The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

1. dognap case: intro makes me think the dog is just a pawn in whatever turned these lifelong friends into litigants. Two on the plaintiff side really should have taken a look in the mirror before leaving home - good grief, ladies, first thing you need to do when you get home is throw out all your tight/stretchy tops; and the hair! Plaintiff, wearing the ever popular cross necklace,  needs to switch from extensions to a full wig, while her witness is sporting a white patch in the center of her hair. Can't say much about defendant's appearance, as she's already seated at her lectern - oh, but later I notice 2 inch purple talons. Have to mention the litigants names, though. Rough looking plaintiff asks to only be called Princess, no last name. Defendant added an "i" to her name, so she's Traciy and pronounces it "truc KIGH", also no last name. Like I said,  I think the  dog is just a small part of this fight, but it's what brought them to court. Plaintiff says she sold a puppy to defendant back in 2015, but defendant failed to pay - so, she repo'ed the dog. Now she has the dog back, but is suing for the unpaid balance of $150 - oh, and for defamation cuz defendant put posterse around the neighborhood accusing her of stealing the puppy - she wants a total of 5 grand. Defendant isn't going for a bonanza. She's only asking for $300, the amount she claims she paid for the dog. Unfortunately, the dog isn't in court, so we won't get a repeat of JJ paying for the puppy and saying neither of these losers will be going home with it. Not sure WTF idiot Princess expects. Even if you accept everything she says, she wants both the dog and the purchase price - and of course $4750 because defendant is telling everybody she took the dog. Oh, and she says she sold the dog back in '15, but just recently repo'ed it. When MM asks if she had contacted defendant asking for the balance, she answers no, she lost her phone, so didn't know her phone number. Really, known the woman for years as a friend of your sister, couldn't figure how to contact her for almost two years, yet knew where to go to get the dog to repo it. Long involved story of how she found where she lived, some nonsense about how she cons defendant into letting her take the dog (supposedly wanted a doggy family portrait) but then refuses to return the dog. So, why didn't you return the dog, asks MM. Didn't return the dog because defendant started threatening her for not returning the dog - yeah, makes sense - oh, and now that she's thinking about it there was that outstanding balance. Ah, the outstanding balance! Defendant doesn't deny she still owes, just disputes the amount - she says $50 and plaintiff says $150. (Uh, she couldn't come up with $50 in the past 18 months, who wants to bet dog has never seen a vet for spay and shots. Along the same line, plaintiff says she sold the dog for $300 - who thinks it had its first puppy shots before the sale.) Staying with purple talon defendant, we hear a story of how plaintiff let unneutered brother and sister mate and produce puppies.... ok, not sure how much I want to listen to these fools. According to defendant, plaintiff didn't come looking for the 2 year old puppy until her male (the puppy's uncle/father) died. Says when plaintiff showed up, she (defendant) said she reminded plaintiff she still owed $50 ("I gotcha"), and was going to pay. We never learn the puppy's sex, or name, but now I'm thinking maybe a male and he's the new stud, making dollar signs with his mother. Lots of speculation and mud slinging, but I haven't heard any evidence yet. Now yarn defendant is spinning is that plaintiff wanted defendant to help put her in touch with a mutual friend, hoping this "Winston" dude would pay her way for a Jamaican get away. Huh, surely ole Winston can find cheaper female companionship down in Jamaica than rough looking Princess. Hoboy, we're still at 11 minutes and this case is really out there... still watching to see where the train ends up after coming off the tracks. Anyway, this is apparently the real cause of their falling out, defendant tries, but ultimately fails, to convince Winston to take Princess along on his trip. Ok, now that MM has that out there for our entertainment, she's ready to delve into whether either side can prove anything they've been telling us.  Both sides are busy going through their phones looking for proof of the amount they claim was owed for the dog. Ah, then we have the defaming posters that plaintiff wants $4700 for. Here defendant denies she's the one who made the poster, nah, it was made by the police detective. He - or maybe he's a she - made the poster and left it on plaintiff's door... well except if the cop did make the poster he/she misspelled "petty" larceny and wrote about plaintiff stealing the dog from outside "my building"... odd phrasing for the detective.  MM is threatening to get up and go call the detective to see if the cop made the poster... yeah, like a detective would have nothing more pressing than a dispute over 50 or even 150 dollars. Good news / bad news, depending on whether you believe either of these two. The horrible thought that the puppy is now the stud in plaintiff's closet puppy mill is laid to rest, as plaintiff claims she re-sold the dog. Ah, but MM doesn't believe her, and says she doesn't believe her - calling her a liar several times before calling a recess and leaving the bench... as we head to commercial. Whoa, we have a  switcheroo here. MM made the call and talked to the cop... and the poster with the lousy grammar, misspelled ""petty larceny"... that poster WAS made by a detective... oh, and MM informs plaintiff that there's an open warrant for her arrest out. Question now is amount of balance owed by defendant. She passes up her phone with a text that is supposed to show plaintiff agreeing she owes $50... nope, just the opposite, back and forth arguing with plaintiff saying $150 and defendant saying $50. Rough justice, plaintiff wins her claim for $150, but nothing on the big ticket defamation claim, cuz that poster was written by the detective. OTOH, defendant doesn't get the $300 she's asking for. MM figures what she really wants is the dog... so MM says she's going to issue a judgement saying defendant is the legal owner of the dog. She tells Miss Princess that she needs to return the dog... oh and return the detective's calls and settle that arrest warrant issue. Good news, after the case Harvey let's us know the dog was returned, defendant even sent a picture of her holding the dog.
