who are in business should lose money because THEY don't know how to use birth control. Welcome to the real world, ladies. Get knocked up, that's your choice and your problem. 4 Link to comment
PrincessPurrsALot October 21, 2017 Share October 21, 2017 Judgers, Remember the Be Civil rule stands even when others don't follow it. If you feel someone is trolling, please report, don't engage. PPAL 2 Link to comment
teebax October 21, 2017 Share October 21, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, Broderbits said: He was an obnoxious moron who told the judge he considered her a joke, and he had this weird "shoulder-flicking" thing that must be some kind of in joke that I didn't understand. It reminded me of Howard Stern fans and that word they try to sneak into on-air conversations. Plus, Levin said the guy's fly was open for much of the case. Classy. I needed a shower after that case. The plaintiff was gross, and the defendant was slimy. His hallterview was disturbing. Who behaves like that? Edited October 21, 2017 by teebax 6 Link to comment
SRTouch October 23, 2017 Share October 23, 2017 (edited) rerun from last month - really, if we're going to have reruns they need to be more than a couple months old... with these I remembered enough after five minutes to know I thought they were duds the first time. Only thing worth watching is the byplay between MM and Douglas (around minute 49 on my DVR) when she kicks his coffee that he hid behind the bench. Can't buy her love: this is one of those sad cases where someone showers a stranger with loans/gifts, then sues when it doesn't end up in a relationship. They met riding the bus, she's bummed because it's her birthday and she has no money or anyone to celebrate with. He ends up buying her KFC, and they start hanging together. He's got a part time job at Home Depot and is drawing disability... she's applying for disability and he helps her fill out paperwork... buying her stuff, cooking her dinner, hanging and watching movies - but he says not dating. She has a death in the family, doesn't have the money to go to the funeral, so he borrows money to send her to Virgina. Ok, this takes us to about five minutes into the case, but I'm skipping ahead cause this dude is pathetic, and defendant has no shame, smirking and laughing about how she got him to pay for stuff. I zip to next case. iirc, pathetic dude claims to have been into medical research in his previous life before he went on disability, but I don't even last far enough into the case to find out what he claims to have cured. Dude loses his case, then comes out and tells Doug he agrees with the decision. out of state landscapers: ok, father/son own and operate a landscaping business. Long time customers, an elderly couple die, and their out of state kids have them continue to maintain the yard until they decide what they're going to do with the place. I watched even less of this case. As I remember, after the season is over out of staters claim they canceled mid way through the mowing season, and that landscapers didn't do the work, so shouldn't be paid. Seem to remember when asked who was mowing the property if not the plaintiff, defendant tries to claim it was the neighbors... ah, but plaintiff mowed the neighbors' yards. Yayhoos on both side are here with minimal evidence, but plaintiffs win in the end. car accident: ok, yet another yawn fest. Here one side is claiming the police report blames the other guy, while other guy claims insurance investigation clearly says first guy caused the accident. Yep, he said - he said case, with both sides bending the investigations to say what they want to hear. Ok, lots going on at the intersection where they collided. Plaintiff is an older guy, and he has trouble making sense of the board and toy cars, jumping the median with defendant's car to tune into his. Plaintiff is one claiming police report said he was in the right... nah, police report just relates what the two drivers said, no tickets issued because no way to assign blame. Ah, even after MM reads the police report aloud, plaintiff keeps insisting it clearly says defendant was at fault - but he's the only one who hears it that way... hey, at least he isn't showing a video where he's to blame that he's insisting shows it was the other driver's fault. Same thing with defendant's counterclaim.... he's maintaining that since his insurance paid for the damage to his car and wouldn't pay for the plaintiff, they decided plaintiff was at fault... nah, they decided no way to determine fault so they don't have to pay. Waste of time.... too bad defendant didn't bring in his dogs - after all they were in the car so saw the collision - and I always like to see cute puppies. Total waste of time, nobody gets anything. Edited October 23, 2017 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 24, 2017 Share October 24, 2017 (edited) yep, 'nother rerun just a tad over a month old. Carlos, the repeat dress maker litigant: IIRC, after this first ran in Sept several folks recognized the defendant as someone who has been a defendant in the past. I remember his strange outfit and hair from the first time around. In this case, he was supposed to make a dress for plaintiff's to wear to a black tie event. She hated the results, and is here suing for return of everything she paid, plus the cost of the dress she bought to replace his dress. Like that's going to happen. These are not my kind of cases, so I FF before they finishing Carlos' intro. Oh yeah, this is the case where MM sends plaintiff out to change into dress made by Carlos, and she comes back looking like Aunt Jemima.... at least partly because of her unfortunate selection of a dorag instead of a wig... FF again... she loses, partly because when she tried on the dress and didn't like it she never let Carlos attempt to address her issues with the dress... sure, that's her right, but you have to give the guy a chance to make it right before you demand a refund. Tenant case: this is the plaintiff who was renting a room from the defendant, asked about her Canadian bf moving in, and things went in the crapper. Defendant is one of those folks renting a room who have no idea of what the heck the rules are. Ok, tenant trying to change the rental agreement by moving in another person, you can say no, but you CAN'T wait til they're out of town and change the freeking locks. Oh, and when plaintiff gets back to town and can't get in, she calls the cops... anybody ever see/hear cops knock on a door when they think someone is inside ignoring them - out comes the maglite, and BOOM BOOM BOOM - neighbors are waking up and looking out to see what's happening... and this defendant says she slept through it. Anyway, when plaintiff can't get in she ends up at a motel. Ok, not just the landlord/defendant who doesn't know the rules for renting a place - plaintiff/tenant also marching to a her own drummer. Seems after three months she wasn't all that happy living there, so she invents a conditional notice to vacate and only pays half the rent, saying if the landlord corrects the things she doesn't like she pay the rest of the rent and stay, otherwise she'll pay the second half of the rent on the 15th and be gone at the end of the month. So, as MM points out, that means landlord may not be able to pay HER rent. Soooo, nobody knows their obligations under this rental agreement... though at one point plaintiff tries to school MM on Florida rental laws. Anyway, this one is another one too fresh in my mind to watch the whole thing. Both sides are in the wrong, but landlord is the worst since she locked out the tenant... oh, and in Florida an illegal lockout results in a penalty of three months rent, so defendant is the big loser. contractor wants to be paid: arghhhh, like I said yesterday, if they're gonna show us reruns, show something that wasn't on last month! This is the contractor who did a lot of work for the defendants (totalling almost 30 grand), but totally botched the grout in a bathroom. Dude admits his guy botched the job, makes numerous attempts to slap a bandaid on it, but never gets it right. Heck, it apparently took him multiple do overs before he realized the shower corners had not been done with silcone, almost guaranteeing cracks and leaks. (Homeowners show some pictures of the problem - no question not good work.) Homeowners withhold a couple thousand from the final payment hoping he'll fix the problem, but end up hiring someone else to finish the job. Unlike the first case today, these customers DID let the guy attempt to fix his goof, he just didn't. Oh, and when MM asks contractor why she should make homeowners pay for the crappy job, he spouts a lot of nonsense about how the people were initially happy... uh, yeah, the complaint is that after a few days the grout discolored, so they may have LOVED it right up til the time it changed color and they HATED it - and that doesn't even address the silicone in the corner issue. Contractor dude DOES get something, since homeowners withheld $2200 and they got the second guy to fix it for less - so he gets $550. Ah, but this is one of those times I wouldn't have minded seeing dude have to pay a penalty for his crappy job. I mean, his repeated failures dragged out the time homeowners were inconvenienced by major reno going on in their bathroom. OTOH I get that homeowners resorted to self help when they withheld more than it cost to rectify the problem. Edited October 25, 2017 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 25, 2017 Share October 25, 2017 Nother rerun from the recent past which I have running in the background, but not watching. Ah, but good news... NEW EPISODE TOMORROW according to the DVR 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 25, 2017 Share October 25, 2017 I don't know why they show such recent repeats. I'd like to rewatch something from 5+ years ago, but oh, well. However, today's rerun ep with the kooky little mope of a plaintiff (who took a lot of time to explain why a car is a necessity of life on Long Island where I guess public transportation is unheard of) and bought four (or two, who knows? Of course he had no proof or paperwork) old beater cars for the def after they got reacquainted on - what else? - FB was just as baffling this time around. I think what boggles my mind most is that a doctor has the def, a hard-looking, cud-chewing, poorly spoken, rough broad ("broad" is the only word that truly suits her)with hideous 70s go-go hair as the first person patients see when entering his/her office. Were I a patient I might turn around right there, thinking that if THIS is all he can afford to hire he must be a crappy doctor. Funny, I made the mistake of hooking up with a few high school classmates on FB once. What a mistake that was, and I stopped it pretty damned quick, but not once did any of them offer to buy cars for me. After all, a car is a necessity where I live. What am I doing wrong? 4 Link to comment
