The People's Court - General Discussion

[Brattinella]

LOL!  Jose Jimenez!!  Such a great mental picture!

[Silver Raven]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

both Mommy and Cody are mad at Jose

I thought his name was Mohammed?

[Brattinella]

I guess you are not old enough to get the reference.  (Old fart here)

[AngelaHunter]

27 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I guess you are not old enough to get the reference.  (Old fart here)

I was going to say I'm showing my age! Heh.

[Brattinella]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1MOLzFpqrU Sorry embed is not working for me.  A very short clip of Jose Jimenez.

[Broderbits]

13 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I guess you are not old enough to get the reference.  (Old fart here)

You're not old, you're Vintage!

[SRTouch]

1. friendly loan nonpayment case: only good thing here is they're not family or life long friends. Nah, plaintiff says they met back in 2015 at a mutual friend's get together, not dating, but same interests so they ended up hanging together. He was a recent arrival to Florida, so she showed him all the best spots. Anyway, according to him, money was went back and forth, but things seem to take a turn when he starts talking about how good hearted she was to him and how she would buy him "things." Well, MM wants to know what kinds of "things?" Well, shoes, shirts, so watch. Obviously, my friends have always been deficient... I can't remember the last time a casual hang-around friend bought me a watch (hmmm come to think of it, how long has it been since I even HAD a watch!) So, I have a different picture now than when dude started yakking - more like this is another desperate woman throwing money at a guy trying to buy him. But, right after that, MM asks how it came about that dude ended up loaning her the money he's here about. Hmmm, says he loaned her money several times in the past when her bf cut off her allowance.... huh, she has a bf? Her bf treats her like a kid and gives her an allowance?? She blows her allowance buying clothing and watches for other guy friends??? Welllll, maybe she needs somebody to manage her money.... lots of folks would benefit from someone who kept them to a budget and controlled their spending... but I'm about fed up with user dude who admits he knew she was "sweet" on him and that he used to tease her about it. Ah, but we still have to hear about this loan he's suing over. He claims he loaned her $500 bucks til she got paid... huh, thought she was waiting for her allowance money? Now we find out she gets paid for something the 21st of each month. Guess MM is tired of Mr Yellow Tie, 'cause she decides to ask defendant what's going on... and defendant is so mealy mouthed she can't answer the simplest questions without searching for a big word to throw out... heck, she has to pause and search the sky for inspiration when asked what she does for a living. She says they did mutual things for each other, bartering services. Then some malarkey about how she worked off the $500 loan by calling around on his behalf on some mysterious personal matter, cuz she has all these "contacts and her position in the community," some nonsense about entities,  owning a daycare, etc. Finally, as we go to commercial, we hear MM telling her knock off the double speak and just tell us the story in plain language because what we're hearing makes no sense. After the break we learn the "personal" problem she helped with was getting a driver's license... he was having a problem since his NY license had been suspended and she was supposed to help get a Florida license... huh? I get his problem now, but how would her contacts, community standing, and calls to various "entities" help him get a driver's license. More nonsensical gobbledlygook about phone calls to the various states where he had lived to "fight" to get his license. And how, asks MM, did you fight for his license by calling these DMVs? Exactly, answers defendant. Huh, "exactly" what!? Did she succeed in getting him a license or not? MM gives up on making sense of her side of the claimed barter, and switches over to another defense she raised. She claims he was going to do some work on her bathroom... he started but didn't finish... and somehow she thinks she's justified in withholding payment of the loan. Again, I have no idea WTH she's going on about. He's not getting repaid until he does some work for her. So, is his payment for the job getting back the $500 he loaned her, or does he get paid something in addition to what she already owes. Ah, she says, they were other parts of the big barter... hope so, because so far he has nothing except being out $500. Nah, she worked as a travel agent, party planner, etc, and she claims the bathroom was part of the barter. Whoa, says dude, he says from the get-go he was to be paid for the bathroom... he made an estimate, but that deal was with her landlord as she a renter. Quick, over to defendant, was landlord going to pay? Yes, plaintiff was helping me out cuz I'm a single Mom..... more nonsense, but now she got in the "single mom" line. So, bathroom was between landlord and plaintiff, but really all it amounted to was defendant typing up and presenting the estimate (or, as he says, "invoice") to the landlord. More gobbledygook - MM asks, "did you borrow $500 or not?" Yes, she borrowed it, but what was supposed to happen.... more nonsense as she tries to talk over the judge. Well, now we learn he did start the bathroom job, but then family matters, ex-wife mother of his adult children diagnosed with cancer, given 90 days to live, she dies, he's back and forth out of state (and here defendant DID help with teavel and rental car arrangements)... heck, would anyone expect any contractor to complete the bathroom with no delay,  especially a friend? Besides, this bathroom job is between him and the landlord... she may have helped him get the job, but other than that she's out of it. Again, what does this have to do with the freeking $500. Ah, halfway through the case, and still no defense that makes sense. His theory is that when he made it plaintiff that they were just friends, never any benefits on the horizon, she decided not to pay? Nah, she says, more highfalutin'  blather, she never wanted any benefits.... on and on, I'm over this case, watching the clock wondering if there's a defense about to spring out and surprise me or should I grab the remote. Nope, no surprise defense, MM says PAY THE MAN!
2. dog park attack (skipped) ah, but not fast enough to avoid hearing defendant deny there was an attack because if there had been his German Shepherd would have killed her little dog... huh, is that a defense or an expression of extreme stupidity
3. new TV bites the dust: plaintiff says when she bought her TV a store employee helped load it in the car, when she got home she noticed the box was damaged, she wants a replacement or a refund. Defendant says he checks electronics when they arrive in his store, and he isn't responsible once it goes out the door... no mention in the intro about an employee helping load the set in the car. Ah, well, testimony doesn't exactly match the intro anyway - no surprise. Plaintiff says there was no visible damage to the box, but the screen was cracked once they got it out. Ok, I see both sides here. Only time I ever made a claim with Transportation after one of my moves in the Army, my stereo receiver arrived damaged even though the box (packed in original box and packaging) looked fine. Other side, customer takes it out of the box and drops it while setting it up. Could happen either way, but surprised store wouldn't just exchange it as lady says she called within an hour of getting home (which may be part of lady's complaint - she says when she called the owner/manager wouldn't talk to her, she could only talk to an employee). Ok, defendant has an accent, but is making sure to speak plainly and I understand him. He explains that an employee checks all the TVs when they arrive in the store, both visually and taking it out the box and making sure the set works - so there's no way the lady got home with a busted tv. Ah, unless a lazy employee skipped the inspection or the guy carrying the set out wasn't careful when he put the TV in the car (customer says she didn'the watch him put in in the trunk.) Defendant smart enough to bring the employees who inspected and dealt with the customer, but isn't above trying to coach the testimony in court. Ah, maybe there's was a reason to help with the testimony, this guy doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the box. Heck, when MM asks if he signed the inspection sheet store owner handed him he barely glances at it before answering... heck, it could be the sheet about who cleans the bathroom every shift. Ah, but MM says it was on the customer to inspect TV and supervise the loading... hmmm maybe so, but I don't think I've ever taken merchandise out of the package and plugged it in in the store - heck, I don't even really worry if the box is opened/damaged, because on the rare occasions when something was wrong I never had a problem exchanging it. Hokay.... after the store refused to make an exchange it may lady called manufacturer and sent a rep, who determined it was a shipping problem, gave her a letter saying that, and told her to take the TV back to the store, and rep called the store and authorized a replacement... ah, but now we're into hearsay and the customer interpreting the letter to mean what she wants it to say rather than what MM is reading. Still think problem could and should have been resolved by the store, but guess not a legal requirement. Hmmm, IIRC lady says she always buy from this mom and pop store, so I would think even more reason for them to help her, but nope, customer is out of luck, has brand new worthless tv.

Ah, software insisting on merging this

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

You're not old, you're Vintage!

But at least not antique

Edited November 1, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

friendly loan nonpayment case: only good thing here is they're not family or life long friends

This case was unusual only in that we had a man on the plaintiff side. Barter system, loans, etc. I have to wonder how def's "boyfriend" reacted when he saw the allowance he gave her going to buy watches, shirts or whatever for plaintiff, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Homer Simpson. He accepted all of it, because "He is who he is." It all sounded rather fishy, until def. pulled out that old song, "I was going to pay him back until he asked me for the money. That's harassment so I decided I didn't owe him the money." God, both of them were so long-winded they nearly had JM in a coma.

Anyway, how many people  here have had their driver's license suspended? I never have, nor do I know anyone who has but it seems to be a fact of life for most litigants here.

DId he drive drunk? Owe a zillion dollars in child support? Rack up thousands in tickets? I would have liked to know.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

dog park attack (skipped) ah, but not fast enough to avoid hearing defendant deny there was an attack because if there had been his German Shepherd would have killed her little dog... huh, is that a defense or an expression of extreme stupidity

Actually her dog is not little. It's a Vizsla, a good-sized hunting dog. I happen to agree with the defendant, that the unsupervised dogs running wild just collided, and large dogs with long, sharp canine teeth crashing into each other can do damage that way, even if by accident. That triangular tear in the dog's skin didn't look like any bite I ever saw. You'd expect to see puncture wounds and there were none. Personally, I think anyone who wants a dog, doesn't want to bother walking it but takes it into the overly-excited, uncontrolled atmosphere of a dog park (a terrible invention) enters at his/her own risk. Plaintiff was probably gabbing and not even watching her dog since she never saw what happened. i dont' know how I managed to have dogs for the last 20 years and never once took any of them to a dog park, filled with clueless owners and a bunch of dogs all thrown together with the expectation that they'll all "play nice" with each other because these days dogs are expected to be something like Care Bears. If they ever get into a fight or chase a cat - call the police, or maybe even the army! I throw my dog into a dog park and if anything happens to it, it must be someone else's fault.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

new TV bites the dust:

I can't help thinking that all these people who buy fancy TVs and phones, etc. might think about getting some damned teeth instead! I have no idea what happened to her TV and neither does she. Case dismissed, and get some frickin' teeth, lady!

[Brattinella]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Anyway, how many people  here have had their driver's license suspended? I never have, nor do I know anyone who has but it seems to be a fact of life for most litigants here.

Nope, not me.  I haven't even had my license expire!  I think you have to have DUI(s) or eleventy-zillion unpaid tickets or something.

[meowmommy]

I always hear that you're supposed to inspect items when they're delivered, including your HHG when you move, but realistically, what delivery person is going to stand there while you unpack something?  It never, ever happens, at least not in my experience. 

I had ordered a TV from Best Buy, and when it came, there was a crack in the screen very similar to this case, and the TV would not boot up.  Of course it had come in the mail or UPS or FedEx (can't remember) and not via a store delivery person.  I dragged it to the nearest Best Buy store and they took it back, no questions asked.  My only problem was that they did not have the same model in stock, so I had to pick something else out in a hurry and hope it was close.

[califred]

@meowmommy when we move we have a certain amount of days to make a claim.  I had to do it on our move here to Hawaii bc they did lots of stupid stuff.  Twelve moves and it’s the first bad one we’ve had thankfully.

 

 

the World Series has been on in Hawaii instead of PC so no new shows for me.

[galaxychaser]

The redhead with the maestro sex toy.  The judges face when the redhead described it.  I died laughing.  She isn't that disabled to have 3 kids and use that robot.  

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I always hear that you're supposed to inspect items when they're delivered, including your HHG when you move, but realistically, what delivery person is going to stand there while you unpack something?  It never, ever happens, at least not in my experience. 

This is very true, and I have to admit I've never inspected anything either, until lately. I had a new bathroom vanity with a granite top delivered and, hearing JM in my head, made the delivery guys (the store delivery people) wait until I cut open the packing to make sure there were no damages. It felt awkward having them stand there, but it's my (considerable amount of) money, so let them wait 5 minutes.  JM is quite right that if you let them leave and find something wrong later you can be up the creek because really, the store doesn't know what you did with it.

 

1 hour ago, galaxychaser said:

The redhead with the maestro sex toy.  The judges face when the redhead described it.  I died laughing.  She isn't that disabled to have 3 kids and use that robot.  

 Well, damn. I had just about got the visuals out of my head, of  the Optimus Prime of sex toys banging away. Maybe it inspires her poems. If anyone hasn't looked it up on Amazon, make sure to read the reviews. Apparently it overheats after only two hours of use. Good lord.  I haven't seen anything quite this outrageous since the carpenter suing for work he did building a dungeon for the bondage freak defs, who were also not shy at all.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, galaxychaser said:

The redhead with the maestro sex toy.  The judges face when the redhead described it.  I died laughing.  She isn't that disabled to have 3 kids and use that robot.  