2. Unpaid ad man or disgruntled employee:  plaintiff claims he was hired to bring business to defendant's bakery. Says he brought in a big order, and instead of paying him the defendant fired him. Defendant agrees he hired plaintiff, but says he just wasn't any good, so he fired him after 60 days. Hmmm, unless there's a contract I don't see how plaintiff thinks he's entitled to 2 grand for bringing in 1 client after 60 days - well, unless he was salaried and this was his wages for those 2 months. Well, how bought this... plaintiff says he has a contract. Says the deal was he was to get $250 a week plus a percentage of any sales he brought in. As I understand it, dude was hired for a guaranteed six month period. After six months, the contract was to be automatically renewed for a year. During the year, the contract could be canceled by either side with a 30 day notice. Defendant was less than impressed, no sales the first month, so he notified plaintiff that contract would not be renewed. Thing is, plaintiff claims there was a clause in the 30 day notification that if he produced a sale in the next month they termination would be "revisited." Well, he says, he made a sale within that time, so the 30 day notice was null and void. Ah, but defendant says different. Yeah, he made a sale, but he says in his mind plaintiff employment was over after the 6 months... ah, but he never actually told the plaintiff that. So, plaintiff goes forward thinking he'll have a job in 6 months, but when the time comes he's told, no you were given notice 3-4 months ago. Not sure why plaintiff would come on TV with this suit. He made 1 sale in the six month period... not sure how good a salesman that makes him without knowing what is normal in their industry, but doesn't sound that impressive. Let's see, he gets 1 grand a month and makes a single $3600 sale in 6 months... bottom line doesn't look good for the company to my uninformed eyes. Anyway, he claims to have had big sales lined up, and that he was surprised when the $250 weekly checks just stopped coming. Hmmm sounds like this belongs under a labor commission rather than a small claims court. Problem for defendant is that apparantly plaintiff wasn't the only one who didn't know his employment had ended. Weeks after defendant says his employment was terminated, plaintiff was communicating with the company production manager about the big upcoming contract. Emails prove plaintiff was still doing work a month after defendant says he was fired.... wow, two plaintiffs came to court, talked intelligently, had a contract, and the guy with evidence wins. Any wonder why MM has a smile on her face as she rules, even though she jokes nobody brought her cookies.
3. She's tired of supporting the bum (but why did it take two years): same tired a$$ tale of woe we hear over and over. Plaintiff let bum of a bf mooch off her for a couple years, they break up, now she wants back rent and all the money she spent on him while they were together. Of course, arrogant bum comes in smirking, says they never lived together and she's just made that he cut her off. Plaintiff seems tongue tied when she starts out - maybe nervous airing her dirty laundry on national tv. Once she gets going, things smooth out and she gets out her story. Seems the bum had to move because of sewage problems in his old place, do she invites him in as long as he pays half the rent. He lives there for half a year, but only pays 1 month, so owes for 5 months. She's having trouble paying the rent, so works with landlord to move out without a lease breaking penalty. He promises her money, and she's saving money in the safe she keeps in the apartment, for the upcoming move. Ah, but he splits without paying the promised money, and cleans out the safe as he's leaving. So... now he owes 5 months rent, and he takes a grand of her money out of the safe. As if that isn't enough, he owes back taxes (his excuse for taking her money from the safe was to make partial tax payment to avoid a warrant). Along the way, he's running up bank charges with overdrafts on her account. This makes no sense - almost  $830 in bank fees on her account when she says she was the only authorized user. No expert here, but that sounds like possible federal bank fraud or something. Ah, under questioning we learn she gave the bum her ATM card and PIN... so not really a crime so much as misplaced trust in a known deadbeat. Over to deadbeat to see if he can charm the judge. She quickly has bum admitting he owes for the bank charges, but when asked about the grand taken out of the safe he says "that's not accurate." Hmmm, does it mean anything when a litigant breaks out the big words (well at least big for this guy) and looks up to the heavens when he answers. After commercial things rapidly go downhill for dude. Not only can't he maintain eye contact, he admits taking her money - but says he always pays his bills.... hmmm why don't I believe anything he's saying.... and if it's not bad enough that he's a terrible liar, he also slips up and calls MM "miss." Geez, could he possibly look any worse. After saying he always pays his nills, he goes on to admitting that yeah, he wasn't paying his rented, but hey, she missed paying rent a couple months too. Ok, if that's true and she missed a couple months, why would that excuse you of paying for 5 months. Well, you see, after he lost his job they were still going out all the time. Uh huh... and he always pays his bills.... I wanted MM to ask about the alledged back taxes, but there was so much other stuff MM never got there. Nah, now the story is he told her he had $1800 cash to give her if she'd come meet him. For some reason she didn't meet him, so why should he pay a portion of what he admits he owes. Awww, he says he loves her like crazy, he wanted her back, but she dumped him. So, why'd you dump the bum? asks MM. WHO CARES WHY! Real question is why did it take so long. Times up, MM rules for plaintiff, saying bum has no defense and she's not a marriage counselor. Bum hasn't learned anything, I figure he's probably already found a new meal ticket.