Silver Raven October 26, 2017 Share October 26, 2017 Quote I don't know why they show such recent repeats. I'd like to rewatch something from 5+ years ago, but oh, well. The morning reruns show theyr'e showing has caught up to 2014, so they apparently don't have very many early reruns to show. 1 Link to comment
teebax October 26, 2017 Share October 26, 2017 10 hours ago, Silver Raven said: The morning reruns show theyr'e showing has caught up to 2014, so they apparently don't have very many early reruns to show. Hasn't this incarnation been around for at least a decade? Link to comment
SRTouch October 26, 2017 Share October 26, 2017 (edited) Ok, got my coffee, tablet in hand, two kitties on the recliner to help with the recap, and... a new episode videographer - volunteer or professional: ok, simple contracts case, but of course no contract or meeting of the minds... or maybe somebody is lying through their teeth. Plaintiff claims he was hired to shoot video for defendant's little independent short. Defendant claims she was producer, director, etc, but had no budget... says guy volunteered and all she promised was to feed him during shooting. As usual, MM asks plaintiff to state his case... ah, but he's starts off kind of monotone and boring, so she turns to defendant and asks her what her film was about.... whoa, she was standing there all calm and everything, then it's ACTION and she becomes animated - arms waving, looking off into space, etc - and starts talking a mile a minute. Oh dear, hope they can find the "off" button... I know, just yell CUT! OK, as soon as she says dude volunteered to work on her project on FB MM cuts in and asks if anyone has the FB posts... no, but plaintiff has a multitude of texts, both printed (6 pages, he says) and on his phone. He says they verbally agreed he was to be paid $500, and that in his texts she agrees she owes him the money. And, of course MM points out that it sure would have been nice if anyone had thought to write out a simple contract. Doesn't take long for MM to start shooting holes in dude's testimony. He tells us they met through FB... he takes the job for $500... he starts listing all his qualifications and the hats he was to wear for the project (cinematographer, lighting, post production editor, find locations, on and on). So, MM asks, why if you have all these qualifications, did you agree to work for $500? Ah, says dude, it was because they were friends. Hold on, says da judge, you just said you were strangers who met on FB, you were hired and agreed to work for $500, then became friendly after being hired.... something wrong with your timeline, here. Ok, he backs off on the "I was doing it for a friend." Now, he says this is how he supports himself, and the truth is this was to be a 20 minute short, so... not much work, he was willing to invest a few hours for a $500 paycheck. Yep, that makes sense... time for MM to look through the phone (course she could have done that without spending time asking questions - but if what he says is there the case would be over by now). Hoboy, when MM starts reading she asks defendant when they started the project, and it's off to the races... this lady would be a natural at auctioneer school if she could only learn to stay on track and yakity yak about WTH the subject is. Ok, CUT, MM has had time to wade through the texts and is ready to asks questions. The reason dude wanted her to just read the highlighted printed version was in hopes we wouldn't hear how childish these two pretentious idiots were when thing fell apart. Yeah, his version has them talking about $500... but no dates so we have no idea if that was before or after he was hired/volunteered. Ah, but the biggy is he provides evidence in the text that he threatens to withhold all or part of the film until she pays him. And, her response sure doesn't sound like they had any prior agreement. Now we get to missing messages he claims were promises to pay him.... hmmm why would he keep all that embarrassing crap and not the very important "I'll pay you $500 to work on my project" messages. Hmmm, "if it doesn't make sense it's probably not true." So, he doesn't have those messages, but does have a check she stopped payment on. Ok, writing a check you plan on stopping is wrong, but dude was holding her film hostage at that point, so I could forgive her (as long as I don't have to listen to her). Arghhhh, no, MM is letting her talk ? Ok, by now things had gotten pretty contentious. She sends him a $250 and they agree to a meeting where she'll get to view what he's been working on... and stops payment and is a no show at the meeting. Hmmm, I don't know which of these two I dislike most. I don't believe him when he says they had a $500 agreement before he started work, but I also don't believe he would do it without thinking he'd be paid. Then he pulls the little hostage tape gambit - not cool dude. He offers a settlement, she agrees and starts to abide by the settlement by sending him a check, then she changes her mind, stops payment on the check and doesn't show for the post production meeting. MM decides it's time to rule, and she's going to make defendant abide by the $500 settlement agreement, but dude has to give her all the footage... ah but we hear muttering too low to make out (and CC doesn't print it). Whatever it was (from context I gather he's complaining he didn't get to yap enough about his pain and suffering claim on a contracts case). Ah, we have a couple minutes to spare, so time for mini rant... then get out - that's it. He gets $500, she gets the film, nobody's happy - perfect ending. NOTE: when the case ends in realize big mouth defendant reminds me of Carol Channing Painter wants to be paid for his tool: plaintiff does maintenance in defendant's building, and is supposed to paint lady's place. After a day of work, he leaves his tools, including a paint sprayer (ah, one of those maintenance jobs where worker supplies the tools - been there, done that). When he comes back the next day her dog has chewed up his paint gun. He says lady promised to pay for the thing, he completed the job, but when he went back she slammed the door in his face when he asked for money for a replacement. Defendant says she warned dude not to leave his tools there, not her fault he didn't listen. So, dude is out of luck, lady refuses to pay and his boss doesn't supply his tools. Ah, dude is starting off wrong. Says his co-worker asked if it was okay to leave their tools overnight, and lady said it was fine... but dude didn't bring co-worker as a witness, no affidavit, just hearsay and lady says it she never said any such thing. No doubt his stuff was chewed up - he brought the damaged thing to court, but can he prove she had any obligation to safeguard his stuff... especially as he knew she had a dog, since he purchased a puppy from her (argh, 'nother reason to dislike defendant, she not only refuses to at least offer to help pay for guy's property when she knows her dog did the deed, she slams the door in his face when he comes to ask her to pay, now we learn she's a dog breeder.) Ah, but when she gets to answer, doesn't take long before I start losing any sympathy for dude. Biggy is dude didn't just leave his tools overnight and is back bright and early next day to go back to work.... no, dude left his stuff in lady's apartment for three days... no worries says dude, she has kennel, so I guess she was supposed to crate her dogs for three days! Anybody else hope he no longer has that puppy? Then lady says when he and his compadre went to lunch, they came back late smelling like a brewery. Ah, if lady can prove he left Monday and didn't return until Thursday I'm ready to dismiss (and I'd fire his ass if I were his boss) - doesn't help dude's case when camera pans over and his eyes are half shut - is dude stoned? Guess that's all beside the point, without the co-worker dude has nada to show lady gave permission to leave his stuff there for longer than his lunch hour (which she says was more like 3 hours)... she has no liability for his damaged crap, and even if she did she wouldn't be paying replacement costs. I was kind of curious about the damage claim anyway, since the quick look we saw looked like a damaged hose - I wonder if he couldn't just order a hose off the internet for way under $149. Quicky case, bye bye dude, you proved nothing, you get nothing. When he gets out to Doug, he says he's gonna just refile, he wants a new sprayer! plaintiff suing her ex over loans: ok, these type cases are quickly turning into my least favorite - well