Not shy at all, and eager to share her toy's nickname. 

[Broderbits]

6 hours ago, galaxychaser said:

The redhead with the maestro sex toy.  The judges face when the redhead described it.  I died laughing.  She isn't that disabled to have 3 kids and use that robot.  

Perhaps one becomes disabled AFTER using it!

[SRTouch]

oh dear, just spent all that time recapping the first case.... and the Internet ate it

1. prom dress fail: not my favorite type of case. 2 weeks before prom idiots go to dressmaker to get a custom dress. We'll never know WTH dressmaker would have delivered, because girl has a hissy fit when she goes for a fitting the night before the prom. She says dress was supposed to be ready, but defendant and the texts say it was still a work in progress and defendant was prepared to work through the night to have it completed in time. Ah, but during one of the fittings, girl's bestie snapped some pictures, posted them, and they go viral.... yep even made a segment on the Wendy Williams show. (Probably on youtube, but I'm not that interested and don't like WW, anyway.) According to designer, when she saw the fabric allowed to much of private parts to be seen, she decided it needed a liner... ah but pic posted pre-liner, so girly bits are showcased instead of hidden. Ok, what sensible person picks a designer dress, being worn by a super model in a publicity picture, probably worth mega-money and stitched directly on the model, goes to a dressmaker two weeks before an event, hands over a hundred bucks and expects a duplicate (guess the final bill was to be $300).  Both sides are asking for ridiculous amounts of money, but my understanding is dressmaker was paid $100 to start, had multiple fittings, worked through the night to deliver a dress, and girl was upset at the dress not being done when she thought it would be and never came back to even see the finished product. I say nobody gets anything... at most I'd give the dressmaker $200 so she'd be paid the agreed upon price (pictures that went viral are BAD! and the completed dress on the hanger in court isn't something I would expect to see at a high school prom, but lady did work, so should be paid... ah, but countersuit isn't for the completed price, she's asking 5 grand for defamation... uh no, customer has a right to tell the world their opinion.) best part of case for me was when MM starts dissecting and tearing about the damage claims... ah, and all this time I thought it was a friend who posted the terrible picks.... nooooo, it was mom, probably in an attempt to avoid paying, but for whatever reason, mom put the horrible picture on social media - ah, but she didn't expect it to go viral... so now she wants 4 grand for emotional distress that she caused. Another time MM doesn't rule as I would... she feels dress was so bad nothing was salvageable, so orders the return of the deposit.
2. bad driver: plaintiff says her car was sideswiped by defendant's car, they pull off the road, the driver claimed to be rushing to the hospital because daughter is having a baby, plaintiff says she's calling the cops, driver gets back in defendant's car and takes off... but not before plaintiff wrote down the license number. Defendant says no way, not his car. Plaintiff says a woman was driver, not the defendant. Cops are treating it as a hit and run, but not doing much... yeah, no injuries, less than 2 grand in damages, probably low priority for some over worked detective. Ah, defendant is scatter brained and definitely not offering much defense. Surely he knew plaintiff's story before he came to court, but he didn't even check with the woman who borrows his car (and has had at least one other accident in it) if someone was having a baby. His whole defense is "my car wasn't in an accident, and even if it was I wasn't driving". Dude wouldn't know the color of his socks without pulling off his shoes. Ah, apparently his insurance already paid the lady... uh, is she double dipping? No, MM apparently has a letter from the insurance company saying they'll only pay so much, and chase defendant for the rest... sounds strange to me, and MM wonders if maybe the insurance people had trouble getting a coherent story from defendant. Also, bit of insurance fraud going on, as car and insurance in his name, but friend Viv apparently has full possession and pays insurance. Hmmm, could it be she has no license or is uninsurable for some reason - we know she had at least one other accident, and that could be the real reason she took off when plaintiff said she was calling the cops. MM has heard enough, plaintiff gets what she asked for.
3. yet another case of cashing/depositing bogus checks for friend with no bank account: yep, squirrelly dude, Jorge (pronounced as 1 syllable - George), who needs help with his tie, cashed multiple checks for no account-holding no account, Vanessa. Really, in intro Vanessa is shocked that she's being sued by Jorge, who she thinks of as a brother, over a 2 grand mishap - and what 2 grand, the checks were for 1 grand not 2! - besides, we'll probably hear she was actually a victim of some scam, so not her fault... yep, her landscaping job was paid with bounced checks - and if she ever gets an account of her own she'll maybe learn firsthand on quickly fees and penalties add up. Heck, a $10 deposit  quickly becomes worth hundreds (or more), especially if other checks start bouncing because expected money isn't there. Ah, but not totally the case here, seems Jorge wants emotional distress money. Hey, educational tv! Apparently, in Massachusetts a liquor store isn't allowed to cash a check dated over 3 days ago... not sure why, as I can't come up with a sensible reason for their legislature to make that a law. Anyway, same ole same ole - guy did a friend a favor by cashing these bad checks, now he's a meany because his bank is overdrawn and he wants the money back... I mean no-account offered to give him the money back - at a hundred bucks a week, what does he expect it all at once just so he can get his account out of the red? Not that it makes much difference, but these were totally bogus checks she gave him... not Insufficient funds, but account didn't exist. Anyway, there is no legal issue, dude cashed these bogus checks, he'll get the money plus any additional fees (and a laugh at the emotional distress claim). Defendant supposedly was given the checks by someone she knew, or at least had worked for in the past, so her recourse is to go after her mystery employer - if he exists, as MM raises possibility that he's fictional and Vanessa is just scamming her good, like-a-brother, friend. Oh, but as MM starts working her pencil on the actual damages, it comes out that good old Jorge wasn't such a good friend that he didn't charge her $250 for each check he cashed for her. Now, if I were to cash a check for a good like-a-sister friend as a favor, I'm not charging her $250. Actually, I'm a little too cynical to cash these checks even for an actual sister... I mean, hand written business check, already turned down from the liquor store where she normally cashes her checks... no, I might front her a little money to cover the time it takes for her to get the check cashed, but outright cashing/depositing the check? Nope, don't think so. And aren't there check cashing places in Massachusetts? Sure, they'd charge a fee, but like-a-brother was charging $250. Huh, anybody understand his explanation of why she agrees to give him $250 out of a $500 check? To make it worse, dude corrects Vanessa, he was to get $300, not $250, out of her $500 check. Pendulum is swinging, I was ready to have her pay, but now Jorge is looking more like a hustler... could this be an attempt to scam TPC? Oh no, now it comes out these yayhoos are in the military! As a retired NCO all I can do is shake my head and hope these two are kept out of any type of sensitive posts. Anybody notice the incredulous bearded guy sitting behind Vanessa when she confirms they both have military backgrounds? It's almost like I'm there - cuz, yep I've got the same retreating hairline and gray beard, and I'd probably have the same open mouthed look. Oh, yes, let's not forget the ever popular response from Vanessa when MM asks why she thinks it's right that her friend has pay because she was paid with a bad check.... I didn't ask him to cash it, he offered... nah, these two aren't bright enough to think up a scam... they are just really stupid. Dude's math doesn't work, he doesn't even know how much money he is out. After calling him Einstein and poking fun at dude and his inability to back up his numbers, MM asks and we learn these two were cooks. Not that cooks aren't vital to any military, but I'm glad they aren't firing missiles/artillery or working in some troop medical clinic. 'Nother little chuckle here for military folks. MM asks Vanessa why she's not longer in the military, and Vanessa says she ETS'ed. What's that mean... uh.... every body in the military knows ETS means the date you get out, but I wonder how many know it stands for "Expiration of Term of Service"? Heck I had several ETS dates during my 20 years, and I had to google it... I would have said TIME instead of TERM, but girl had it right, it's when your active duty contract ends. When it comes time for the ruling, dude gets $1030, not 2 grand, and MM says if anyone deserves emotional distress it's her for having to put up with some of these litigants.

Edited November 3, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

prom dress fail: not my favorite type of case.

Nor my favorite. I vaguely recall going to my high school grad dance. Not one of us was dressed like a burlesque queen or a stripper. We would have been sent home had we done so.  When did young girls start dressing this way? When did high school dances become like the Emmys, in terms of pomp and cost? I must be out of the loop, but seeing what Mom thought was appropriate garb for an afternoon court case - a draped, shoulder-baring Grecian gown in a violent salmon colour -  I see why daughter wanted transparency and feathers(?). Mom posts a pic of her daughter's virually naked buttocks online, which skeeved out JM,  but no lottery for Mom today. She wanted the defendant to pay because her daughter's dress not being ready on time caused her to see her doctor for her emotional meltdown, which resulted in her needing Ativan, which resulted in her being unable to drive her car so def. needs to foot the bill for the driver she hired. OH, and for a hotel room too. Are you fookin' kidding us? All this huge defamation, distress, emotional trauma, etc. over a high school girl's dress and 100$. I wish my life were so smooth I could get bent all out of shape by such cataclysmic events. Okay, out of this nonsensical crap, the one good and very noticeable thing was that daughter, unlike 95% of other litigants -  spoke in very good and proper English. Yay for her! Yes, this is what impresses me all to hell these days.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad driver: plaintiff says her car was sideswiped by defendant's car, they pull off the road,

Mr. Rodriguez, are you for real, you goofball? Total spaced-out weirdo, who gives his car to Viv (or maybe anyone who asks)and  keeps insurance on it in his name, because he's a nice guy and not a total fool. Really, I cannot fathom how anyone gets to his age and is so totally clueless about, well - everything. OTOH, maybe he's not clueless. Maybe Viv is paying him in other ways. Eww. He thinks he's not responsible for the hit-and-run accident because he wasn't actually behind the wheel of HIS car at that time. Even in the hall, after hearing the verdict and the reason for it, he's still all "Duhhhh" and never realizes how lucky he is that "Viv" didn't kill people with her mad driving skillz. It was glaring that Viv was not here to help out her benefactor.  More and more, I want to stay off the roads.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

yet another case of cashing/depositing bogus checks who friend with no bank account: 

The military really will take anyone - no matter how marginal -  these days, I guess. I think the diminutive  Jorge was just as guilty as the def with this whole mess and I'm willing to bet those checks the def. asked (or didn't ask) Jorge to cash never came from any employer, but from some internet scam email ("Get paid to be a "Secret Shopper!") that both of them were too frickin' dumb to recognize. Or maybe they did recognize it and just thought they were smarter than the other scammers. No. No, no you're not, Jorge, and neither are you, Vanessa. I'm sorry he got anything, but I guess JM just didn't have enough proof that he's a scammer too, so rules in his favour.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

prom dress fail:

A case involving so many immature silly girls, the mother being the less mature of them all. I would also include JM in this group, with her giggly comment that the girl has the best prom story ever. I often feel that MM longs for the days when she could have been a bad girl or part of the cool bunch; she sometimes comes across as nostalgic for her sorority days and sympathetic to misbehaving young women, or perhaps regretful that she was not part of one.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bad driver:

Defendant obviously tuned out of reality a long time ago and does not care about the irrelevant details of everyday life. Predictable outcome.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

yet another case of cashing/depositing bogus checks who friend with no bank account:

Plaintiff seemed like an easy mark and probably not complicit with defendant. I am always surprised by the obvious schemes people let themselves get entrapped in.

[Jamoche]

In areas where people don't have yards, dog parks can be great, but you have to have attentive owners. If I'd shown up to one and noticed the owners being oblivious, I'd have left. I used to run my dog through agility moves and never had any problems.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, Jamoche said:

In areas where people don't have yards, dog parks can be great, but you have to have attentive owners. If I'd shown up to one and noticed the owners being oblivious, I'd have left. I used to run my dog through agility moves and never had any problems.

Ok, I realize some folks disagree with Cesar Milan and his training techniques, and the whole you have to be the pack leader.... but I used to watch. Seemed like every time he went to a dog park he spotted dogs which had been poorly socialized - and I'm not talking about dogs he was brought in to help train, but other dogs at the park

[shksabelle]

Mom in the prom dress case was clearly looking for a boNANza. 40-something full-time student (translation: living on Byrd‘s dime), comes to Court dressed for the club. Thinks it’s appropriate for a teenage girl to go to a school function in a sheer dress with strategically placed feathers.  Dress doesn’t work out so she thinks she can play small claims court the way she plays the various agencies keeping her in wigs, makeup, and hoop earrings. 

Thank heavens JM wasn’t having it!  I just wish she had also given her a talking to about appropriate dresses for teenage girls. 

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Plaintiff seemed like an easy mark and probably not complicit with defendant.