[patty1h]

That chick with the claw-like fingernails just had too much going on at once -- it was almost sensory overload:  her hands waving around as she spoke, her nails, the throwback face and tongue piercings, giant rings, Africa neck pendant, and ratty multi-color hair all made for a startling appearance.   And now, I'm gonna get catty... she should have had "Wide Load" stamped on her back.  That wasn't just an ass, it was an ASSSSSSS.  I did like her dress, though.

[Schnickelfritz]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

He - or maybe he's a she - made the poster and left it on plaintiff's door... well except if the cop did make the poster he/she misspelled "petty" larceny and wrote about plaintiff stealing the dog from outside "my building"...

Actually, the detective misspelled the word Petit. Same thing as petty larceny, just different verbage. One sounds more high falutin and is in more popular use. (At least around my neck of the woods)

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dognap case:

I heard, "You want me to call you "Princess" and then the word "dog" and I hit FF. End of that one.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Unpaid ad man or disgruntled employee: 

I expected to really love this, since it was a contract case, but one that featured COOKIES! Gourmet cookies. What's not to love? Unhappily for me, it was rather dull, all boiling down to def using a lot baffle-speak to explain why he kept plaintiff working but was disinclined to pay him.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

She's tired of supporting the bum (but why did it take two years): 

He needed money for school? In what kind of school is it acceptable to be totally unable to speak your own language? Well, I couldn't understand one garbled, murdered syllable that came from his scamming pie hole. There's something nefarious going on when a homely, obese, uneducated mooch can find women only too willing to bankroll him.

[Florinaldo]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Good news, after the case Harvey let's us know the dog was returned, defendant even sent a picture of her holding the dog.

I think this little doggie may not be long for this Earth; one false move while petting it and she will shred it to pieces with her claws.