after those I just don't watch like dog attack/breeder cases. Here we have a woman who showers thousands on blank faced dude with dreads, and when they break up she sues. (And again, second droopy eyed dude in a row... does TPC have a green room where they smoke a blunt before coming out.) Ok, just to be fair, not always the sad women trying to buy affection, we've seen more than enough sad sack guys - like the dude I didn't watch yesterday who was a serial car buyer for rough looking broad. So, same old sad pitiful losers, just different faces... let's see how long I last before giving up on these dummies. Ok, here's a difference. MM asks plaintiff why the TV and laptop she bought male gold digger cost so much? Ah, RENT TO OWN joint, where you only pay 25$ a month for the next gazillion months, where your $500 TV ends up costing $1500. (Ok, this 50" smart tv cost more than $500, but you get the picture... dummies paying way too much buying crap on credit they don'the really need in the first place.) Ok..... once MM turns to Douglas and asks how many times bf/gf gift/loan cases they've seen, that convinces me they'll filling time on a dud... FF is my friend, and I zip forward. Ah, I stop when I see smiley dude talking... appears he's a trucker, and every time he took a 2-3 day run out of town she'd cheat on him. Ok, at least he has a job, but raises that question again - why the heck did he need a 50" smart tv if he's on the road half the time. He says he stayed with her as long as he did because he's not the jealous type... nope, I think he likes those "gifts" she buys on credit more than any self respect he might possess.... zip zip... I stop when I see Douglas bringing up sonething. Ah, the contracts and payment plan (yep, the rent to own stuff ended up in collections). Ah, girl is either trying to pull a fast one, or has lost evidence of half her damages, as her payment plan is only for $1700 and she says she owes over 4 grand. Not smart, and has MM asking if she's trying to scam TPC... like I said, not smart in small claims when the judge has to make a snap judgement based in no small part on credibility... not sure, since I zipped through alot, but any chance of plaintiff getting anything is out the window when MM decides she doesn't believe her - case dismissed. Edited October 27, 2017 by SRTouch 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 26, 2017 Share October 26, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: videographer - volunteer or professional: Two complete whack-jobs. Plaintiff is a big-time operator/film producer who graduated blah blah, except he's not. He's trying to make a few bucks under the table (since it seems he's disabled) by drumming up business on FB. Makes sense he doesn't want anything in writing. Under the table is a no-no. He became instant good buddies with the crazy def. so he was doing his new best friend a favour by lending his amazing talent to her for $500. Def is beyond nutty. Not once during this trial did she ever look at JM, IIRC. But maybe the giant false eyelashes prevented her from raising her eyeballs that high. JM is, in spite of all the lunacy, deciding in favour of the plaintiff when he starts muttering that he wasn't given any opportunity to speak. Oh, we heard way more from him than we needed to! The fool isn't happy with his 500$ and wants punitive damages. Sorry, "Hun" but you're out of luck. Now take your wee entourage and buzz off. Oh, and def is such a liar when she said she was terrified to go to his place. I"m pretty sure she could take him two falls out of three 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: plaintiff suing her ex over loans: ok, these type cases are quickly turning into my least favorite Ugh. Ugh. Rent to own electronics! How I wish I were in that business. So many fools willing to pay 1000$ for a 300$ computer, so little time. I didn't finish this because it made me want to rush off to the bath and the violently murdered English made my ears hurt, but litigants wuzn't datin', they wuz just screwing (Ah, young love! The sweetness of romance brings a tear to my eye) and as long as she "got some" she didn't mind taking on debts for his necessities of life, like a 50" Smart TV, because anything anyone offers, he'll take it! BTW, HE has full custody of two kids? I shudder to think of what the baby momma is like if he's judged the more appropriate parent. I stopped there. Enough is enough. 5 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz October 27, 2017 Share October 27, 2017 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: ah but we hear muttering too low to make out (and CC doesn't print it). He said (and I quote) " Wow. I don't even get to talk." What an ass... I bet he did hold her footage hostage. I might have paid to try to get my hands on it. He strikes me as someone who might suddenly have a "technical issue" and lose the footage if things didn't go his way. They were both so strange. 4 Link to comment
aemom October 27, 2017 Share October 27, 2017 I haven't been commenting lately since I'm so far behind, but I wanted to comment on the woman who's tire fell off. In Quebec, we must put winter tires on our cars, and I've heard of this happening to two people. My friend was drving home late at night from the airport when it happened. It's very dangerous. Interestingly, my husband bought new tires from Costco this spring. He had to come back within 2 days or 25 (I think?) kilometers (whichever came first) to re inspect the tires - presumably for this very reason. 4 Link to comment
seacliffsal October 27, 2017 Share October 27, 2017 On today's episode a 22 year-old single mother essentially gave almost $5000 to someone she knew for about two months. Over $1000 to pay tickets and get the boot off of his car, and $3400 for a ring that was in reality an engagement ring that he gave to someone else (she kept trying to convince JM that she thought he was buying it for his mother). The end result is Kay Jewelers took back the ring and the defendant has to buy the rest of the monies. However, I think the plaintiff should have lost something as she just kept spending and using credit for someone after only a month of a two month relationship. Not that I want a horrible consequence for people who have been taken advantage of by others, but I do think she is partly responsible for being so quick to give out her money (and in reality it may have been 'our money' [or Byrd's had she appeared on JJ instead of JM]). 1 5 Link to comment
Silver Raven October 27, 2017 Share October 27, 2017 2 hours ago, AEMom said: I haven't been commenting lately since I'm so far behind, but I wanted to comment on the woman who's tire fell off. In Quebec, we must put winter tires on our cars, and I've heard of this happening to two people. My friend was drving home late at night from the airport when it happened. It's very dangerous. Interestingly, my husband bought new tires from Costco this spring. He had to come back within 2 days or 25 (I think?) kilometers (whichever came first) to re inspect the tires - presumably for this very reason. Please don't tell me that, I just got four new tires yesterday. :) 1 1 Link to comment
SRTouch October 27, 2017 Share October 27, 2017 (edited) yet another silly woman chasing a loser, throwing money at him: was it just yesterday when I said this was my new least favorite type of case. Here we have a couple postal co-workers. They carpool, and start dating. After about a month dude can't drive anymore cuz the city slaps a boot on his car because of overdue traffic fines. What's a girl to do? Can't have her man without a car, so she pay hundreds for his fines to get him on the road... no doubt on credit. Ah, but wait, then the car, which he bought from some mechanic dude, gets repo'ed... course he says not his fault, it was repo'ed because it had a lien from a previous owner. Again, what's a girl to do? Why, of course let the dude who had almost a grand in unpaid traffic fines start driving her car. Anyway, come Mother's Day, they head to the jewelry store to get gifts for respective mommas. She picks out a nice $800 pair of ear rings for her mommy... meanwhile he's over looking at rings with a salesperson. He picks out what is clearly, even to me, an engagement ring, but our foolish plaintiff insists she thought he was buying it for his momma.... oh, and the ring is $3700... oh oh, but he doesn't have the money, so she puts everything on her credit card... uh, did I get that right - these are postal workers? How much does the post office pay nowadays? Must be quite a bit, since dude has a $1500 counterclaim for missing work to come to court today. Anyway, like I said, girl insists she thought the ring was for his momma... but I think everybody figures she thought it would end up on her finger. Next week, when it's time to go to work, he takes her car while she has to scramble to get to work - see he needed a car to get his out of hock, but was too busy to give her a ride to work in HER OWN FREEKING CAR. And, not to forget, she's letting bozo with numerous unpaid traffic violations drive her car. After thinking it over, she gets a little peeved, and wants her car back... ah, but he's too busy to bring it, so she hitches a ride to go get it. Let me back up for a minute here. Plaintiff is not unattractive, but has no self esteem - maybe cuz she's gap toothed and sort of mush mouth. Dude, now he looks like a real catch - sort of gym rat, clean cut, pearly white teeth, stands posturing to show his muscle bound guns in his tight shirt. MM asks WHY are you throwing money at this guy you only dated a couple months? Silly plaintiff says just look at him! Yep, quite the catch, and she figures all the women want to steal him away. Sooooo... when she