Re: Bogus (Or if you're a certain JJ litigant, "blogus." Anyway, I thought he was easy mark too, until it was revealed he was supposed to share in the money from those checks, wasn't he? Wasn't he to get 250$ from a 500$ check? I know his story started to stumble around at that point but that's what I heard. Of course what I hear is not always necessarily what happened.:p

12 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, I realize some folks disagree with Cesar Milan and his training techniques

 I know he didn't approve of dog parks - a place of high excitement where unknowledgeable owners who can't recognize signs of aggression - yeah, tail wagging is not always a good thing -  dump their untrained, unsocialzed dogs, turn their backs on them to chitchat. How did people manage to exercise and soclialize their dogs before the advent of the dog park - an invention just as nutty as the "invisible fence."

[Broderbits]

15 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

A case involving so many immature silly girls, the mother being the less mature of them all. I would also include JM in this group, with her giggly comment that the girl has the best prom story ever. I often feel that MM longs for the days when she could have been a bad girl or part of the cool bunch; she sometimes comes across as nostalgic for her sorority days and sympathetic to misbehaving young women, or perhaps regretful that she was not part of one

Yes! I skipped this case because seeing JM squee over teen-age "hi-jinks" makes me so disappointed in her. Stupidity isn't cute, ever.

[SRTouch]

54 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

Yes! I skipped this case because seeing JM squee over teen-age "hi-jinks" makes me so disappointed in her. Stupidity isn't cute, ever.

Ah, the classic example... group of teenagers rent a house to party (I think after graduation) and trash the place. IIRC MM calls up one of the hooligans and laughs about one of the party games they came up with, "Oh, isn't that great!" Meanwhile, owner of the house is faced with damaged, lost, or stolen property. Seem to remember a pillow or seat cushion or some such that was originally claimed as missing later found in a closet on a different floor. As I recall, teenagers lost and had to pay damages, but not everything owners wanted, and no stern lecture about respecting others property, more of "what a great party, but you have to pay.)

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I thought he was easy mark too, until it was revealed he was supposed to share in the money from those checks, wasn't he? Wasn't he to get 250$ from a 500$ check? I know his story started to stumble around at that point but that's what I heard.

I saw that "commission" as being the bait used to hook him in and to allay any doubts that a reasonably intelligent person would immediately have had. Since he appeared a log or two short of a full load, I think that no bait would even have been necessary.

 

3 hours ago, Broderbits said:

seeing JM squee over teen-age "hi-jinks" makes me so disappointed in her.

There was also a case that involved hi-jinks from mature women who had an afternoon party with drinks and male strippers, as well as a painting workshop. They were disappointed by the guys so they asked the handsome painter to disrobe; it was clear harassment. MM was practically begging for an invite to the next event (and ruled against the painter because his contract was poorly worded even though the organiser stiffed him). Another instance that stuck in my mind was when a defendant used some money she owed her ex to get a spa trip and MM replied "You go, girl", but eventually ruled against her.

I find annoying that streak in her for envying party girls and gushing over them, but she usually manages to curb it.

[teebax]

12 hours ago, shksabelle said:

Mom in the prom dress case was clearly looking for a boNANza. 40-something full-time student (translation: living on Byrd‘s dime), comes to Court dressed for the club. Thinks it’s appropriate for a teenage girl to go to a school function in a sheer dress with strategically placed feathers.  Dress doesn’t work out so she thinks she can play small claims court the way she plays the various agencies keeping her in wigs, makeup, and hoop earrings. 

Thank heavens JM wasn’t having it!  I just wish she had also given her a talking to about appropriate dresses for teenage girls. 

Although this particular mother may have been a piece of crap, let's not paint all over 40 full-time students that way, please. I didn't get my bachelor's degree until I was 35 and am now doing my M.Ed full-time. Through it all, I have also worked full-time. I am hardly living off of anyone's dime. There were enough things to dislike about this litigant without automatically assuming she's on the dole when we have no evidence of that.

Regarding the check case, while I should be horrified by both of their actions, I am more horrified that a veteran doesn't know what ETS is; I spent almost my entire time in the Army awaiting my ETS, which is Expiration Time of Service. It's the day you get your freedom back, should you choose to accept it.

Edited November 3, 2017 by teebax

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, teebax said:

Regarding the check case, while I should be horrified by both of their actions, I am more horrified that a veteran doesn't know what ETS is;

You really shouldn't be horrified. After all, we had a 3rd year law student on JJ who thought the term was, "Preponderance of a doubt."  This is just the way things are now. *sigh*

Mommy and Daddy ( I think I know why the marriage failed) want wee Baby Boy (who is legally an adult at 21) to have a fancy car. He wanted a 2016 Nissan Sentra although he knew he'd be a full-time student and couldn't possibly afford it. But he wanted, wanted it. Yeah, as they say - People in Hell want water. But he just had to have it, astronomical insurance and all, so Daddy put him on his insurance. Sure enough, Baby Boy decides he can't pay all this, and dumps the car on Daddy and then Mommy takes him out to lease him a brand new car. I guess he wanted it. That's all okay, because Daddy has always treated him like a slave, or whatever. Hey, Mom - nice choice you made with those ripped-up jeans containing the biggest caboose I've seen in ages.

When I was 21 and working full time I had to buy my own car (not one that cost 16K either) and pay my own insurance, she mutters bitterly. Maybe I'm just jealous of all these spoiled adult children we see here.

Then we had the guy who was maybe broken up with his wife and rented a room from def. Neither of them could look directly at JM. Anyway, plaintiff sounds like a modern-day Cindefella. Def. "made him" clean up the place, he made him clean the bathroom and would even come and make him do his chores when he had company in his room! Are these complaints something that should be coming from a grown man? Okay, in addition to "he/she was mean to me" no one of legal age - unless they are in prison -  should ever be saying, "He made me." It makes you sound like ridiculous tools, you fools. I understand why plaintiff had split with his wife. She was probably fed up with his pansy-assed whining too. The only shocking thing is that she's considering taking him back. He's such a little princess and needs to learn that other people in the world don't give a rat's ass for his little feelings.  Def, however, tells plaintiff to leave (as I would) yet expects him to keep paying the rent. Don't think so. There's no "eat your cake and have it too" here.

3rd plaintiff is suing a homecare worker for not showing up to take care of his elderly mother after she'd been hired to do so. Loved the fact he had cameras in his house. After seeing horror stories of terrible abuses committed by people hired to care for young children or the very old, this is something everyone should have. Anyway, as soon as he started talking I just knew he was somehow in the legal profession. He's a "per diem" investigator and wants def. to pay for wages he lost when he had to stay home and care for his own mother. Of course he has no proof that he was due to work on any of the days in question. Case was mildly entertaining, but not much.