 

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I expected to really love this, since it was a contract case, but one that featured COOKIES! Gourmet cookies. What's not to love? Unhappily for me, it was rather dull, all boiling down to def using a lot baffle-speak to explain why he kept plaintiff working but was disinclined to pay him.

I also like a good meaty and interesting contract case. i.e. everything this one was not. I wonder how much of the crucial information about the company still doing business with supposedly fired employees was in the filing documents, so MM dragged it out well past a foregone conclusion.

[SRTouch]

Ah, fireworks in 3rd case.... oh, and no proofreading today, so be prepared for more than usual typos

1. tractor case: plaintiff pays 4 grand for defendant's old tractor, but never moves it off her property. (Actually, 2 grand for the tractor and another 2 grand trying to get it to run.) A year later, not only is she tired of looking at it, and the city is after her to get rid of the eyesore. (Could, maybe, be considered a safety issue, too, if it's where kids could treat it as playground equipment.) She says she tried contacting dude, but it continued to sit there on her property. Eventually she gets the city to junk it (maybe). Now, he's in court wanting his money back, and as long as she's here, defendant says she wants over 3 grand for having to hassle with complying with city orders to get it moved. Geez, case is only seconds old and I'm already put off by these two. First, in defendant's intro, they have to throw in that this was dear old daddy's tractor, and he was the first African American landscaper in the county... then, plaintiff makes sure to mention how he's a minister (whoa, they must have a hell of a choir - not sure I could sit through a sermon with this dude talking) and planned to use the tractor for church projects. Maybe both are true, but what does either have to do with the case. Oh, and I have some experience with farm tractors, and can't wait to see pictures of this 30 foot, 80,000lb tractor daddy used for landscaping, cuz that would be one BIG tractor to use landscaping. During MM's opening summary she tells us this was an '81 ford - not really that old for well maintained equipment, but apparently this was NOT maintained. Price on the tractor started out at $1500, but went up to 2 grand when he got it running. Ah, but that's just the engine, thing was sitting on flat tires... hasn't been used since at least 2015 when dad got sick. Little more on the sale... daughter sold the tractor, rented the property and moved out of state almost immediately, but she says it was understood that it would be moved "soon"... so it was her tenants who were left with the tractor sitting on the property. Oh, and she had to reduce the asking price for the rent until the tractor was moved (it was sitting right next to the house,  and the city was already after her to move it when she sold it.) So, according to her, she gave the tenants $80 off the rent, until it was moved, so you know she wasn't happy to have it sit there for 56 weeks. Minister says it was understood that tractor needed work, so he figures there was no deadline for moving it off the property... Guess he thought 13 months was a reasonable amount of time. Anyway, she finally flies back to handle it... it needs to get moved - yesterday - so that the city will get off her back and she can finally start getting her full rent. Hmmm not sure I buy her story, at first she was okay with it on the property for a "few" weeks, then that changes to a "couple", then there's look up and think before she comes up with it sitting for 56 weeks... makes me think she's tailoring her testimony and buying time trying to remember what numbers she put in her answer... I'm thinking she might be exaggerating a tad when she doesn't need to to make him look even worse. Not that it matters much, he waited WAY too long to move it. If she can show she tried to contact him before getting rid of it I say give him nothing... heck after 13 months she was probably right to consider it abandoned. Oh, and now it comes out that when she sold it the minister he paid $1500 and agreed to pay $150 a month until he the total of 2 grand had been paid... and she never received any of those monthly payments.... hmmm is it a repo if the buyer never finishes paying and never takes possession, or a layaway? Or maybe he took possession, just never moved it off the property? Either way, I wouldn't give him anything... and I wonder about his claim for 2 grand purchase price if she's correct that he only paid $1500. Anyway, after multiple attempts to call him from out of state, she comes back and ends up knocking on his door. Ah, after leaving it sit for a year, when she comes a-knocking he finally pays the additional $500 - so he did pay 2 grand... eventually... but if defendant was discounting the rent $80 a month for 13 months that doesn't even cover what she lost. Ok, I'm kind of lost here with numbers... cause now she's saying tenants left after 7 months, complaining in a letter she brought to court about the tractor sitting in the yard... but if they left after 7 months she's out even more in lost income... and the city is still after her to get it gone... sounds like abandoned property, but did she reset