gets her car back, she notices he made a call from the car's hands free phone. She calls the number, and asks the girl who answers how she knows Raymond, the dude she expects to slide that ring on her finger (though she denies that, expecting us to believe she thought dude bought his mommy an engagement ring). DAMNED CALL HISTORY! Plaintiff calls the unfamiliar number, and girl not only says good old Raymond is now her fiance, she sends a picture of momma's ring on her, the Raymond stealing trollop's finger. Course, she whips a u'ey and heads straight back to dude's place to have a screaming match in the street. Now she's here, seeking the almost 5 grand she put on her card for dude. Ok, all that was from her, she could be a lunatic stalker nut job... let's hear from Raymond. Nah, let's not... this dude is getting by on looks alone, not an active braincell in la cabeza. When MM starts asking him all he does is look down, smile big with the pearly whites and then look up with puppy eyes. ZIP ZIP, the remote is the way to watch these cases. I stop in time to hear dude's engagement was short - seems the fiance wasn't happy to learn her ring was being paid for by another girl. MM asks where the ring is... well, Raymond didn't have the brain power to figure out the ring he's being sued for should be brought to court. MM tells him TPC is going to make sure he gets a ride home so they can puck up the ring and give it back to the dummy plaintiff. End result - girl gets back the money she spent on Raymond... Raymond has to start looking for a new meal ticket... oh and gets nothing for missing work. daughter suing momma's landlord: momma lived in place for 8 years, but when she died daughter took over her affairs. Now she's in court suing over the deposit, actually seeking double because landlord not only didn't return the deposit, but failed to send the required itemized accounting of why it was being kept. Landlord claims mom caused damages exceeding amount of deposit, and also owed back rent. And of course, now that she's being sued, landlady wants a couple grand for those damages not cover by the deposit. Ok, this time we start with defendant... tenant lived there for 8 years, always receiving help covering the rent by a nonprofit (rent was over a thousand, while tenant's portion varied, but around two hundred). Landlady says some back rent started accumulating years ago... not sure if she can claim back rent going back 6 years if she never made demands to be paid. Ah, but now she claims she and the tenant agreed to take the shortage out of the deposit, and just not replace that money since lady was on a fixed income. Ok, I could see that... but is there something in writing... yes, yes there is, and plaintiff admits she knows her mom acknowledged that $500 of the $1500 deposit was used in back rent... oh, MM is not happy with plaintiff suing for the full deposit, actually, double, despite knowing the landlady only kept a $1000 of the deposit. Ah, things are looking up for landlady. What makes it sad is that landlady worked with momma, accepting $500 off the deposit even though she thought mom owed more... but since daughter sued, she not wants everything she thinks was owed. Ok, MM goes through what damages landlady claims, but not sure it will matter if she was required to send an accounting within 30 days and failed to do so. Really, pretty much everything landlady is claiming sounds like normal wear... well, not mom changing the color of the paint, but after 8 years the place would need paint anyway. It never helps when landlord wants to be paid cleaning fees but doesn't have pictures... it really shoots you in the a$$ when tenant side has video, showing things looking - well not good, but not bad either after 8 years (in fact the "not good" stuff are maintenance problems landlord should have fixed while tenant was there). Ok, big portion of the security is being eaten away. The starting point should be $1000 not the original $1500, there was at least one month of rent not paid at the end, plus a late fee which plaintiff admits is on her. So, the $1000 is dropped to $600. Now, before it gets doubled, the judge hearing the case has to decide landlord had no basis for believing landlord had a right to the money. Nope, not this time.... landlady's own evidence backfires when she charges tenant with things which her ServicePro says were her fault, not the tenant's. Not sure after hearing the ruling whether landlady failed to provide an accounting within 30 days or not - not going back to look, but could have been something from the intro and never actually part of the case. auto shopshop fail: plaintiff claims he got in an accident shortly after picking up his vehicle because shop sent him out with faulty breaks. Hmmmm, maybe so, but he'll need to prove the shop messed up. I mean, not one of those I took it in for a radiator leak and he failed to pull the wheels to find it need a brake job... ah, not exactly that in this one. Intro for defendant says guy brought in his old clunker for brakes, but ignored mechanic's recommendation that additional work was needed. Three days later guy is back, saying go ahead and do the recommended work because he had been in an accident. Later on, dude decides to sue, I guess claiming the shop shouldn't have released his vehicle if they felt he needed work done. Can you imagine the mess if mechanics had the right to pull vehicles off the road every time an owner failed to do recommended repairs - not even counting dishonest mechanics inventing problems and holding cars hostage. Anyway, same old thing, only way to place the blame on shop is if dude can prove they messed up... can't be coincidence or the 20yo car part wearing out, they gave to have screwed up. Dude needs an expert witness... maybe the girl I took to be a wife or gf is actually Marisa Tomei's Cousin Vinny character (didn't care much for the movie, but loved her on the stand and have been known to FF through the movie just for her part). Ok, some yakking back and forth, shop owner acknowledges that the problem was in the brake antilock system. Says there's about a 10% chance of the work they did caused the problem, which is why he offered to do the repair at cost. Dude says he wanted a second opinion, so he took the car without doing the repair... why, I don't know. I mean according to what I'm hearing, he and his family are long time customers of the shop... how many trusted mechanics does this guy use. Anyway, sort of the perfect storm set of circumstances results in the accident. Traffic going slow because of weather and wet road, dude's anti lock sensor screwed up, he tries to stop and wrecks. Dude is trying to explain away his decision to drive away without the needed repair but nothing he's saying helps. Ah, the brakes felt "soft," in his opinion nothing they did should have affected the antilock system, etc... all I'm thinking is if he felt they screwed up the car, why did he go back to have them complete the recommended repair after the accident. Ok, MM has a few minutes to make plaintiff look foolish, then she tosses the case. One question not resolved during testimony..... whose jacket was plaintiff wearing? I decided it was probably an old jacket he hadn't worn in awhile... he kept trying to button the thing that he had outgrown a few years ago. Edited October 28, 2017 by SRTouch 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 27, 2017 Share October 27, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: yet anothere silly woman chasing a loser, throwing money at him: Oh, I hate these cases. JM is just as disgusted as we are listening to this never ending garbage. I swear I could feel my brain cells imploding, and not just over the garbled, fractured English. "He has lots of women. Just look at him." Okay, I did and I'm pretty sure I saw just what JM did - a homely, very short, uneducated, brokeass, no-credit loser who could eat a frickin' apple through a picket fence. OH, but he makes 1,000$/day, right? Be still my heart. Yeah, like - what woman wouldn't shower him with money, pay for his booted car, go to the "jer store" with him and buy him a 3,000$ engagement ring as a gift for his mommy - ooops, I mean so he could be Mr.BigShot for another pitiful fool who found him irresistable? Ladies reading this: Did you ever meet a guy and start bankrolling him and paying his parking tickets one month later? I really need to know if this is something recent or the usual thing. Anyway, good luck to plaintiff getting that ring back and retrieving even a fraction of its worth. Too bad, so sad for you. Doug gave Lovah Boy a tough time in the hall. Heh. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: daughter suing momma's landlord: The daughter - the hair, the eyes, the freaky nails, the cleavage... all had me wondering if she had just come from her job at the strip joint or was heading there after this case. Anyway, was def trying to pin the blame on incorrectly installed boilers (or whatever) on the plaintiff's mom, when she herself submits evidence to prove someone else did it? She should have just paid the security back, because today she had to pay double. Well, SHE didn't have to pay it but I hope it was worth it to her to be made to look so silly. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: auto shopshop fail: What a little nerd the plaintiff was, with his nerdy doppleganger girlfriend (or maybe it was his twin sister) trailing behind him. Yeah, who ever expects that something might break on a 20 year old POS car that probably should have been hauled off to the car graveyard ages ago. Oh, but def. mechanic must have done something to it because 20 year old parts can't wear out. I really liked the defs and believed them. 3 Link to comment