Edited November 3, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

1. family squabble over cosigning loan for son: ah, yet another parent cosigning for an adult offspring, only to have brat stiff them with the bills. In this case, going by the intro, 21yo sonny boy decides car is to expensive, so he drops the car and keys off at daddy's house and announces I'm done, not my problem, dad, you make the payments. There's also some back story, mom and dad separated, dad and son not talking now, sonny moving in with mommy (sonny brought mommy with him today - whew, when they walked in I thought "that can't be his gf! Ok, it's mommy, but what an example on what to wear to court (or tv)? Sonny's in daddy's suit and tie, while hefty momma in worn out jeans and ugly top that emphasizes fat roles").... oh, you just know family oriented MM is going to talk about that! Course, according to intro, sonny's defense is that mean daddy is just suing because he moved in with mommy - has nothing to do with being saddled with another vehicle and car payments... past due and future car payments. First few minutes of daddy's case, he spends explaining why he agreed time cosign - comes down to insurance premiums too high, so by being on the lease contract as a cosigner kid can stay on daddy's policy.... anybody else have a problem with kid not being able to pay insurance under his own name but committing to paying to lease a new car? Not saying put your kid in a $500 junker, but find something safe that he can afford... unless the 21yo is still in school and you're supporting him anyway... nah, time for the kiddo to start taking more responsibility even if he's in school, and lots of college kids are driving clunkers - he'd fit right in... go down and find a good used fleet car, usually fairly well maintained, still under warranty, and a fraction of the cost of a new car. Oh well, when daddy signed the car loan, he was secretly planning to divorce mommy, which factored into him not wanting to incur more debt, but he cosigned anyway. Ah, mommy, sitting on sonny's side of the courtroom, sure is interested in the timeline daddy is putting out, as his testimony has him planning the divorce a good six months before she (or sonny boy) heard about it. So don't think much of pops and the whole hiding the divorce plan, but it also appears he and sonny were less than honest with the insurance folks... I mean, it sure sounds like he's saying the car was registered in his (daddy's) name, with daddy as the primary driver, to get a lower insurance rate, while from the beginning this was going to be sonny's ride... though of course for court today the whole being registered solely in daddy's name was a screw up by the dealer which he let slide when dealer said it didn't make a difference. Ah, but when the divorce announced, sonny sides with mommy. As they're splitting up the bills and mommy and daddy's insurance is being separated, daddy points out to sonny that he wants sonny to register the car in sonny's name and get his own insurance. Ah, what a tangled Web, I started out totally on dad's side, but not so much now, with daddy in on getting over on the insurance, the car registered in his name, and the whole hidden divorce plans... now I get sonny sticking dad with the car loan, and dumping the car on pops. Actually, I guess, going by daddy's testimony, in December daddy gives sonny three options on how to handle the car thing... 1) already mentioned, sonny takes dad off everything, and sonny gets own insurance and pays his own way. 2) leave things as they were, sonny makes the car payment and has to pay dad six months of insurance, since dad pays ahead. 3) dad takes him off his policy and takes car until kid has proof of own policy. As daddy is outlining the three options he mentions he was unemployed at the time... hmmm another strike against daddy - could it be that he became unemployed as part of his divorce plan, I'm not liking his whole long range divorce plan where he, according to his own testimony, took the divorce plan into account before cosigning. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking hidden assets to get over on mommy. Anyway, kid takes option three, but goes one step further and stops making the car payments and walks away from the car. I've switched sides now, I'm hoping MM decides daddy breached the agreement with his ultimatum. Ah, but so far sonny hasn't said anything... he may sound as bad as pops once he starts talking. Hmmm actually, kid makes a case for dad being unreasonable. Dad says he told sonny in December that he needed to have 6 months the premium by March... sonny says daddy didn't tell him the rates had gone up until mid February, and, previously daddy was willing to wait until kid's student loan (yep, college kid) came in, but now daddy wants the whole $1200 premium in 2 weeks. So, kid says he had some of the $1200, but no way could he raise the rest before daddy's new deadline (daddy just shaking his head - somebody's lieing, and I bet it's actually two somebodys). Ah, little dirty pool... says dad demanded full cash payment for the $1200, so what he did was, with mommy's help, went down to the dealer and leased another new car - putting the down payment on a credit card (could it be a credit card daddy provided for emergencies) - then went over and gave daddy the car and keys on the car daddy cosigner (and that is registered in daddy's name and still covered by daddy's policy for the next couple weeks). I'm not sure kid owes dad anything, because it's not clear if he made the February payment before dropping off the keys mid-month. Daddy ended up trading both his vehicle and car sonny had been driving in on a new vehicle, and of course sonny's car was a couple thousand dollars in the hole because so much of the lease remained. Hmmm, listening to these folks, I wonder if they ever keep a car until it is paid off. Ok, we have maybe another 5 minutes for sonny to vent about how mean daddy was - I mean kid was actually expected to do some chores when his friends were over hanging... but thankfully a commercial breaks fill some of the time, and of course I treat Harv on the street as dead time to FF through. MM laments the collapse of the family, then pulls a Solomon splitting the baby in half, with deciding both sides breached their agreement, so they split the loss of breaking the lease. Kind of ironic that when pops gets out to Doug, he talks about the case as an attempt to teach sonny about committment... yeah, the guy who secretly plotted for months to end a 22 year marriage - not saying the divorce may not have been warranted, but don't spout "teaching about committment" crap.
2. room rental disaster: plaintiff, with the lazy eye, rented a room, things went in the crapper, he wants back security, some of want he paid for utilities, pain and suffering, and help with moving expenses. Ah, part of what he's complaining about is being charged for overnight guests, along with defendant entering his room unannounced and when he wasn't there, and knocking on his door when he had guests over. In intro defendant says things began to disintegrate when tenant's father became a semi-permanent guest, then tenant decided to move back home to save his struggling marriage. Hmmmm I wonder if what tenant claims was an overcharge for utilities was a unilateral rate increase by the defendant to cover what Pops was using during his extended visits. Not to be outdone, defendant has the automatic countersuit, claiming dude owes even more in addition to the deposit he already kept. Ok, anyone else think it's bad form for plaintiff to be standing there all this time, then start opening up his suitcase/briefcase to play with his stuff as soon as MM asks her first question. Ah, just as well that he spent that time opening up the case, because right off the bat MM asks about the disputed utility charge. Who was supposed to pay... they were included in the lease... really, I read your lease and it says utilities to be split by tenant and landlord, look at the lease and see if that isn'the what it says! What? You mean we're supposed to not only read the lease before signing, now we have to remember what it says? Or maybe, refresh our faulty memories before filing a lawsuit!?! Oh, but then that would mean dude would have to still have his copy of the lease when he gets ready to sue... and if he doesn't have his lease - what DOES he have in that bag? Oh, all he has is the receipts of what he was charged... huh, what he was charged, or what he paid? Ah well, early switch to defendant, because he says he actually has the lease - which we already know exists because MM says she read it. So, as soon as she is handed the copy she opens and starts reading paragraph such and such about what the renter is obligated to pay in addition the the rent. Ah, but dude may have a case for being overcharged. Lease says he has to pay a portion of the bill (even split between the four roomates), landlord knew he was disputing the amount, and guess who didn't bother to bring the utility bill so judge could actually judge if he was overcharging? Ah, looks like an easy way to determine who is telling the truth. Tenant already said he brought all the records of what he was charged, and he has now repeated several yikes that he was charged $160 for ultilities. Now landlord says, no, total bill was $400, it was split even 4 ways, so tenant's portion wasn't $160, it was $60! Huh? Numbers aren't working, here... I rewound and listen twice, not sure we can trust landlord's cyphering (remember Jethro and his goes-intas on the Hillbillys, wonder if this guy matches Jethro's lofty schoolin?) Oh, the horrors of living in this place. Now we learn, not only did landlord monitor the tenants' guests, he actually expected him to do chores to help maintain the common areas... even (gasp) sweeping and mopping, and (oh the horror) clean the common bathroom. To make it worse, says plaintiff, nobody else had to do chores, it was always his turn! Wow, is this guy a preteen whining about this stuff. I mean, if it's true - and it could be house-daddy landlord is a bully - give notice and leave (or just leave), but leave knowing there may be a penalty for breaking the lease. Yep, this guy has the same complaint sonny did in first case, house-daddy would come knocking on the door to ask why he hadn't taken out the trash while he had guests over. After giving tenant a hard time and saying he sounds like a little kid, over to defendant, landlord. Ok, I'm on his side, but it doesn't take him long to talk himself out of his countersuit. He testifies that after a disagreement he tells tenant maybe it would be best if he just left... ok, might be best for everybody, but if we take that as a request that he leave, he can't turn around and say tenant has to pay for the unused portion of the lease. Uh, the number portion of this one could get tricky with trying to figure out utilities with no bill and iffy math by landlord, not to mention how much rent should be charged, and how much of the deposit went to damages versus unpaid rent. Another point of contention was tenant accusing landlord of going in his room and stealing a camera. Apparently a couple days after the let's go our separate ways, camera goes missing, and tenant calls the cops... ah, what started as an amicable parting of the ways just became not quite so amicable in landlord's mind. Later the camera is found, but by that time hard feelings all around, and tenant waits to be prompted by MM before making an apology. As a tenant, I would be upset to find the landlord was going into my room without permission or prior notice, so there would need to be some good reason for not having a lock on the door. Ok, now that dude has accused landlord of being a thief and called the cops for a misplaced item, he wants to retract the "let's go our separate ways" and get paid for the 6 months remainder of the lease. Nope, easy-peasy, MM dismisses the countersuit before going to the plaintiff's case. Huh, is this guy for real? His basis for contesting the utility bill has changed from the original flip flop on whether or not he was supposed to pay anything. Now, he's trying to argue that there MUST have been something sinister because the bill wasn't the same every month. Uh, unless you pay the average, it's unlikely your bill is the same every month. Oh, and apparently it's news to this guy that the bill doesn't come until the end of the month. Look here, your honor, I moved in in January and he didn't charge me until February! MM just puts her head in her hand and says, I take it you didn't pay the bills in you house. Next issue... the ever popular pain and suffering. Some nonsense about wanting landlord to pay because he used plastic to pay for his move... not sure if that caused pain or suffering or if he just felt landlord should foot the bill because he asked him to move... Last item, security deposit... ok, no damage claim, he withheld the deposit for rent, and MM tells him that's a no no, rent was forgiven when he asked the guy to leave, so he has to return the $750 deposit.
3. bad healthcare provider: ok, this should be a quick slam dunk case - ah but we have 20 minutes left on the clock. Plaintiff says he hired defendant to provide care for 90 some odd year old mother who needs 24 hour care. Ah, but the defendant proved unreliable, not showing up for a couple shifts, which meant guy had to drive a hour to cover the shifts, and caused him to miss work. Dude isn't looking to win the lottery, looking for under $400. Ok, like I said, should be easy... if anybody was actually keeping a schedule/log. Ok, I'd let it slide the first time, unforeseen emergencies/accidents happen - wouldn't be happy, but wouldn't sue. Ah, but the second time I'd be a little more miffed, especially as it was costing me time and money each time the provider canceled last minute. Of course there's more to the story. According to defendant (who was just recently hired), when she saw the nanny-cam surveillance set up she quit, so not her fault, he knew she wasn't coming as she no longer worked for him. Ok, couple things... first cameras works both ways, they protect both 90yo momma from abuse and/or neglect, and the health care provider from any charges she wasn'the doing the job - sounds like a good idea to me, especially after some of providers in see on court tv... next, didn't this provider interview and meet with momma and son before taking the job. I mean, as a provider in would want to meet the principals and see the place I be pulling 12 hour shifts, little things like where's the john, can I use the fridge and micro for my meals... these things would be settled before I take the job. Same thing from the other side... dude should know who is caring for momma, what's her sxperience, job history, all that stuff before letting her provide any care to beloved momma (heck, the same types of things we say you need to know before you let someone babysit your kids/house/pets.) Ok, he tells us the employee is basically a glorified baby sitter, no license or certification required, only training required is done by the family - hope they require CPR unless mom has a DNR order. Ah, but if either of these people had shown any sense they wouldn't be getting a free lunch and appearing on TPC. (OK, quick minute use to poke fun at defendant... I swear when she first comes in, bottom heavy, long neck, little head and sharp pointed face, the quick head movements as she looks around the courtroom, I was thinking she looks like an ostrich/emu.) So, for me, how many shifts did she work before "quitting" or being a no-show, and how much notice did she give. Ok, enough back story, on to the case - plaintiff quickly getting on my nerves. Dude is a hand waver, and if something can be said with lots of long winded big words, this is the guy to do it. Simple question of how you found this lady who could be momma's life saver turns into a long explanation of how the folks who are hired to pay momma's bills have a list of folks - none of whom apparently need any training or certifications, they recommend... oh, wait, he says while waving both hands, they don't actually recommend anyone, they just have a list of people who may or may not have babysat elders, they may or may not have any trainjng, and may or may not actually be available... really! From what I'm hearing I wouldn't trust this guy to hire someone to watch a pet rock. Ok, way back when, I said simple case, we just need a schedule/log. Ok, she supposedly came for training, showed up for work the first weekend (she was schedule to cover Fri-Sun, 3 nights of 12 hour shifts, each week). So, yayhoo who is hiring 95 yo mother's care giver, thinks maybe she showed up the first weekend... he's not sure, he just knows what days she missed and he has to come in... ok, dude is sounding flakey, but he's painting defendant even worse. She came the first weekend, but next Friday she's no call no show and the provider who had been there all day Friday ended up pulling a 24 hour shift. He first learns of the no show when she doesn't show, and the person who was expected relief calls saying WTH. He doesn't hear from no show until he tracks her down the next day. According to intro she quit because of nanny-cam's, now she's saying she didn't go back because plaintiff complained she had neglected mother the previous weekend... not that she quit or said she wouldn't be back, but she doesn't know why she didn't say she wouldn't be back. Poor momma! I'd be ready to go off on either or both of these litigants if I had a chance. I would not want this woman to come back if I thought she had neglected my mom after being hired to provide care. We don't know son's work schedule or situation at home, but I think I could manage to sit with mom over the weekend rather than leave her with gooseneck lady. As for defendant... her testimony makes a good case for putting in cameras.... hmmm, I wonder if son might have put in cameras after that first weekend, and that's when she decided not to go back. Anyway, defendant's story is he got hot and bothered when he finally tracked her down after the no-show the previous shift, which is when she decided to quit - without bothering to tell him. uh, is something off on that timeline? Did she just say she decided to quit because he gave her a hard time for not caring for mom properly after she was a no-show. I don'the know, she hasn't said much - but she's said too much and I don't want to backtrack. Either way, first weekend she was accused of neglect, but guy expected her back - next week she was a no show, and he still wanted and expected her back as part of his damage claim is for missing the third weekend. Hope I have that wrong, this case should be about elder abuse rather then a bad employee... and two of these litigants sound like abusers. Case is over for me. ??? hopefully someone who can stomach it through to the end will say I havery the timeline wrong.

Edited November 3, 2017 by SRTouch

[AZChristian]

48 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Hey, Mom - nice choice you made with those ripped-up jeans containing the biggest caboose I've seen in ages.

I normally try to be kindhearted when people appear on these court shows in clothing that says, "financially challenged."  (The folks whom Byrd and I are supporting who show up with designer clothing, wigs and acrylic nails are the complete other end of my "kindhearted" scale.  But I digress.)

Anyway, this woman KNEW she was going to be on a nationally syndicated TV show, and THAT is how she dresses?  Faded and stretched-out top, unflattering (to say the least) jeans, not a hint of makeup, and - apparently - no combs live at her house.  She did not spend one second of her life planning how to look at least tidy.  And this is a woman who had enough money to co-sign the lease on a car for her special snowflake (who was dressed like a successful young college student)?  Plaintiff (her ex-hubby and father to her children) sounded like a bit of a tyrant ("I'll teach my son to keep his commitments.  I'll sue him."), but he sure seemed at least articulate and able to dress himself appropriately.

Maybe she's just beaten down by life.  I'll try to be kinder.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Maybe she's just beaten down by life.  I'll try to be kinder.

When you know you are going to court, "and not just any court, but "The People's Court" you're a woman past middle age and you look in your closet for something - and no one is saying she needs what we see too often here, such as cocktail dresses, hooker outfits or mother-of-the-bride gowns - what you pick are totally inappropriate, skin-tight, grungy jeans with both massive knees ripped out? Yes, I know, the ripped knees are a style (for the very young IMO), but they're something you wear to a picnic, weeding the flower beds or on a Saturday you're spending scrubbing the bathrooms, not on national TeeVee or even to a fake courtroom. "Even a caveman" would know better and even someone beaten down by life must have a pair of plain slacks hanging in the closet. This was what she chose. Sorry I'm not kinder.

[speac]

Did anyone else see the irony between today's first case and the second.  One a teen complaining because dad expecting him to do chores and the other an adult man complaining because his housemates expected him to do chores?  The mother of the first case should have taken note because she was in the process of creating the adult in the second case.

[meowmommy]

[Just catching up with episodes.]

So, prom dress defendant, you're so embarrassed by your feather excess being spread across social media, and you think that this exposure will kill your chance to get on Project Runway, that instead of leaving the case in the local court where it was filed, you insure that the remaining people in the world who didn't already know about it now find out about it by allowing your case to go on TPC. 

I wanted to wipe the smirk off prom mom, all dolled up like a hooker flamingo.  Instead of answering MM's questions, just mug and smirk and run your fingers through your hair because you're just all that.  I hope the daughter survives with some character intact.

On 11/2/2017 at 4:27 PM, SRTouch said:

After calling him Einstein and poking fun at dude and his inability to back up his numbers, MM asks and we learn these two were cooks. Not that cooks aren't vital to any military, but I'm glad they aren't firing missiles/artillery or working in some troop medical clinic.

What I love is that Vanessa says she was an MP, and when MM asks what Jorge did, Vanessa says, "Same thing," but Jorge pipes in that he's a cook.  Because military police and cook are totally the same thing.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, we have maybe another 5 minutes for sonny to vent about how mean daddy was - I mean kid was actually expected to do some chores when his friends were over hanging.

Yes, how awful!  He had to empty the dishwasher when he wanted to do something else!  I really, really hate filler, and I hate it worse when MM starts crying for dysfunctional families, when that dysfunction is irrelevant to the merits of the case.  And then makes a judgment based on what she thinks families ought to be, not on what they are.