the clock when she took the final $500, and how long after that did she finally get it hauled away. Aw, soon as I ask, MM gets the answer... it sat for another 8 months. After the tenants leave, she moves back into the house... months go by and it's still there... finally she gets it hauled away... 3 days later he's on her porch wanting to know where his tractor is... oh, and we learn he has a big yard of his own just 10 houses down the road... if we're to believe he put on tires (part of his claim is tires) then he could throw a chain on that baby and tow it home behind a pickup in 15 minutes... MM asks why he didn't just get a tow truck - heck, 10 houses down the road, on flat ground any car could pull it if it rolls in neutral. Ah, this case has crossed the line - 5 minutes too long... now I'm just waiting for it to end. Really, dude made a point of telling us he's a minister, wonder what his congregation thinks of his lawsuit and appearance here. Ok, the real reason for the lawsuit... seems when he comes knocking she tells him the city took it - he goes to the city and they say, nope they haven't towed any tractors in last 30 years (wonder if her "the city wanted it gone" wasn't part of her tailored testimony) - back to her place, and now she's the one dodging him - asks neighbors, they say Dusty took it away - tracks down Dusty and he says too late, Tommy has it... Tommy, he doesn't know any Tommy... ah, karma! Really, his case has been kaput for the last 10 minutes, but what about her counterclaim. Nah, despite her confusing numbers, she's not really out anything... lost a little on rent, but she's back living there now - and probably sold tractor to Dusty or Tommy... and MM sort of let it slide, but Preach said Dusty drove it onto a flatbed, so she probably got more the second time she sold it... if he really drove it onto the trailer... heck, even it it still doesn't move on its own, it has new tires and a new battery, as well as countless hours of labor preacher man has put into it. Doesn't matter, I vote nobody gets anything... and not even interested in the pictures of this monster tractor defendant says she has.
2. neighbor feud: plaintiff says defendant leaves his water running, which caused puddles in plaintiff's yard. Plaintiff slipped and was injured, and wants defendant to pay - oh, and plaintiff uses a cane to walk into court... hmmmm suing for over 9 grand - another California case? - if so, guess the drought's over. Anyway, defendant comes in hauling a big satchel full of stuff in one hand and an armful of binders in the over. Ah, dude, really needs to do something with that 2-toned 'tache, as one side is so light it looks like he slipped and shaved it off. Oh, and in true TPC fashion, he has a 10 grand countersuit for harrassment, says plaintiff is neighbor from hell, and it's his own fault he fell, if he really did, for walking around in the dark. Ok, just from the clip as we go to commercial, I get that plaintiff is one of those old fogeys who think they're the life of any group, but that people actually duck behind something when they see him coming. When MM asks what happened it doesn't take long for me to grab the remote when dude starts he tale. The second time MM interrupts his story and tries to find out what happened we go to commercial, I hit FF and don't stop until I see defendant talking. Nope, MM goes right back to yappy, look at some pictures of a couple wet spots on a sidewalk and skinned knees (and a guess a picture of grandkids without grandpa at the park - cuz grandpa was hurt too bad to be in the picture). According to defendant the animosity goes back to when he rented his house to plaintiff's daughter. (Defendant rents house, doesn't live there.) Defendant ended up taking the daughter to court and winning hefty judgement for back rent and damages. Ok, things are going downhill fast for plaintiff. He's not just some old dude who will talk your ear off if he catches you, seems he's also pretty blatant about being anti-Islamic - to the point of putting up a sign of a bloody pig with "Islamic repellant" hand written when defendant was trying to rent his house... oh, and he's proud of it, he laughs and says, yep, that's what is said, while defendant tells us about the sign and MM gives him the ole sideways stink eye look. Very seldom that I think litigants deserve any harrassment money... this may be one of those times. Anyway, the sign stayed up despite defendant making multiple attempts to get city to make him remove it. Eventually, he got the newspaper involved, and the sign was removed. Course, idiot plaintiff thinks this is all a hoot, his laughing about how the city and police told him he didn't have to take down the sign... completely missing the fact that the lady in the robe who will be deciding the case is getting more and more upset with his attitude and demeanor. He never had a case, but he's having a grand time with his TV appearance... and I'm guessing when he gets home to Redneck Ville he'll get a little of high fives and a beer or two in his circle of buds. Time for MM to rant awhile (while plaintiff laughs and smirks), sitting at 40 minutes, only question is whether defendant will get anything for his 10 grand harrassment claim. Nope, another nothing-nothing tie.