AZChristian October 27, 2017 Share October 27, 2017 We just finished cleaning out our former home - a rental - yesterday. You bet your sweet bippy that I took pictures of every room, showing how immaculate it was left. And on Monday, we will be there for the formal walk-through, and I plan to take pictures and/or videos throughout that process. Our security deposit was actually pretty low, considering the nice place where we were . . . but I still want every penny back. 1 6 Link to comment
WhitneyWhit October 28, 2017 Share October 28, 2017 We've had a lot of stupid women on this show, but today we had their Queen. I don't which scenario is worse, her buying the ring thinking it was actually for his mom, or buying it in hopes that he was going to give it to her. 1 6 Link to comment
momtoall October 28, 2017 Share October 28, 2017 At least it was her money/credit, not ours or Bryd's. 1 2 Link to comment
AKA...CJ86 October 29, 2017 Share October 29, 2017 (edited) On the Editing case, I know I'm a few days late, but I wished MM pressed a little harder on the defendant who said her script was registered with the Screenwriter's Guild. As an amateur scriptwriter, I know so many people who register their works with the Screenwriter's Guild as if it gives their work some prestige--she, the defendant mentioned it with such pride. She registered for services like protection, much like a copyright... well, I assume. It wasn't like she won a contest, or her script was highlighted or chosen, or what have you. She did something anyone could do. Myself, I copyright, the benefits and protection of a copyright far outweigh, my opinion just being able to say it was registered with the Screenwriter's Guild. I just found the factoid interesting. Edited October 29, 2017 by CyberJawa1986 1 3 Link to comment
Guest October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 Today's first case. Proud owner of a broken $60 sex toy. I can't even begin to register my disgust. I suppose she's another one that thinks she's so adorable that everyone watching is enamored with her sparkling personality. Repulsive. That's the word. Repulsive. Link to comment
SRTouch October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 three yawners, but no dog or gold digger cases... though last case mentions a cat pre-paid snow removal no show: plaintiff claims she pre-paid defendant for snow removal and some handyman type work, but guy never finished the handyman stuff and was no show on snow days. Says she trusted guy because he was an ex Naval officer, and hired the guy because her hubby was in the Navy, and she needed help as her hubby was on a deployment - says hubby knew of the guy - they weren't friends, but that was part of why she trusted and hired the guy. (Whoa, back when I had a landscaping business I did yards in post housing for cost for any family with a deployed soldier.) Defendant claims he showed every time it snowed, says he did any repairs he was asked to do, including fixing her "sex toy." (Ok, not sure why he would even bring that up... she's suing for over 4 grand, so unless she has A LOT of sex toys and he wants referral business, I think I would have skipped bringing it up.) Uh, something is off with this story. Plaintiff claims she thought it normal to prepay for snow removal... and she paid him 3 grand - in advance... heck, I know it snows in Connecticut, but how many years was that 3 grand supposed to cover. In addition to the 3 grand in snow removal, she paid him $1500 to be on call for any handyman type repairs. Whoa, I must have missed it before... this guy says he charges $75 an hour for handyman chores and snow shoveling... oh, and when he doesn't know how to fix something, he charges to "research" host to do a job, even if he doesn't actually fix anything. Yep, he has a list of stuff he claims to have done, which includes hundreds of dollars for "consulting" on handyman jobs. Oh, and the sex machine repair for $75 (no comment - but she did say it was a Maestro sex toy that she paid $800 for... there are pictures if you google it). Perhaps MM thought things were a little too out there, she hears a little about the sex machine, then makes a quick decision 5 minutes earlier than the normal and orders defendant to return over 4 grand. crappy body shop: dude says he took his van in to be painted, and when he went to pick it up he found paint shatters and cigarette burns in his enterior... he wants 2 grand. Defendant says guy had no complaints when he picked up the van, and he was blindsided when he came in two weeks later... says he did the work himself, so he knows the complaints are nonsense. Hoboy, plaintiff wants to tells us EVERYTHING... long spiel about make and model of van - MM cuts him off and tries to hurry things along... next he starts in on his health, and apparently why he couldn'the go out in the sun because of his mess - again, MM tries to speed it along... next, he complains that when he gets in, he finds they changed the radio station, oh, and they had to have driven it because his gas gauge shows an eighth of a tank less than when he left it. But, the shop was busy, so he takes it and drives off. Next day when he goes to inspect his baby... what!?! They must have used his van as a delivery van because he says they scraped up the floor and ceiling. MM asks how long he waited before going back to complain, and he explains it was the weekend, place was closed, yada yada but he doesn't answer how long it takes.... ah they were closed... it was raining... I was too mad.... he decides they'll just deny everything, so he makes a police complaint before he goes back and complains... heck, he NEVER answers how long it took before he complains. Apparently he calls to complain after a couple weeks, but doesn't actually go down to the shop to show them what he's complaining about for months. Eventually he shows up with a laundry list of problems he claims are their fault (oh, I forgot, this is a 10yo van with over 100,000 miles). Defendant, shop owner, decides guy is nuts, and tells him to go ahead and sue. Yeah, plaintiff may be nuts, but defendant doesn't help himself with some of his answers... like when MM asks if his guys might have changed the radio... no his guys would never touch his radio on purpose. Dude does admit to a few things, like over spray not being cleaned up, but feels most of plaintiff's complaints are nonsense. MM eventually rules plaintiff missed his window to lodge a complaint and can't prove anything when he took months before going in to complain. (Other thing, he's suing for 2 thousand on a 1 thousand dollars job.) tenant suing over deposit and moving expenses: first impression - no way plaintiff gets anything judging by intro. She moves in, then decides the carpet is moldy and neighbor plays loud music all hours of the night, so moves out but wants her deposit and security. Still from intro, defendant says glad she's gone, she was a nightmare tenant who complained about everyone in the building, everything in the apartment, and ended up dragging him to housing court with her computer plaintiff. Not sure why this case wouldn't have been taken care of in their previous case... not to impressed by plaintiff as she states her case. Says she made it plaintiff when she moved in the she was noise sensitive, no noise or she can'take sleep and she required heat - well, doesn't everyone want quiet and heat. Oh, and she says before she moved in she complained about dirty carpets and was told they had already been cleaned - whoa, red flag first both sides... as a tenant, if I see dirty carpets and the landlord says he already cleaned them, I start wondering what else is subpar - I definitely don't go out and buy air freshener cause yhem place stinks... as a landlord, if the carpet has been cleaned and the potential tenant is saying they're dirty, I'm thinking this one is going to complain about every little thing. Anyway, she loves there for 8 months, complaining the whole time. At one point landlord agrees to either put up sound proofing or replace the carpet, but not both... so is that an admission that she had legitimate complaints or just an effort to shut her up. Next up, the heating isn't up to her standards. Thing is, this is section 8 housing, and when she complained to section 8 their inspection passed the place. (According to her section 8 passed the heat because it kept the place at 68 degrees, and she wants it warmer.) When defendant starts, he pretty much blows her case out of the water. Seems she made the same complaint to in housing court, then withdrew them and moved. Says he tried to work with her, agreed to put in sound proofing even though he couldn't hear the noise, and section 8 had no problem with the carpet or heating. Says he's happy to see her gone, as she was a nightmare, called/texting all hours of the day and night to complain about nonsense. He thought he had seen the last of her when they reached a settlement in housing court (she withdrew her complaints and he let her out of the lease). Ah, but then after she moved he kept some of her deposit, so she decided to sue for that plus her moving costs. He has an itemized list of what and why he kept money from the deposit (and pictures) - everything sounds reasonable except he kept a tad because she moved in early and now that she sued he wants to charge even though he didn't at the time. Ah, and he has a possible explanation of why she's listing smelly carpet in her complaint... seems prior to her moving in section 8 gave the carpet the ok, but when she moved out he charged her to replace the carpet because her cat had a habit of going outside the box. MM goes over the list and tosses a couple things... can't charge for giving her a key two days early when he wasn't going to charge until she decided to sue, and he wants $20 for cat hair on the refrigerator coil... so, plaintiff is a WINNER! She gets a whopping $36.20 out of the $1762 she wanted. 1 5 Link to comment