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Anyway, this woman KNEW she was going to be on a nationally syndicated TV show, and THAT is how she dresses?  Faded and stretched-out top, unflattering (to say the least) jeans, not a hint of makeup, and - apparently - no combs live at her house. 

Worst of all--horizontal stripes! 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, anyone else think it's bad form for plaintiff to be standing there all this time, then start opening up his suitcase/briefcase to play with his stuff as soon as MM asks her first question.

Yes, jumped out at me right away.  Why he wouldn't have all his papers pulled out before she arrives, I do not know.  And the way he kept looking down instead of looking up at MM was disconcerting.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Vanessa says she was an MP, and when MM asks what Jorge did, Vanessa says, "Same thing," but Jorge pipes in that he's a cook.  Because military police and cook are totally the same thing.

Maybe she is so well versed in military matters that she just mixed up MP and KP?

[SRTouch]

1. parked Mercedes smashed: plaintiff claims she parked her Mercedes, went inside to take care of business, and defendant backed into her car - she wants almost $1700 for damages. Defendant admits his truck banged into her car, but says he hit her because she was illegally parked. Both sides claim the other was at fault, both say they wanted to call the cops and the other wanted to avoid the cops. Oh, yeah, here's another one where "Mercedes" is thrown around like the name plate makes it special.... this one is 13yo - think we would have heard "ford" a half dozen times if dude had backed up and smashed into an Expedition (quick google search shows 2018 Expeditions start at over 50 grand). Ok, playtime with the models at whiteboard. Plaintiff doesn't like the diagram, saying it needs a driveway showing the drive-through. Anyway, she says she parked near the drive-through drive, but wasn't blocking it. Says she and defendant were parallel parked in the street. Her story doesn't make a lot of sense (oh, like she was in the bank, heard the smash, then turned and started yelling stop - I imagine he stopped backing up when he heard the smash), but I get what she's getting at. We get a laugh as she tells us dude tells her to relax when she comes out yelling, and MM tells us nothing calms down a woman more than being told to relax. Ah, but gender really had nothing to do with it, she was yelling about a parking accident - I could see telling anyone to relax when they come out yelling. OTOH, I'm getting a little chauvinistic vibe from defendant... what did he correct it to, sounded like he argued he told her to calm down sweety or maybe sweetheart - they cut it off, and it didn't make it on CC. Anyway, we'll hear more from him when he presents his side, but don't see much hope for dude if plaintiff has the models anywhere close to accurate... wouldn't matter is she was illegally parked or not, he shouldn't be backing up if it's not clear. Ok, now his turn. He moves the driveway, (corrects MM when she tells him to use the blue model for his car - "it was actually white,") and argues there was no way for plaintiff to legally park behind him. He has her squeezing in behind his trunk, almost touching his tailgate and blocking the drive... ok, she may have deserved a ticket, but I still see the accident on him. This is not going to be a major legal precedent setting case, not even big laughs, but it is good for a few chuckles. Not even sure if dude said sweety when he was telling her to relax, but he definitively steps in it when he starts talking. He admits he got in his truck without checking behind it - too busy counting his money he says - then he starts backing up knowing he has a big blind spot to his rear - but insists he's not liable for any damage because she shouldn't have parked there. As we go to commercial MM asks if he believes he is without any liability, and he lowers his voice like it should be obvious, of course he doesn't have any liability, she was parked illegally. When we come back from commercial he changes his tune a little, saying maybe he is partially liable, but then he refused to pay anything because she was unreasonable, demanding he pay everything and getting a sky high estimate. According to him, when he checked KBB her car is only worth between $650 and $1800. Hmmm quick KBB check here, not knowing any options, mileage or condition, I get fair market range between $33-4700 from a dealer, down to $3300 fair purchase price private party. Anyway, he brought his buddy, an expert KBB reader, to show us his findings. MM is NOT impressed with his $650, her staff printed a KBB for the car of $3200. Uh, judges do NOT LIKE litigants trying to pull he wool over their eyes. Turns out his expert is actually his employee at his salvage yard. Ah, now his witness wants to argue, "what parameters did you use?" MM well what did YOU use, because doesn't matter what is used no way does a $3000 car equal $650." Ok, little more foot inserting into mouth by defendant, as he interrupts the argument about KBB. Dude breaks out some terrible grammar to tell us something about not being able to understand the plaintiff's Latino passenger. Whoa, is defendant for real? First, condescending because plaintiff is a woman (at least that's what I think I heard), then TPC staff can't figure out how to read KBB, and now a dig at Latinos (with MM saying, "you know I'm latino, right?") with "he don't speak English correctly"... I'd almost think this guy is playing at being a young Archie Bunker, but unfortunately no, I think this is really how he thinks. All this time plaintiff is smiling, enjoying how dufus is coming across like a redneck dummy. Ah, well, MM thinks defendant has made a big enough fool of himself, so she starts talking to the witness - not that he was an actually winess, but after the accident he's the guy defendant told to HANDLE IT. So, his way of handling it was to give the plaintiff a list of body shops they work with in the salvage business. Ok, plaintiff agrees, but even though she's got an estimate from the guy they send her to, they're arguing she padded the estimate by adding preexisting damage. Huh, the estimate is from the shop they sent her to! Then, MM brings up a satellite view of the bank from Google earth, and it seems to contradict his "only 1 parking space" argument (in fact in the pic 2 cars are parked there.) Besides, he was willing to pay the repair bill right up until he saw how much it was. Ah, like I said, no legal precedents coming from this one. Plaintiff gets what she asked for.
2. electric bike switcheroo: sort of a bike version of the used car deal gone bad. Plaintiff claims he paid for a 2016 electric bike, but actually received a damaged 2015 model. Defendant says, no, he bought a closeout model, and when he brought it back saying it was damaged they repaired it even though he believes plaintiff caused the damage - a cracked frame. Ok, electric bike that you can pedal or let the electric motor do the work when you get tired. Plaintiff says part of what sold him on the bike is that it looks sort of like a mountain bike... hmmm wonder which model he bought, cause looking at the web page https://www.bigcatbikes.com/collections/electric-bikes they actually do have a mountain bike version. Anyway, plaintiff starts out with an iffy case - a major part of his complaint is the model year, but now in court the year is an after thought, his major complaints are quaility. Sounds like he may have been riding it as a mountain bike, and putting more strain on the components than it was designed for. First thing to go wrong is the seat, first the mounting bolts and than the seat itself break. Manufacturer sends replacement parts, but he doesn't like the fact that the replacement seat is different. Ok, apparently there are several different models, and for whatever reason, when he hears that none of the model seat that came on his bike are in the warehouse that indicates to this guy that he's not getting new parts. Next problem with his case he doesn't know what his warranty covers as he doesn't have a copy. Dude has a warranty, since they sent him replacement parts, but he has nothing in writing. Ok, defendant, bike company rep, has the warranty... and MM reads us that replacement part may be different than the original. Wonder if this guy bought his bike sight unseen? He does tell us he bought it off line... well I looked at the site - looks interesting but all I see for warranty information is that it is a 12 month warranty, and the specifications sure are not detailed enough for me to sent a couple grand without more info. Hmmm, wonder how much assembly was required, as it sounds like he was calling customer service to find out how to put it together. Anyway, bottom line, sounds like guy bought something offline that is designed for a different user, he wanted something he could ride hard, and received something for much more leisurely use. Ok, once we get to defendant's testimony we get to his major complaints - and despite what intro said it wasn't about a cracked frame, but about a bent post on the front fork... to me, another indication of guy may be riding it as a true mountain bike when it's not really designed for it. Anyway, dude sent bike back (without waiting for required return authorization) they fixed it and sent it back to him, and he breaks it again about a month later. To sum things up, plaintiff bought something online, essentially has no evidence besides hearsay about what he was told when he complained. He actually couldn't prove anything was ever wrong with the bike without the evidence defendant brought. Defendant has the warranty, many emails and texts back and forth attempting to help the customer, and really sounds like they tried to accommodate the guy. MM is getting fed up with the guy. He came to court with one complaint, and promptly said that isn't really what he was complaining about. Then he has a long list of broken/damaged components on his bike, but no evidence without defendant saying yeah, he called and said this or that was damaged, so we sent a replacement on this or that date. Now, he's complaining that parts were different than the original, yet the warranty, which he apparently never read and didn't bring, but defendant provided to the court, plainly says like replacement parts may not be exact matches. At one point, defendant actually offers a brand new bike as a replacement, but a replacement without a warranty, and guy turned them down, wants his money, plus shipping and handling back. Case tossed. Apparently, plaintiff believes MM ruled against him because he's Canadian and defendant is from NY. Once they get to Doug we again hear about a cracked frame, and defendant agrees he did complain about a cracked frame towards the end of their exchange. In the hallterview defendant offers to just give plaintiff the bike he brought today as a exhibit. Ok, obvious advertising ploy, and plaintiff  so very thankful.... um, ok - no thankyou, just ok... then walks out with defendant pushing the bike. 
3. tenant suing family friend landlord: plaintiff says he rented from a family friend, stayed a year til the end of the lease, left the place in broom swept condition, and now landlord is inventing reasons not to return the deposit. Ah, but landlord has a very different story. Says when guy moved out the place stank, left behind furniture, oh, and very badly damaged hardwood floors, so he wants 5 grand in addition to the deposit he kept - also a couple months back rent in the claim. Oh dear, plaintiff seems to be yet another tenant who treats landlord's property like crap, and expects him to just forgive the damage. Forget the bit about moving at the end of the lease. Dude admits he overstayed the lease, admits floors were damaged, admits leaving behind furniture... but says he would have paid/repaired/removed everything - eventually. Oh, and of course he's here suing but doesn't have the lease. Anyway, he accuses landlord of dragging his feet and stalling when it came time to return the deposit, but then says landlord sent them a check, but the evil skin flint kept money for the stuff plaintiff admits he did - the floor damage, furniture... well, I guess he was also charged for deep cleaning.... Guess that was the stink, but landlord will have to show over and above filth because place would need cleaning after a year - oh, and landlord didn't bring a copy of the lease, either. Ok, may not have a copy of the lease, but landlord does have receipts and pictures.... we've seen much worse, but plaintiff and I have different opinions of what "broom clean" means. Plaintiff doesn't have a case. Ah, but defendant's countersuit is just the normal knee jerk reaction to be sued. MM agrees with what he kept out of the deposit, but since he was being sued he decided he might as well ask for rent for the time it took to get the apartment ready for the next tenant.... no to that, as well... which gets a "wow, ok" from landlord  when it gets tossed.

Edited November 8, 2017 by SRTouch
"Truck" not trunk

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

parked Mercedes smashed: 

Oh, my. I have a feeling Michael's application to MENSA was rejected. The lad is so dumb I actually felt sorry for him. SRTouch, I disagree about the Archie Bunker vibe. Actually,  a wide-eyed Jethro Bodine came to mind, but really that's an insult to Jethro. Michael seems to think it's not his responsibility to check and see if anyone is parked behind him before he backs up. He was counting his money you see so don't expect him to be aware of his surroundings. He just assumes no one is behind him. So, since he's a nice guy, he sends plaintiff to his mechanic to fix her car. Price is too high, in his educated estimation. His "director of operations" (god, that was funny) informs JM that a 2004 Mercedes is worth not much more than 650$. Well, maybe if had no engine and maybe no tires, , but in this case, the DofO is off-base. The "calm down" part: I don't know how calm I'd be if some moron just smashed my parked car for no reason. Best part? Def. says plaintiff's boyfriend "Don't speak English properly." This, coming from an idiot who can't speak his own language beyond a kindergarten level. OMG. Hit a parked car, it's your fault, genius. I have a feeling plaintiff learned not to automatically trust the word of a total stranger when he says he'll pay her damages.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

electric bike switcheroo:

Plaintiff was a total PITA, but I just have to say how gratified I am that the few times we've seen Canadians here and on JJ, they speak English properly (well, except for the trashy parking lot beat-down girls on JJ once) and not a single "had went" was heard. However, in the hall, when the def offered a brand-new, latest model bike to the plaintiff he accepts it, but grudgingly. "Okay," he says, with no enthusiasm, as though he's doing def. a favour by taking it, after he'd put them through hell since he got the first bike and wanted them to pay for the way he kept trashing it. Okay, so it was a good thing for def to do this public relations gift thingy. I hope he didn't get a new bunch of complaints about the freebie, but I have my doubts.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing family friend landlord: 

Plaintiff was such an annoying, ridiculous little shit. Evidence? Why no, I don't have a single shred of that  - no lease, no pics, no nothing - but I want my money back.  Where does this sense of entitlement come from? Oh, I was going to remove all the trash I left behind and clean up the trash and the mess but... I didn't. Landlord was right to keep the money. That he tried to get a bo-nanza from this was a bit of a letdown.  Oh, but it was kind of funny when he said all the junk plaintiff left was too heavy for Tiffany to carry. Tiffany is his "fiance" who seems to do a lot of heavy lifting. Ha.