3. lousy engine deal: oops, here is was reaching for remote when I saw plaintiff come in with a dog... nope no doggy attacks here, it's about plaintiff going to defendant for an engine, and not being happy with the result... intro mentions both litigants are veterans, so maybe pooch is a service dog - looks like a pit puppy. Defendant says plaintiff backed out of the deal when he found a cheaper engine. Right off the bat, before MM even asks what the case entails, she asks about the puppy. Ah, I was right, but wrong. Puppy is a pit pup, training to be a service dog, but not for plaintiff... no, puppy is for his witness, a 22yo woman, who served 4 years as a Marine. Ok, case is about an engine plaintiff wanted to for truck he was working on. He has a blown engine but a good truck. He finds defendant's ad on Craigslist for a different blown engine, and figures he can make 1 working engine out of the two bliwn engines. Ah, but when he reaches defendant, turns out he has a working engine for sale, too... hey, if the engine is good, that will save having to rebuild his. Besides, defendant served as a Marine, too, so surely he'll give a fellow brother in arms a good deal. He pays $1000 deposit towards the $2500 engine, but he's to pull the engine himself, after defendant delivers the truck to plaintiff's shop. No contract, but a lot of the deal was memorialized with texts. Ok, first time we go over to defendant, and dude starts in dancing around over a simple question. Was that the deal? Yeah. So when were you supposed to deliver the truck? Well ya see, blah blah blah, and the reason it took so long was..... don't know if he ever answers, I got tired of watching him wave his arms and his poorly tied neck tie was too distracting (yeah, I know, too long in the military where attention to detail was drummed into me... it irks me when I see people wearing a tie that is not tied correctly, or a tie over an open collar... a tie is pretty much useless, so if you're going to wear it wear it correctly, for goodness sake). Anyway, I jump ahead and when I stop in hear MM going through the texts, and telling defendant, hey, you told me it took a mother for plaintiff to be ready for delivery, yet here in the texts he's ready in 10 days, and then pretty much every day he's sending a text asking when he can get the truck... he's ready... do you need help getting it here. Cut to defendant, and it looks like he's not happy hearing the texts read. Now he starts how it was a problem arranging the tow... uh, dude owns a freeking tow company.. when MM points that out dude starts in on how this deal wasn't a high priority to him. He has a business and all these kids, yada yada. Now defendant is getting heated, more arm waving and raised voice until MM is telling him to take it down a notch and lower his voice... takes a while before he stops interrupting and talking over her. Dude never stops, even when MM is willing to stop and read further because he thinks he comes off better down the text trail. Ends up MM gives him the choice to either shut up and sit a while, or get out... he chooses "B," and Douglas escorts him out. Dude, deal was you deliver it, you had plaintiff's thousand bucks, it was obviously a priority to him as he's texting repeatedly asking for delivery. I don't see how plaintiff doesn't get back the deposit... course that's not all he wants, he wants money for wasted time and being without his truck while he was twiddling his thimbs. Ok, going back to intro - defense was plaintiff backed out cuz he found a better deal.... well, if a better deal means one where the engine actually gets delivered, well yeah, he went with a better deal after being jerked around for a month and then spending another month finding a different engine before getting back on the road. Oh, well, DVR says 52 minutes, so guess rest of case will be MM reading texts and talking to plaintiff - oh and maybe more puppy time. Turns out defendant was partially right. After dragging his feet for eeeks, finally he's ready to make the delivery. Now, plaintiff, who was borrowing work space in a buddy's shop isn't ready because buddy has gotten busy and there's no place to deliver it to. Course, if he had delivered it when plaintiff asked the work would have been done long before. Anyway, they stay on fairly good terms way past the time I would have, then they started arguing over a refund for the deposit. Same thing, different verse. Defendant will have the money tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes, and they end up with a small claims case. Eventually, MM sends Douglas out to see if defendant will agree to behave himself. Hoboy, when he comes in MM doesn't even get to start to ask a question before dude is questioning her... do you know what hearsay is, your honor, or do you even know what the law is? Nope, GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COURTROOM!!! Double HOBOY, dude just won'the shut up and leave without more interrupting and trying to talk over MM...  hey, first time I've seen MM calling for security to back up Douglas! Dude finally leaves with Douglas and some other burly dude escorting him out while he continues to yell. Last we see of him is burly security dude giving him the bum's rush... hmmm wonder why Doug skipped the hallterview. As expected,  plaintiff gets back deposit, but not the extra tacked on stuff.