patty1h October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 (edited) Raise your hand if you went to sexfantasies.com looking for this $800 sex toy. :hand up: That site is down but I think I found it elsewhere -- I searched Maestro + sex toy and the first hit took me to Amazon. You will need to put on your big girl pants if you're the least prudish cause that thing is a monster. I guess that woman needed heavy equipment while her hubby was away protecting the country. However, I would be so ashamed to have some handyman know that I had that thing, but maybe she's more evolved about human needs plus it was expensive and you just don't throw that out on recycle day. The plaintiff in the 2nd case had the nastiest ORANGE teeth that I've ever seen. /gag/ Edited October 30, 2017 by patty1h 1 7 Link to comment
Jamoche October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 34 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Whoa, I must have missed it before... this guy says he charges $75 an hour for handyman chores and snow shoveling... $75/hour is on the low end for handyman work if you go through a home improvement store. I don't see any reason to pay a big chunk of it up front, though - the whole point is to call them up when you just need an hour or so of work. Quote next, he complains that when he gets in, he finds they changed the radio station Oh, the horrors! Be glad they didn't move the seat, that's several days of realizing something isn't quite right. 1 5 Link to comment
Broderbits October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 1 hour ago, patty1h said: Raise your hand if you went to sexfantasies.com looking for this $800 sex toy. :hand up: That site is down but I think I found it elsewhere -- I searched Maestro + sex toy and the first hit took me to Amazon. You will need to put on your big girl pants if you're the least prudish cause that thing is a monster. I guess that woman needed heavy equipment while her hubby was away protecting the country. Since I always wear my big girl pants, I took a look. I question whether anyone would need that thing unless they are making porn films, and I question whether anyone would mention it on national tv unless they are just the teeniest bit of an exhibitionist. Now to go clear my browser history..... 10 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: pre-paid snow removal no show: SRTouch, how could you think these were boring? Today we had three quirky freak shows, in the most wonderful way! No dumb desperate women showering money on loser guys, no cell phone cases and no old beater "AS IS" cars that buyers want refunded. First was nutty, chatty woman who agrees to pay the poet/handyman 3,000$ upfront for snow removal. She's a 32 year old mother of three and thinks that's normal. Just must say I've had someone plow my driveway for the last 20 years and we have a ton of snow. He comes in April for his payment, which is 300$. I've also had the same handyman for quite a few years. He arrives on time and does impeccable, professional work. He charges 15$/hr, although I always pay him more. 75$/hr for unskilled labour from someone who has to research (probably by watching YT vids) on how to do jobs, although it seems he never did any. But, the very best part? Plaintiff, who is disabled - she flashes her "Handicapped" tag and it's a blessing it never stopped her from carrying three babies for 9 months each - with severe degenerative bone problems, has this huge F***KING machine and asks the dorky, annoying def to fix it. Maybe she burned out the motor? I"m glad her disability doesn't preclude her from performing whatever contortions she needs to do to get into position to use this. After all her husband is gone for 6 months at a time, so what's a girl to do? JM thought she was talking about a vibrator. Wrong! Where does she stash this huge, horrific machine that her kids (or any casual visitor) don't see it? She's not embarassed in the least. For anyone who is curious, here's what she has. Look at this thing, people: https://www.amazon.ca/Lovebots-Maestro-Multi-faceted-Sex-Machine/dp/B00DJBWLOK 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: crappy body shop: Plaintiff is total nut, who calls the police because there's a scratch on his 10-year old, mint condition beater. JM has incredible patience, as she tried over and over to get an answer from him, as he digresses about the rain, and the wind and all the other nonsense excuses about why he couldn't ever get in his car and take it back to the body shop. He has exhibits - a cigarette box and not the kind he smokes either. Yes, he smokes but he never smokes in this car because it's his pride and joy. Check the audience smirking at that. Personally, I don't see why the body shop employees turning on the radio while they worked on the car is a big problem, even if it's a Spanish music station. Who doesn't love "La Bamba?" He called the police! He expected them to do something about scuffs and 1/8 tank of gas missing from his van? 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing over deposit and moving expenses: first impression - no way plaintiff gets anything judging by intro. These cases always make me wonder why anyone would be a landlord. I believe the def, that she's a "tenant from hell." He actually installed a sound-proof wall for her. She needs her sleep, you know, unlike the rest of us even when we have to, you know - work. She's paying peanuts for this place - the taxpayers foot the rest of her rent - yet cannot stop bitching. I can't help but wonder that social services pay her rent so why can't she get them to spring for some damned teeth? Who would show up on national TV toothless? It was kind of gross, especially when she kept wagging her white tongue around, nearly putting me off my salmon fillet with orange-tarragon butter. She gets 36$ A good day on TPC. 6 Link to comment
Brattinella October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 I did google that thing, and WOW. How do you have that in your house with guests? "Um, that's my newest avant-garde sculpture!" 5 Link to comment
meowmommy October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 I'm 60 years old, got off my night shift at the dialysis center this morning, spent most of the day unable to sleep in agony with my feet throbbing, my neck/upper back/shoulders aching, my dislocated clavicle jerking me with pain every time I move my right shoulder, and intermittent horrible stabbing lumbar disc spasms brought on by the slightest movement, and I still can't stand up completely straight this afternoon, but a 32 year old with degenerative disc disease who moves better than I ever will gets a handicapped placard. But maybe that's because as a single working mother who had to pinch the penny til it hurts, I shoveled my own snow when I lived in Connecticut. 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 20 minutes ago, Brattinella said: I did google that thing, and WOW. How do you have that in your house with guests? "Um, that's my newest avant-garde sculpture!" Maybe she removes that giant dangling dildo thing before company comes? 13 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I'm 60 years old, got off my night shift at the dialysis center this morning, spent most of the day unable to sleep in agony with my feet throbbing, my neck/upper back/shoulders aching, my dislocated clavicle jerking me with pain every time I move my right shoulder, and intermittent horrible stabbing lumbar disc spasms brought on by the slightest movement, and I still can't stand up completely straight this afternoon, but a 32 year old with degenerative disc disease who moves better than I ever will gets a handicapped placard I guess you just never learned how to properly work the system, as all our litigants here have. 1 Link to comment
Broderbits October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 55 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: These cases always make me wonder why anyone would be a landlord. I agree completely! Anyone considering becoming a landlord should be forced to watch the movie "Pacific Heights". That'll cure 'em. 3 Link to comment
Jamoche October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 #3 Tenant - when she's not talking her tongue is constantly moving - either outside her mouth or between her lips and teeth. That's a tic I have never seen before. And then "I just thought I could" get JM to give her $1K? Um, right. 2 Link to comment