[Jamoche]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

According to him, when he checked KBB her car is only worth between $650 and $1800. Hmmm quick KBB check here, not knowing any options, milage or condition, I get fair market range between $33-4700 from a dealer, down to $3300 fair purchase price private party.

I was going to say that if you want the KBB minimum, go to Judge Judy, but fibbing about it? That would piss her off enough she might even go for KBB max.

[SRTouch]

1. horse neglect/abuse case: ah, I hate abuse cases, and this one is about as bad as they get. Plaintiff has a horse, but can't ride like she used to and is looking to rehome her horse. (I'm sort of reading the not being able to ride part into the equation, because she ends up having knee surgery a year later and unable to drive for 6 weeks). Anyway, defendant has a 13yo daughter who wants to ride, so defendant's soon to be ex, and 13yo's step daddy, signs a year lease with option to buy - no money for the lease, just an agreement to care/provide for the horse. At first, plaintiff is swinging by to check up on the horse (litigants live about 8 miles apart), but as time goes by her visits grow less and less. Then I come September hubby splits, divorce proceedings initiated, custody war over their joint 6yo. Now, when hubby was there, it seems he was the one taking care of the horse. When he leaves, defendant takes over the care, but has no idea of WTH she's supposed to do (geez, where is the 13yo in this picture... sure the adults should be handling farrier/vet care and buying the feed, but a 13yo ought to be able to clean the stall and feed the horse.) Hubby supposedly visits plaintiff and let's her know the horse will probably be returned. Ah, but neither side have a trailer, so actually return of horse keeps being put off. Unfortunately, by now plaintiff isn't visiting very often, and before long she has her surgery and can't drive by to check on the horse. Weeks and months go by, nobody really taking care of the horse, plaintiff not coming to see how he's doing. Soon to be ex hubby knows horse is being neglected, but instead of alerting plaintiff or his soon to be ex, he takes pictures of empty feed containers for his divorce lawyer to use in the custody battle. Finally 3-4 months have gone by, and plaintiff is approached by someone who wants to know if they can ride her horse... hold on, her horse has sort of fallen through the cracks... he's still over at defendant's place, even though the dude indicated they weren't going to keep him. She goes over to see about bringing him home or over to this new potential rider, and is horrified at the condition of the horse. I'm no expert, but the puctures show a badly neglected animal, filthy, hundreds of pounds underweight. Defendant is in denial mode, claiming plaintiff is in cahoots with hubby... says probably not even the same animal. Pictures say it all... here's the horse before it went to defendant - here's horrible condition when she brought it home - here's a picture after it recovered (which took months of intense care). Really only two questions... where is scheming hubby who knew horse wasn't being cared for? After all, it's his name signed on the lease... and how much is plaintiff going to be awarded in damages. Ah, another time where animals are property and can't receive pain and suffering! I'm all for socking both the soon to be exes with a big bill... but hubby wasn't sued and wife can't be sued for more than the horse is worth when healthy. Defendant leaves whining pictures are fake, hubby and plaintiff conspired against her, she didn't get to tell her side - all the normal loser ranting. Plaintiff happy with getting a third of what she asked for and having the horse back to good health.
2. oil change causes damage? ok, here's another one with an old car taken in for service, and when picked up owner finds something else wrong.  Now, dude is trying to convince us that his car, which has 200,000 miles on it, was mint, like new, and only reason he had to pay over a grand to get it fixed was because oil change shop screwed up. Course the guy has no evidence, but he's going to make us forget the lack of evidence by spinning a tail. Only unusual aspect is that this guy isn't trying to say the mechanic is inept, no, this guy is trying to convince this shop sabotaged his car... in fact they do this to customers all the time. Ok, not going to say this never happens, but does this guy have a list of other customers who gave made BBQ complaints, or something from an expert explaining what they did to his beloved, 1 owner Volvo that he drove all over Europe and the western US? Course not, just his theories, and a lot of hand waving, but no evidence. Sort of like the electric bike case, defendant bends over backwards in the name of customer service. He ends up not charging for the oil change, and even buys a new gas cap (not sure why, by that time I was hitting FF to speed things along). Anyway, not sure what plaintiff was thinking, but he takes the gas cap and free service, then turns around and sues. Uh, no, by accepting the stuff, he settled, can't change his mind and sue. Nah, only reason he got the free service and gas cap was shop was willing to eat the $60 loss rather than deal with him. Case tossed after a little rant from MM. I casually zipped right through all of defendant's reprimand - think the first time I heard him was in hallterview.
3. tenant/landlord dispute: month to month lease, tenant moves out with no notice and either leaves a mess, damaged walls and floors, or he left it in pristine condition... ahh, who has any evidence. Landlord is plaintiff and only asking $880.50 so not asking for much. Tenant wants over a grand for money he says he's owed, including deposit and odds and ends.  Two got along great for over three years, with defendant living in a cottage behind plaintiff's house. Anyway, after back in late 2016, tenant sends a text saying he might move. Landlord replies ok, let us know if you decide to move, and please give us as much notice as you can, but at least 30 days. Apparently, tenant figures "might be moving" all the notice landlord needs, cuz next thing landlord gets is a text saying tenant will be leaving the country in a couple weeks. Oh, and he planned to leave mid month, but hadn't paid that months rent yet. Landlord goes over to talk to him, and finds the guy gone, just trash left behind. Phone and texts back and forth, guy's out, but hasn't formally vacated til mid-month and tenant saying keep the deposit for the last month's rent. Landlord says he attempts to schedule a walk through, but tenant keeps making excuses of why he can't come, so no walk through. Eventually time runs out, and when landlord gets access he finds damage. So, now the deposit is going towards rent, last month's utilities (which lease says tenant is responsible for) plus damages. Once everything is settled, almost $900 is unpaid after exhausting the deposit. Switch to defendant, and parts of the story are making more sense. Ok, yes, tenant texted in the middle of the night that he was leaving... but he had been complaining of critters crawling around in the walls, and landlord kept putting him off. Part of the damage is from when tenant was trying to self help and get rid of whatever was in the wall because landlord wouldn't call a professional exterminator. Ah, MM decides he gets to leave without penalty for short notice, but now time to argue damages. Plaintiff has pictures of left behind teash, while defendant insists he cleaned, and the pictures must have been before he was done... maybe why it's a good idea to show up for a walk through and take pictures on your way out the door. Plaintiff wins. Of, course, defendant has the usual she wouldn't listen! whine

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

horse neglect/abuse case: ah, I hate abuse cases, and this one is about as bad as they get.

I can't remember the last time I wanted to physically harm someone the way I did the overly-made up, disgusting, twat of a def. who sat on her duff and let an animal starve, as though it were an inanimate object she let get ruined to get even with hubby-boo. And she didn't even give a shit. Those pics were absolutely disgusting. I'm really sorry I watched this and I can't understand why she and her asshole ex-hubby weren't prosecuted and at least fined. AFAIK, in North America it's illegal to deprive an animal in your care of food or shelter. OTOH, plaintiff? (Her dropping the "g" from all her "goin', comin', seein' etc was horrible) If she couldn't afford to take care of her own horse, then sell it! She's old enough to know that for way too many people, "free" = "worthless."  I"ve heard way too many people say, "I"m not paying for a vet. I got the cat/dog for free!" as though it's an old car.  Plaintiff, either keep the horse or sell it. Don't give it anyone for FREE because it will end up being treated like garbage.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

oil change causes damage?

I couldn't believe JM sat there and listened to the wordy, somewhat paranoid (all the employees were pointing and laughing at him) little Mr. Weiss tell enormously long stories consisting of nothing but hearsay. "A little old lady... maybe 75 - 80... seemed like a very nice lady... all upset about her "Check Engine" light and... "  Mr. Weiss is madly in love with his 10-year old Volvo. They've travelled all over Europe together, you know. They're a team! Mr.Weiss? STFU. The def was beyond reasonable and refunded him for the oil change and the gas cap - no doubt just to make this irritant go away - but that wasn't enough for Mr. Weiss, so after that settlement, he sues def.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tenant/landlord dispute:

I just love these tenants, who, when confronted with pics of the disgusting pigsty the left behind always say, "That's not the way I left it!" THEY left it in an immaculate conditions and for sure the psychotic landlord went in afterwards, scratched his own floors up, punched holes in his walls and staged a pile of junk, dirty dishes, filth and crap to try and frame a perfect tenant. Def sounded brain-dead.

[Broderbits]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

horse neglect/abuse case: ah, I hate abuse cases, and this one is about as bad as they get.

Glad I skipped the show today to take my cat for her check-up. I'm sure the horse pictures would have hurt my heart.

[Mrs Shibbles]

I thought it appropriate that the defendant looked like a starved horse.

[SRTouch]