califred October 30, 2017 Share October 30, 2017 (edited) I becaMe a landlord bc the military moved us and we knew we would move back. Thankfully we had awesome tenants. I’ve moved away again for a couple years but now my Mom, dog and college kid live there. I wouldn’t have done it if I hadn’t been moving back. Edited October 30, 2017 by califred 2 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz October 31, 2017 Share October 31, 2017 2 hours ago, Jamoche said: #3 Tenant - when she's not talking her tongue is constantly moving - either outside her mouth or between her lips and teeth. That's a tic I have never seen before. My MIL has the same tic. It started the minute she got 'store bought' teeth. She has a bridge that she claims doesn't fit correctly and is always playing with it with her tongue. Actually, she does it even if the bridge isn't in. 1 hour ago, califred said: I becaMe a landlord bc the military moved us and we knew we would move back. Thankfully we had awesome tenants. I’ve moved away again for a couple years but now my Mom, dog and college kid live there. I wouldn’t have done it if I hadn’t been moving back. Wish I could say our experience went as smoothly. We're military also and were lucky enough to have an overseas assignment for his last duty. Hawaii with no kids! We had already bought our retirement house and decided to help someone by letting them stay rent free (in exchange for watching the house) Unfortunately, we came home after 3 1/2 years to find that we could have been addressing you from the Hoarding: Buried Alive forum. Broken furniture and stuff everywhere! And they hadn't cleaned since the plane had taken off. They had 5 couches stuffed in there. There was a dresser in the kitchen. Turns out they had moved in several friends (and charged them rent) and as each moved out - they left masses of garbage. Imagine our surprise when we got to the house (after giving them 5 months notice) to find that they had not packed a thing. It took 2 weeks and all of the neighbors to get their stuff out. They had let a friend park a van in our garage that was inoperable. There was a cat living in our master bathroom. There were 7 cat boxes. Apparently, as each became full they would just buy a new one and leave the old. Made 8 trips to the dump. So, poor Mr. Schnick who thought he would come home to peace and quiet after 31 years in the military had to spend 6 months putting our house back together. Tore out all the dry wall and floors just to start. It was beyond a mess. Some of these cases give me flash backs!! The absolute worst part of it was that the tenants from hell were my own (youngest) son and his fiancée. And to answer your questions - No, he was not brought up that way and Yes, he is still breathing... In fact, we were blessed with a lovely wedding followed by an even lovelier granddaughter. All is forgiven (but I still have flashbacks) As to the first case - I need brain bleach! 7 Link to comment
califred October 31, 2017 Share October 31, 2017 @Schnickelfritz ugh sorry. I know we are fortunate, most of our friends have had not great experiences, none like that. Also, we are in Hawaii now horrible timing as I have a child in college 5000 miles away but it is gorgeous! 2 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz October 31, 2017 Share October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, califred said: I know we are fortunate, most of our friends have had not great experiences, none like that. Also, we are in Hawaii now horrible timing as I have a child in college 5000 miles away but it is gorgeous! I'm sorry you are missing out on the college experience. The aforementioned youngest was 26 when we left. Well into his own life. It's so hard being that far away from all of your family and old friends; missing all of that day to day stuff, isn't it? Mr. Schnickelfritz decided that he absolutely couldn't live without seasons. Hawaii has seasons. Lychee season, Dragon fruit season, Plover season, whale watching season, Pluot season, Big surf season, tourist season.... All kine season.... As much as I wanted to stay on the island, it is great to be back home. Have fun in the sun for me. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 31, 2017 Share October 31, 2017 (edited) insurance premium dispute: well this is different. Plaintiff sells a motorcycle insurance policy over the phone. The policy is being paid for by Cody's mommy and step daddy on step daddy's plastic. Cody is a 22yo trying life in Brooklyn, but hails from Arkansas. After step daddy cosigns on the bike loan and gets him insurance on his new bike they get into a kerfuffle and Cody heads home to Arkansas - lasting just two months in the big city (bike ends up in Arkansas). (Hmmm, if I heard that right, they just buy liability on the bike, which is being financed?) Mommy and step dad decide they shouldn't have to pay for the ingrate's insurance. Mommy calls up the carrier and tries to cancel but Progressive says nope. Eventually they call up insurance salesman and try to cancel. Nope, he says they're not the policy holder, so they can't cancel, he has to hear from the kid. After hearing from both mom and dad, he gets an email from dad's email account supposedly sent by the insured asking that policy be canceled. Uh, no, I wouldn't accept that at face value, either. Like MM points out, had plaintiff canceled without hearing directly from the insured, and there had been an accident, you just know the insured guy would be in court crying about how mommy and daddy's conspired with evil insurance guy and canceled his policy the day before the accident. Anyway, insurance guy is in court as the plaintiff because daddy disputed the charge with his credit card company, and after being denied a couple times his bank eventually reversed the charges. Don't know if defendant is ignorant about how things work, or thinks MM is just going to accept what he says his evidence shows, but she quickly finds his evidence lacking. First off, dude is harping on how greedy plaintiff forged signatures on the records... when MM looks at the "forgeries," she finds names written next to notation that order made over the phone (drats, had MM said he could get out of paying like that I was going to call my bank and reverse all the chewy.com charges - these critters are expensive.) Next piece of evidence, MM wants to see what the letter from the bank says about the reversal... ah, but the only bank letter defendant kept and brought to court isn't the one where they reverse the charges (I guess they went round and round, with dude disputing the charge, bank reversing, plaintiff appealing, charge reinstated, and repeat several times.) It's actually quite the time consuming hassle, I know my boss at the pizza place doesn't even bother most of the time - course this reversal was almost a grand, so worth some time. Lots of back and forth in this case - unfortunately even with CC I'm having trouble interpreting WTH defendant is saying through his accent. I think MM is in the same boat, and finally she asks defendant to get 22yo Cody on the phone so she can talk to him directly... makes sense since the first time these litigants ever met face to face was today in the court. Ah but the call is cut short when we find out mommy is there telling him what to say. Ok, case is pretty straight forward. Cody has to be the one to cancel. If he can show he bought insurance when he got back to Arkansas he can get a refund for any period when he had double coverage, then give the refund to step dad. But, like Progressive, the plaintiff, and now the judge is telling them, they can't cancel a policy in the 22yo's name even if they paid the premium. Ruling reverses the credit card company's reversal, and plaintiff gets his money... at least until Cody gets off his ass and takes care of his own business... any body else find it odd that mommy, who I would assume lives with step daddy in Brooklyn, was coaching Cody... hmmm, did defendant have time to set up a conference call? or maybe Cody never went back to Arkansas and this is all an attempt to avoid paying Brooklyn insurance rates... I notice Cody said he never got into a kerfuffle and went back to Arkansas, in fact he says they has always been on good terms - and why not, sounds like they pay at least some of his bills. Ah, in hallterview defendant puts a new spin on the whole deal... he says when Cody went back to Arkansas his wife/Cody's mommy, went with him, and they're both mad at him... sooo, if Cody did get insurance in Arkansas, and now cancels and gets a refund, who thinks Cody and mommy are going to send the refund to step daddy in Brooklyn? ah, here's our cousin tantrum car window smash case: this is the type of case where all we can do is sit back and marvel at the antics of the litigants. First thing I notice is plaintiff's haircut - whoa, did he do that for TV or is that his normal look. Oh, and he's dressed nice enough, but am I the only one who thought his shoes look kind of big for his size. Both sides brought three witnesses/spectators, and we could make fun of how everybody is dressed. Not sure why plaintiff has hefty woman standing with him, but figure she may be too big for those chairs. Defendant doesn't deny smashing the window, but claims plaintiff was trying to run over her so she grabbed a stick and hit the car. This will be a bunch of he said / she said, unreliable witnesses if they are asked to testify, and no case unless they memorialized their little spat through texts... oh, and I probably need to make sure CC is ready to interpret their garbled talk. Whoa, once plaintiff starts, I'm pleasantly surprised that I don't need CC... but what's this I hear - their kerfuffle started at the church they all attend... first we heard about the family who were on their way to church who pause to get into a fist fight during a custody exchange (a 2 parter on JJ where neighbor had to come rescue a toddler who was put down in the street so mommy could slug it out with auntie). Oh boy, quite the testimony from plaintiff... dude must be telling the truth because who would make this sh*t up. Dude says this was Youth Sunday at the Baptist Church, he gave a little 5 minutes sermon to the congregation, and afterwards they all headed to Applebee's. Ah, and that's when things took a turn for the dark side. Defendant wanted to make a stop to buy some weed, and plaintiff wasn't thrilled to be making drug buys, especially as she was pregnant at the time (and MM interjects it might be wise not to buy where it's illegal). So, things were getting tense, and then even more so when they start arguing about going to some church thing the next day. By this time they're all at plaintiff's friend's place, and the friend has had enough and tells defendant to get out of her house. Guess this is where the