1. dog nap case: plaintiff claims she is heartbroken after the defendant dogsat for her while she was on vacation. Says she bought the dog 5 years ago as a puppy, and she doesn't believe defendant's story that someone broke in and stole the dog. She thinks defendant may have sold her dog for rent money. (Had to look twice at her witness to check for a dominoes pizza logo.) Not sure what to think when defendant comes in, and her voice doesn't help the male or female question... ah, but once testimony starts plaintiff is saying she went to "his" house. Anyway, defendant's intro first says she thinks of plaintiff as family, saying that's why she offered to watch Romeo, the dog. Then, she raises the possibility that the whole vacation, can you watch Romeo scene was a setup to scam money. Hmmm, is that what her family does? Well, I guess it is for lots of court TV litigants. Ok, plaintiff was heading for Puerto Rico, and considering defendant as her dog sitter. She tells us she did a home check, knowing defendant has a dog, and she wanted to see the place where her baby was going to stay while she was in PR. Uh, really! She tells us when she gets there there's dog poop all over, but she figures... what? Defendant doesn't take her own dogs out, but is a suitable temporary caretaker for her dog since she promises to take Romeo out for walks? Yeah, sure, makes perfect sense... Anyway, she decides to leave her Romeo with Brenda - shortly after she gets to PR she gets a call that someone broke in and stole plaintiff's dog while Brenda was at work. Hmmm, automatically, during that first call, apparently plaintiff doesn't believe the story and demands to see a police report. Oh, let's not forget, she claims when she dropped Romeo off to go off on her trip, defendant mentioned how he was short rent money. Gotta say, I'm not believing this story... not ready to say plaintiff is full of it, but either she is full of it or she's tailored her testimony to try to make her case. MM doesn't look sold on what she's hearing, she's leaning back in her arms crossed pose that she gets when she smells a line of bull. Over to defendant to get Brenda's story. Ok, not buying her story, in fact whole case stinks, and I'm questioning whether the case is real. Brenda says she came home to find Romeo missing from her locked apartment, no sign of breaking or anything else missing. Says first thing she does is call her sister, who tells her plaintiff is always "doing things,"  yep, sister says plaintiff likes to scam people, so Romeo missing is probably a scam. Backing up a tad, when intro said defendant thought of plaintiff like family - well these two are sort of extended family, they grew up together and somewhere down the line have cousins who are related. Another disconnect in this dysfunctional extended family, Brenda says plaintiff's aunt once falsely accused her of stealing something out of the Aunt's car. Yeah, so plaintiff is going on vacation and decides to leave her expensive little Romeo with the almost cousin who needs rent money, has a dog that uses the back room as a toilet, and - oh, has a history of stealing from other almost family members. Ah, yes, Brenda lives in an ground floor apartment... wouldn't you love being her neighbor, smelly dog crap fumes wafting out the back room toilet, never mind not picking up after her dog when it comes outside to do its business on the odd occasion she actually walks it. Nope, not believing the case, and more Brenda talks more I'm questioning everything about these two... back to plaintiff to ask if she has proof she paid $1200 for Romeo. Ah, the final straw for me. Yes, she says she has proof, but then MM asks what plaintiff thinks happened to Romeo. Now, it comes out that she accuses Brenda's side of the family of all being unemployed back yard breeders, so she thinks Romeo was probably sold to one of their buyers. Geez, ten more minutes on the clock, but I'm giving up and jumping ahead. Ok, plaintiff is going to win... MM doesn't just toss the case when it looks shady, not like the old lady on the later show... but what's she going to get. Remember when MM asked for proof that plaintiff paid $1200 and plaintiff said sure she had the proof. Nah, what she had proof of was paying $750 for Romeo. Ah, now plaintiff is working hard to squeeze out some tears, yeah, maybe get a little extra bucks for sympathy (here's where the Hot Bench ad with DiMingo yelling "don't your try the crying thing" would come in.) Not only did Romeo not cost $1200, but as property MM says after 5 years his value has depreciated... plaintiff gets $500.... ah, I could start in and rant here about the way pets are valued in the eyes of the law. I have 5 cats that are all pretty much without value because 4 are rescues and one was given to me. Never mind that I have spent a great deal of money on them over the years for vet care, food, toys, etc, never mind that I would pretty much empty my bank account if needed for 16yo Spotty... she didn't cost a penny when I found her sick and half starved, so she's worthless.... well, just a mini rant... on to next case... with my Spotted girl sleeping on the foot rest.
2. Beach house rental fail: plaintiff had been a happy rental customet for a few summers, but this last summer was a disaster, so she wants a refund... ah, but did she eat the steak? Defendant, landlady, admits there were problems this last year, but says she was Johnny on the spot, right there to correct every complaint as soon as it was made.... fridge went out, she immediately brought over coolers of ice and then went and bought a replacement.... storm fried air conditioner, she had repair guy there next day (didn't fix anything, but he was there ordering a part). This was the 4th summer they rented this house, which costs $3200 a week, but after all the problems plaintiff is asking for return of 2 grand (and yes, they stayed in the house.) Ok, on to the case... fridge was out before they got there, a new one was on backorder, but they were told that before they arrived, so don't see any money awarded since they knew ahead of time, came and moved in anyway. Ah, when the new fridge arrives, it didn't work, so a replacement replacement had to be scrounged up and arrives day 2. Ah, snowflake isn't happy with the working replacement becomes it came from landlady's garage and doesn't fit in the spot where the old fridge sat... things sticks out a foot into the middle of the kitchen - MM looks at a picture, says welllll maybe 8 inches. Ah, now defendant wants to talk (she actually provides the fridge pic since plaintiff didn't have one) and MM shuts her down with "there is no question pending, and I (MM) was actually SPEAKING!" Ah well, good way to go to commercial. Ah, replacement's water line to the ice machine sprung a leak about an hour after it was installed... landlady called, and it was fixed right away. Now, stories are diverging a bit, before both sides agree to the facts, now plaintiff is saying defendant offered to return "some" of the rental fee, and defendant says, no, never said anything like that. Next day is the big storm... power goes out - plaintiff admits not that uncommon - when power comes back on, air conditioner not working - power surge fried control unit - although repair guy called, unit doesn't work in part of the house for the rest of the stay (MM asks what temperatures were like, highs low 90s to low 80's - that's nothing says Florida gal - and really, did they come to the beach to sit around the house). MM asks how they survived, well, half the bedrooms still had working air, but apparently nobody thought to open the freeking windows and buy a few box fans - plaintiff even complains about defendant not buying fans or a window air unit. Defendant admits plaintiff deserves a discount, but they have very different amounts in mind. When plaintiff gets home after her week at the beach, she finds a $700 check in the mailbox - 300 for the security and 400 bucks discount for the bad air and fridge problems. Sounds good to me, but then I remember plaintiff paid over 3 grand, so yeah they ate the steak, but they have a right to a bigger discount cuz owner admits the meat was awful tough. Most of that time without air was after 6 of the guests had gone home (started out with 8 guests, 6 went home early). Uh, did folks leave early because of the air, or was that part of the plan. Not really asked, and landlady doesn't help her case any when she tries to interject each bedroom has ceiling fans... uh, yeah, but if I'm paying 3 grand for a 4 bedroom air conditioned house, I'd want more than a $400 discount if the master, kitchen and living room aren't air conditioned - even if the master has a fan. Nah the $400 may offset the fridge problem, it does nothing about the air conditioner. Ah, but MM thinks plaintiff is asking for too much with the $2000 (plus the $400 she already received that would mean she only paid $800 for her $3200 steak). MM decides the $3200 house was only worth half with the problems, so she orders an additional $1200 discount. During hallterview Landlady brings up fact that plaintiff had more folks staying there than allowed on contract - ah, sour grapes, point would have never been raised had the rental worked as well as the previous three years.
3. stepmommy suing stepdaughter over iPhone bill: plaintiff says she fronted stepdaughter for the phone and the ingrate was supposed to pay the monthly bills.... ingrate never paid, and left her owing $850. Ingrate agrees she was supposed monthly bills, but she fell behind and terrible step mommy cut off her line when she didn't make the monthly payment. She sees no reason to pay for a phone if she can't use it. So, her solution was to take phone plaintiff bought and trade it in for a new one on her own plan. Oh, and not only doesn't she owes for the phone stepmommy got her and still owes on, she figures step mommy owes her 5 grand in back child support that dad owes from when she was growing up (she's 22yo now). Huh? Are we talking support dad was supposed to pay defendant's mommy? I know we always say it is the child's money not the parent receiving support, but shouldn't mommy be the one suing? Oh, and suing daddy, not daddy's wife? Not to mention, seems like plaintiff obviously was helping out ingrate by fronting her a phone and adding her on her cell plan. Ah, stepmommy thought she had found a great deal, she had this great family plan and added everybody to her bill - total of 8 people. Everybody pays their own $63 portion of the bill, and everybody gets a new phone. Ah, but for the duration of the contract, if 1 of those 8 people lose their job, or gets mad cuz you forgot their favorite dish at Sunday dinner, you may end up paying their share. Stepmommy knows this, she works at Verizon, but she figures her two teenagers and the step daughter are all good kids, they won't stiff her... besides she's getting an employee discount. Yep, this is textbook case of why JJ stopped hearing cell phone cases for awhile. Not only are folks foolishly committing to years of monthly payments, but the "free" phone is not really free... oh, and the contract that nobody reads needs a law scholar to decipher. As if that shouldn't raise enough red flags, when asked plaintiff says defendant doesn't get along with the rest of the family. Seems defendant is late every month (MM is reading the bill, sometimes as late as 3 weeks, once not paying until the 28th when due on 1st). So, late every month, doesn't get along with anybody, and stepmommy is going through grandma trying to find out when/if the bill will be paid. Finally, plaintiff gives defendant a deadline and ultimatum, pay your bill or your line will be suspended and you'll have to return the phone. Defendant replies, still through granny as she doesn't talk to evil step mommy, (heck, she doesn't even respond to granny except in a text) asking why plaintiff is involving granny in their business when she knows her (defendant's) number and could call her direct. Says she'll get around to paying the (WAY) overdue bill next Friday (maybe), and if stepmommy isn't happy with that she can go ahead and suspend the line, but no way is she getting the phone back! Uh, says MM, maybe she's asking granny to reach out because the bill was 3 weeks overdue at that point. Hmmm wonder if, when 22yo ingrate finally paid the bill each month she also paid the late charges? Hoboy, now MM asks where was the father while all this was going on. At the time, when granny gets the "pound sand, she ain't giving the ***** phone back" text daddy calls yelling on the phone. Now, he's at his other residence... back in jail.... must be another of the those jailbirds who rotates in and out to get away from drama. Defendant, like many litigants on court tv, is oblivious to the fact that someone did them a favor and maybe they should show a little thankfulness. MM asks, and ingrate was paying $120 before plaintiff added her to the family plan. So, in addition to the new iPhone 7, every month plaintiff was saving her almost half her previous phone bill. Is she thankful? Course not, she even brings her mommy, daddy's other woman all those years ago, to court... not because she has any evidence about the lawsuit, but to thumb her nose at plaintiff... oh, but wait, there's also that frivolous countersuit where the wrong person is suing the other wrong person for child support. Course MM is wasting her time trying to point out plaintiff was doing a good thing for her, she just stands there smirking and trying to argue evil stepmommy threatened to cut her line, so of course she is fully justified trading in the phone plaintiff bought her. After all, daddy hasn't been here for her, so stepmommy owed her and should have cut her some slack. More to the story, as it sounds like she has her own court problems she think daddy should have been helping her with.... not really sure WTH she's saying. Hmmm, now that I think about it, she's 22, step sister in court is 18, so daddy left her mommy to go to stepmommy and have another family. Anyway, when plaintiff suspends her line, she takes to FB an hour after the line was suspended saying she was down trading in phone stepmommy is still paying for and starting her own plan, haha, with a lot of beeped out words when plaintiff reads the post in court. Ah, what a sweetheart the little ingrate is proving herself to be! Ah, but she tries to argue, I wasn't the only one of the 8 people on the plan who paid late, but I'm the only one she cut off and sued.... arrrrrgh nothing MM said penetrated, give it up, it's lost what little entertainment value it had. Ok, shift gears, maybe the child support nonsense will have and chuckle... unlikely, child support should never be a joke. No, no chuckles, just mommy telling her daughter from an early age that reason daddy never paid child support was evil stepmommy told him not. Ok, nothing here, let's move along. Time for MM to do the math... and she's not happy with plaintiff, who is apparently padding the bill, claiming the rate changed to $80 a monthly with MM is holding the bill saying $63. So, plaintiff tried to pull a fast one and claim an extra couple hundred bucks, but handed MM the proof of the correct amount... once again a litigant providing evidence assuming judge can't/won't read the freeking paper.

Edited November 9, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

40 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

dog nap case:

After being traumatized by yesterday's horse abuse case, I skipped this but did catch a bit of the hallterview. Oh, my. If def wants to look like a woman he really needs to get electrolysis or something on the moustache. Next!

42 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Beach house rental fail:

My view on this is: If you're collecting 3200$/week from renters, order the damned fridge earlier to make sure it's there for the occupancy. For that price, I would expect perfection and sweltering in 90 degree weather with no air conditioning is not perfection. They would have been more comfortable at a Travelodge, if they still exist. Aside from that, why do so many litigants think it's a good idea to butt in and start talking while the judge is speaking? I understand it's hard to keep quiet when you hear something you feel is not true, but really a little self-control goes a long way. In this case, the def opening her pie hole while JM is talking and rationalizing, "Oh, well - they should be happy with the ceiling fans," makes me think she's unreasonable and impossible to deal with. Ceiling fans wouldn't cut it for me in that weather and particularly not if I were paying that price. I think the judgement to give plaintiff back half her money was fair.

47 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

stepmommy suing stepdaughter over iPhone bill:

JM to stepmommy: "Where's your husband?"

Stepmommy (who had a rather trailer-trashy affect) in a cheerful voice: "He's in jail." Wow. It's as though that's a normal, everyday state of affairs. If MY husband were in jail, I'd be horrified, shocked, appalled - all kinds of things but cheerful. Maybe she's used to it.

JM really bugged me here, again showing her bias towards any female litigants who are the same age as any of her daughters. Def was arrogant, rude, nasty, ungrateful and never stopped rolling her eyes, even when JM was lecturing her about being a good person (as if). I did enjoy the way JM read her texts with horrible grammar intact. But, hey - aren't super-expensive phones a neccessity of life these days, even for those who can't afford them? I"m embarassed to say my phone (which I got just last year) cost only 119$. I need someone to pay for an upgrade! This is a case I would like to have seen on  JJ, who would have ripped the little ingrate a new one.

[Jamoche]

The dog-loser has the strangest skin tone on her face - it's very grayish. I'd almost think the screen color was off, but her arms fit into the normal skin tone spectrum.

[meowmommy]

This is the second recent case where a litigant is calling the police over a lost dog.  I'm just trying to grasp people thinking the cops are going to take time to look for a dog.  I also don't get someone spending $749 on a dog and then leaving it in a shithole where there's shit on the floor and bad blood already between the relatives instead of either hiring a bonded pet sitter or kenneling the dog.  I also don't get someone spending $749 on a dog when so many poor pets are put down every day in shelters.  Also was weird to have MM refer to the defendant as "she" while plaintiff said "he."  ICBW, but I don't ever remember MM depreciating the value in any previous dog case.

3 hours ago, Jamoche said:

The dog-loser has the strangest skin tone on her face - it's very grayish.

Looks like something to cover the five o'clock shadow.

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM really bugged me here, again showing her bias towards any female litigants who are the same age as any of her daughters. Def was arrogant, rude, nasty, ungrateful and never stopped rolling her eyes, even when JM was lecturing her about being a good person (as if).

Every damn time a case involves family, MM dumps the facts of the case and puts her family-family-family bias filter on.  I couldn't believe how gentle she was with the mouthy, ungrateful bitch defendant, when said bitch needed to be reamed a new asshole.  And then she starts with, "I'm trying to teach you, because obviously no one has taught you," when there's no evidence of anything other than this little bitch is an entitled snot who respects no one.  

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, Jamoche said:

The dog-loser has the strangest skin tone on her face - it's very grayish. I'd almost think the screen color was off, but her arms fit into the normal skin tone spectrum.

That was a man, baby.

 

7 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I couldn't believe how gentle she was with the mouthy, ungrateful bitch defendant, when said bitch needed to be reamed a new asshole. 

Seriously. She would have gotten a better reaming even on "Hot Bench" than she did here.

[NYCFree]

I think this is the third People's Court/Judge Judy case with an ancient and beloved Volvo. My husband has a disproportionate love for our Volvo, so it's kind of amusing to me.  Volvo does have this very cool program where, if you buy a new one, they will give you two round trip plane tickets to come pick it up, drive it around Europe, then they will ship it to you in the states. They can do this because driving it around Europe then means that the car is now used when imported into the US and the taxes are hugely lowered. We did this a couple of years ago and had a wonderful time exploring the fjords region of Norway.

[Katy M]

56 minutes ago, NYCFree said:

I think this is the third People's Court/Judge Judy case with an ancient and beloved Volvo. My husband has a disproportionate love for our Volvo, so it's kind of amusing to me.  Volvo does have this very cool program where, if you buy a new one, they will give you two round trip plane tickets to come pick it up, drive it around Europe, then they will ship it to you in the states. They can do this because driving it around Europe then means that the car is now used when imported into the US and the taxes are hugely lowered. We did this a couple of years ago and had a wonderful time exploring the fjords region of Norway.

That's settled then.  My next car is a Volvo.

[SRTouch]

1. has been rapper manager wants to be paid for work on 16yo rapper's album: plaintiff claims to have worked for big time rappers in the past, and he was hired by stage mommy to make baby boy a star. A star was NOT born, but he still wants his money for all his hard work... yep dude says he worked over 550 hours, is owed over 10 grand (number he throws out, IIRC over $170,000,) and by golly he deserves his money. Ah, max must be higher in their jurisdiction, because he's asking for 10 grand instead of the normal 5. Momma agrees dude did the work, says album was great and broke into the top 40 on hip hop charts... so, maybe a star WAS born, he just isn't making any money as thus far the album hasn't made any profits. If/when album makes money, dude will be paid... ah, entertainment contract case. Ever so often you hear about some box office smash setting records at the box office, but because of creative accounting the studio declares it a flop and people who worked on the project on a percentage basis aren't paid. So... do they have a contract, is manager guaranteed so much for his work, or is he in it for a cut of future earnings, and where is 16yo rapper boy. Countersuit, also for 10 grand, has to do with a laptop and jewelry. Plaintiff's story is he retired from the big time, moved to Atlanta, and opened up a handyman man business. Then stage mommy approaches him, says her boy has talent, maybe with plaintiff's connections they can make him a star. Anyway, MM asks what connections our handyman/manager actually has. He answers he worked for Roscoe... uh, who is Roscoe? ... why, Roscoe is a member of Dog Pound and somebody's brother... thankfully MM drops that line of questioning - I know nothing about rappers, so he could be talking about rapper royalty and I wouldn't know. Anyway, whether he was some dude on the fringe or actually a big time music guy, he knew folks in the hip hop world, and momma thought this might get her kid heard by big time movers and shakers. Now it's momma throwing out names... nope still nobody I've heard of. Hope they quit with the back story and start talking about the contract, cause none of this is interesting me. Ah, MM hears me, and starts talking contract. Yes, written contract signed in Sept 7, 2017, two weeks after he completed the handyman job at her house.  Huh, that's not even 3 months ago! And he's already in court suing for non payment? Hmmm nice short contract, looks like everything is on one page... course short doesn't mean clear and concise, could be gobbledygook with a bunch of legalese written by someone with only the foggiest notion of what it means. Momma says handyman/big time manager/producer and apparently CEO of a record company is supposed to get 8% of "monies and profits," momma says that's gross (not sure if she knows difference from net and gross) for all projects plaintiff works on with son for next 2 years, until he turns 18. Ok, now momma is singing get the praises of music man plaintiff, and telling us what a great album he produced and how he brought in all these big name folks to work on the album.... and I'm thinking this case is free publicity to keep the album on the charts - I mean, why would manager dude sue for 10 grand if he truly thinks he's owed $170,000... longer it stays on charts more he'll get, so why sue now? Or, maybe not, because these folks are throwing around terms and names I just don't know/understand. Now it comes out that kid was already under contract with some other record company... can he just jump record labels - was handyman/manager dude hired to go behind the other company, or maybe negotiate a new deal.... oh, and when MM asks for a copy of the contract with other company momma can't find it.... nope, case may only be half done but I'm bored and confused... zip zip... I get to rough justice time and it's as confusing as what I was hearing before - but I'm not going back and wade through that mess to figure it out. Plaintiff gets nothing, momma's nonsense countersuit must have contained a kernel of something somewhere, because MM says she's going to put momma in contact with the law enforcement about missing property. Plaintiff leaves insisting he's owed money... don't know, don't care... worse part is case ran long.
2. poorly maintained sidewalk: plaintiff describes himself as a professional walker who walks 15 miles daily (not sure what schooling is required). Anyway, his lawsuit is he tripped and was injured walking on defendant's sidewalk, and he wants two grand for his injuries, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. Really? If he wins I know a couple places here locally with terrible sidewalks... do speedbumps count?..., if I wasn't already retired I'd head out and become a professional walker and sue every time I stumble - don't need to actually have a case, folks will pay just to make me go away. Anyway, plaintiff's story is he fell, defendant came out to get his newspaper (what, somebody who actually gets the paper delivered... does his have a bird or does he really read it?), defendant says he had a couple of spots of blood and appeared dazed, they talk a few minutes, then says plaintiff started yelling he was going to sue, so defendant goes inside and ignores him. Plaintiff calls an ambulance and cops, and according to defendant's witness when they get there and see who called they just say, "oh, you again." Ah, but pictures show the sidewalk "is" uneven, either patched or lifted by a tree root. And, MM tells us that many cities require property owners to maintain and keep the sidewalk in good repair in front of their property. Seems a tree cracked the sidewalk and lifted it a couple inches So, looks like dude may have a case in their jurisdiction after all, but not sure how much he'll get with no medical treatment or records. (I need to check my jurisdiction's laws to see about my potential new career.) And, defendant's witness definitely downplayed his injuries when she described it as maybe a spot of blood - unless the guy went home and took a sander to his knee and nose, he took a pretty good tumble. So, what are dude's damages. No medical bills, but seeing the pix he was skinned up and had to deal with road rash and bruises... but 2 grand worth? Nah, MM says looks like a $500 case. Defendant's witness calls out as MM is leaving wanting to know if MM will read the police report... no, says the judge, the police don't make the ruling, that's her job. Ah, but in hallterview defendants still harping that plaintiff is a serial litigant... so, wonder if they went out and painted the crack yellow and put up a Caution, Watch Your Step Sign that would satisfy things without breaking out a jackhammer and redoing the sidewalk.
3. tenant suing Santa: tenant says she found an apartment and put down the deposit. Then, when it's time to move in, landlord says place isn't suitable for her handicapped son, he won't let her move in, and won't return the deposit. But, potential tenant says landlord knew about son's handicap before she put down the deposit. Huh? Can landlord even refuse to rent to handicapped son? If place is really unsuitable, why would mom want to move in? I suspect actual case to differ widely from intro. Ok, broken English, English as second language, plaintiff starts out with long winded explanation of why she had to move, how she found defendant's place in Penny Saver, etc... ah, section 8... oh, and disabled son - well he's 24 (?)yo and his disability is being bipolar, but she says he's fine when he takes his meds. Ok, section 8 is great for folks who truly need the help, but the assistance comes with hoops both landlord and tenant have to jump through (and the hoops differ depending on the local housing authority). Here, tenant has to put down a deposit before section 8 will come and do an inspection, and if the inspection fails landlord has to fix the problems while tenants twiddle their thumbs waiting for the Ok to move in. In this case the inspection and approval process lasted months... strike one for landlord - when MM asks him how many months it took, his answer is awhile - that wasn't my question, I know it took awhile, how MANY MONTHS did it take? Eventually, plaintiff says she gets the approval from section 8, but now after waiting for months, landlord starts asking about her son and his problems, and finally he tells her he's having second thoughts and wants to talk to the condo commission (sort of an HOA).  End result, after waiting all this time he rescinds the rental agreement, she and son not welcome, back to square one and she has to start looking for a place (later tells Doug she's still looking - wonder if she couldn't find anything or couldn't come up with a second $1500-2000 deposit while Santa is holding her money). Ah, over to defendant, and he admits that he wanted her when he accepted the deposit. Says after two months he started hearing stuff - son had been locked up a couple times because of violence, had a history of causing property damage, etc... dude, time to find that out is before you take the deposit while checking references and doing background checks. Now not only have you wasted this lady's time, you've cost the taxpayers a bunch of money with section 8 wasting time and man power... and I thought his defense is that she was the one who changed her mind? Not really sure what his defense is now. Another little thing, if I understand section 8 as practiced there, tenant puts down the deposit to get things rolling, but the actually lease isn't signed until place passes inspection and tenant moves in. So, yeah he's wasted everybody's time, but she didn't have a lease so he's not really breaking a lease by saying he doesn't want son moving in (ah, but refusing to rent to a disabled person is not only not nice, Santa, but against the law). Then he says he returned her deposit.... no, he gave her a check for part of the deposit, and when she demanded he return the whole amount he stopped payment. If she's receiving section 8 assistance she probably needed that money, but would taking it mean she settled. Doesn't matter, she took the check, she deposited it, then check bounced because Santa stopped payment, so it would have been Santa who reneged on a possible settlement. Oh, Santa,  that's it - you're on the naughty list. Not only is she suing for the full amount, but for the fee her bank charged her when he stopped payment. Easy case, plaintiff wins.

Edited November 9, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

has been rapper manager wants to be paid for work on 16yo rapper's album

Okay, I"m totally out of it. Hats off to a judge who can make sense of any of this case. All I heard was Blah blah blah "Corrupt Dogpound"(Is that what I heard?) aspiring depressed 16-year old rapper, "my chile, my chile, he's a chile" and I'm lost in space. I never heard of any of those "Famous" record companies, but as I say - I"m obsolete and know nothing about current trends.  I was just in fear that def. while waving her hands around, was going to cut her own throat with those enormous daggers glued to her fingertips. Plaintiff is out 200,000$ but is willing to accept a small claim judgement. Problem is, he has a lot of long, convoluted stories/hearsay but has no proof of one single thing he's bitching about. JM wanted to know who paid for def's fur coat (UGH!). She also wanted to know if all the bling was real. I'm surprised she didn't ask how much that wig cost too. I guess def feels the cold a lot in California, since her daughter, whose 10K(?) in jewelry was pawned (or something like that. As I said, I'm lost) is wearing a sundress in the hall while Momma is bundled in her nasty fur coat as though she's planning to trek across the tundra. Plaintiff is so mad he goes storming off in the hall - in the wrong direction. In spite of zero evidence, he just feels he should have won. Doug redirects him to the Exit.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Anyway, his lawsuit is he tripped and was injured walking on defendant's sidewalk, and he wants two grand for his injuries, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. Really? If he wins I know a couple places here locally with terrible sidewalks... do speedbumps count?...,

I never heard of homeowners being required to maintain city property, but seems that IS how it is in NYC. Anyway, I tripped and fell a couple years back because of a big pothole in the road. Why didn't I think about calling the POLICE and then suing? Maybe I thought it wouldn't have happened had I been looking where I was going.  Plaintiff wouldn't go to the hospital or even a doctor because they're all such idiots they'd give him all kinds of X-rays when he shouldn't have them.  Stupid doctors! We don't need no stinkin' doctors! He wants 2000$ because that's the value he puts on a pressure bandage on his arm. JM gives him 500$. She must know what she's doing. Oh, btw - def's wife is a shrew.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing Santa:

 You don't want plaintiff and her son there and decide not to rent to them, that's fine. But keeping all the money because YOU changed your mind at the last minute? As HallClown would say, "HUHHHH???" Are you nuts? Santa, you're a dumbass.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I never heard of homeowners being required to maintain city property, but seems that IS how it is in NYC.

Laws regarding sidewalk maintenance seem to vary from city to city, but usually the sidewalk adjacent to your property is yours, not the city's. Where I live in upstate NY, the city assists homeowners with big repairs like the one in this case. In NYC I think the responsibility is entirely the homeowners and the city accepts no liability. 

I bet if the defendants had offered the "professional walker" $500 to begin with, he still would've sued.