cousins get into it with each other, because pot smoking pregnant cousin is all upset that preacher car owner cousin didn't take her side against his friend. Cops get called, car owner cuz takes pot smoker home. Couple days later, friend who kicked pot smoker out of her house asks car owner to go pick up some of her son's stuff from pot smoker's place (both cousins are the friend's son's God parents). Car owner dude goes over to pot smoker's place, and here's where the window smashing, attempted assault with the car takes place. Big kerfuffle, but not really about what happened Sunday.... noooo, apparently somebody told pot smoker's bf that she wasn't really pregnant (aside to defendant, we're you pregnant - yes, but lost baby a week later). Pot smoker goes off because she thinks one of the friends riding with car owner cuz told bf she wasn't pregnant, so she brings out her mace and sprays the friend - with car owner cuz caught in the crossfire (hmmm, maybe pot smoker cuz needs a little weed to chill out). Friend and PS cuz get into physical tussle, then the crew who came to pick up godson's stuff pile into the car to get away from crazy pothead. Ah, but pothead isn't ready to call a truce, so she goes to grab her teaser and a stick, the stick she ends up breaking the window with. Ah, the stick... kind of important where it came from, since plaintiff claims it was a weapon defendant brought out to use, and defendant claims it was just a stick she picked up to ward off the car with when preacher cuz tries to run her down. Kind of classic "I'm lying through my teeth" action when MM asks about the stick, with pot smoker maybe pregnant brawler cuz looking all around trying to come up with why she brought out the stick. MM tries to lecture both sides about lip service to their religion, but both sides hear her comments aimed at the other... worst is when preacher cuz claps because he thinks the comments are aimed at defendant while he's a pillar of the church. (These are the type of churchgoers that stop me from going, especially when preacher cuz starts with the religious talk, "we're all sinners," yada yada.) All this time pot smoker cuz let plaintiff talk, but now that MM asks her for her side he has to interrupt and cross aisle yap... we do learn that plaintiff is practicing to become a minister. Ok, I'm done with this case, I check the time and the DVR reads 39 minutes so I hope we're about done. Sounds like either mutual combat where they share liability, or more likely she foots the bill because he was attempting to leave and she brought out a stick to continue the fight. Ah, but things get interesting again as she talks. First, while he speaks okay, once you ignore the preacher talk, her speech is alot more cringe worthy as she tortures grammar. Ah, but while she's rambling on and on she starts talking about a different "stick" they were passing around. What stick are you talking about? asks MM. Why, the Marijuana stick answers defendant. So preacher cuz and his companions were there to smoke with pot smoker cuz? Ah, but with all her animation and looking around as she talks I'm wondering if everything she's spouting is being made up on the fly. I'm back to wondering how much longer before MM calls it... doesn't help defendant any after she admits she's gone through anger management counseling, and freely admits she pulled out the mace and later took a stick to the car as he was leaving. Nah, defendant has talked herself out of any chance, since MM let's her ramble, then every so often asks a question which defendant answers without thinking first. End result, defendant admits she had opportunities to end the confrontation without the smashed window, but instead came back out and escalated the kerfuffle a couple times, resulting in the mace, things getting phtsical, and finally the broken window. A biggy, if you take her testimony at face value, he didn'the come to fight, in fact they were getting high together, she didn't like what she was hearing and went inside to get her mace, sprayed Cheyenne, the hefty woman, got physical, went back inside, then came back out as they're leaving. If you believe her, instead of waving bye bye preacher cuz tries to run her down and she picks up a stick to ward off the car. Nope I think more likely than not his story is right, she comes back with a taser and stick, and bashes in his car as he's leaving. Ah, when MM gets the damage estimate we get more of the story, and hefty plaintiff witness heaves herself out of the little chair so she can testify. Apparently everybody piled into the car and locked the doors. Then crazy pit smoker pregnant brawler cuz circled the car hitting the windows and lighting up her teaser (buzz buzz, just think how much this will hurt if I get to you!) She cracks the windshield and then smashes the rear glass.... quite a bit different to throwing it at the car in a desperate attempt to get him to stop from hitting her. Nah, she had list before the witness testified, but I totally believe hefty girl. Plaintiff wins. silly salon case: plaintiff had defendant's shop braid her hair, but says afterwards the braids were way to tight, and she ended up undoing them later that night. Defendant says she would gave been willing to work with plaintiff, but two days after the job was done she hears from plaintiff demanding a refund. When she was told she wasn't getting a refund she left only to come back and make a big scene when cops show up. Not sure how she thinks she'll win, but then a lot of these litigants are here without a clue. Plaintiff is a repeat customer, hairdresser who finished the job this day was someone she'd used and been happy with in the past - though someone else started this day until her usual hairdresser came in to finish. She has and video of the horrible condition her scalp was in the next day, pointing to the scabs with her talons, but I'm not seeing it... don't see her getting anything without the expert testimony that judges and ways ask for but seldom receive. When defendant gets to talk, it's another of those cases where her accent has me thankful for CC. OK, a repeat of the intro... she was happy with to help hair when she left, 2 days later she is back with the hair unbranded demanding a refund. Ah, MM surprises me with a quick judgement for plaintiff... Guess she saw more than I did when she looked at the video. Anyway, she says plaintiff gets the money and didn't need to give shop a chance to correct the problem since she was in pain... not a decision I agrees with... so, during hallterview Doug asks plaintiff how long her 90$ do will last... 2 weeks... so she budgets $180 a month for hair, and she also spends money on those talons... geez, something tells me her salon bill may be as much as my lot rent. Edited November 1, 2017 by SRTouch 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 31, 2017 Share October 31, 2017 41 minutes ago, SRTouch said: insurance premium dispute: well this is different. Yes, it was. Interesting. The def. looked so much like a very oily Jose Jimenez that I was distracted. His fake emails purportedly from the little brat, Cody, didn't wash here. Mommy sounds like a real prize, shrieking in the background on the Arkansas phone call. Really, she should have written down what she wanted her baby boy to say, isince he couldn't figure it out himself. Didn't she know JM could hear her? She did, and hung up on Cody. Mommy and step-daddy were both idiots, getting a really expensive insurance policy for their 22-year old ninny to drive a motorcycle. Plaintiff was rather amusing when he quoted Mommy as telling him her son called her a (I assume the word was "cum")-eating slut. Bwahahha! Anyway, both Mommy and Cody are mad at Jose, as he informed Doug in the hall. Lovely family. 41 minutes ago, SRTouch said: ah, here's our cousin tantrum car window smash case: Ya just gotta love all these self-proclaimed, super-devout litigants who act like vicious, foul-mouthed savages outside of church. They're all Baptists going to church, where they pray and sing hymns and whatever else all these religious types do. Except def. is knocked up by some guy and wants to stop on the way home to buy weed, because smoking weed is a good thing for a preggo single mom to do. Then someone disrespects someone and there's the big fist fight between preggo and some "200lb" woman. They end up rolling on the floor, while plaintiff - who is planning to be a Reverend ( he had good practice at being mealy-mouthed today) - stands there cheering them on with, "Beat her ass!!" and no doubt getting excited at the !Bitch Fight! Then they're brawling in the street and car windows get broken. True Christians they are. Def - who has an "anger management" problem which is no big deal - started to pull the crocodile tear act, but stopped, either because she knew JM wasn't buying her BS, or because she didn't want her false eyelashes to come loose. It was all rather amusing, in a disgusting Springer sort of way. 41 minutes ago, SRTouch said: silly salon case: plaintiff had defendant's shop braid her hair Boring. The only mildly interesting part was def. getting lost on her way into the courtroom. I assume Douglas guided her, by hand signals, to the podium. 41 minutes ago, SRTouch said: and she also spends money on those talons... OH, yeah. *In hall clown voice* "It's the case of Mommy, Mommy, my braids are too tight!" Poor JM had to look at endless pics of scabs. Yuck. Aside from that, I never understand why so many women think that having extremely long, downward curved, ugly glued-on talons that would invoke envy in an eagle (and hey - eagles NEED theirs) think it's somehow sexy or attractive. But I'm not a man, so maybe they find it hot. 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.