Edited December 6, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

Well, that was fun.

First up, we had yet another soft-spoken, religious Man of the Cloth who didn't hesitate to cheat the def and to lie under oath here. I don't think preachers are supposed to do that? He bought an ancient tractor from def and left it on her property for nearly a year, without paying the balance owed. He was "working on it" and def should just let him leave it there until he's darned good and ready to take it, even though def. had had renters in the house and had to give them a discount on the rent because they had to tolerate this giant eyesore right next to their windows. Preacher couldn't pay the 500$ left owing because he couldn't get in touch with def which sounds kind of silly and dishonest (a preacher being dishonest? Who would think it?) because she was calling him non-stop to beg him to get HIS tractor off her property and finally had to return to NY to pound on his door. Hey, he's working on it! don't be so darned impatient, def! They only live 10 houses apart so what's her problem? Def moves back to her house and finally has the thing towed away. Plaintiff thinks she should pay him all kinds of money for doing this. Huh. Piss off, Rev. Def should have had that tractor towed away after a few weeks, not a year.

Ugh. Next plaintiff is suing his neighbour because plaintiff decides to take his cane and go for a walk at 5:00a.m when def's sprinklers are on. There is some water on the sidewalk and plaintiff's cane skidded and (insert sound effects indicating that he went flying). He skinned his knees and for this def should pay him 10,000$. Plaintiff is so like people I knew growing up - belligerent, meat-headed, double-negative employing, loud-mouthed ignoramuses. Double UGH. Oooh, he shows JM a picture of his family at some kind of fair, without him. He couldn't attend because he skinned his knees. Oh, boo hoo. Cue the violins. You piss off too.

Last was best. I don't really care about the engine or truck or why it was never delivered to plaintiff. Def was the star here. He starts scolding JM (and call me crazy but I have a feeling he would not have done so to a male judge) telling her he could not fulfill his obligation to tow the vee-hickle or whatever it was, to plaintiff. He's got 5 kids and a wife! He owns a towing company but you can't expect him to take a whole hour or two from his kiddies to TOW something that plaintiff paid for, can you? He was so mouthy, rude and arrogant JM kicked him out, but needed him to return later to answer some questions. Enormous Face lumbers back up the aisle and immediately starts again: "Do you know what "hearsay" means?" he asks JM before launching into another tirade, which earned him not only Douglas as an escort, but someone from security as well. He was so obese and so angry I really thought he might keel over mid-rant.

Edited December 6, 2017 by AngelaHunter
SRTouch, we posted at the same time. I try to fill in when it seems you're not here, but my recaps just do not compare to yours!

[AZChristian]

I knew what was going to happen (because I get to read here before the show airs).  Told Mr. AZC . . . gotta watch this last case.  It was epic.  Classic.  Awesome.

ETA:  This would have been one of those cases where Judge Joe Brown would have given the plaintiff more than they even asked for . . . just to make sure the defendant didn't get a penny.

Edited December 6, 2017 by AZChristian

[AngelaHunter]

35 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Judge Joe Brown would have given the plaintiff more than they even asked for . . . just to make sure the defendant didn't get a penny.

Judge Judy has done that too, ensuring some irredeemable asshole gets not a penny as reward for revealing him/herself as a cretin of the highest (or lowest) order.

[lilabennet]

19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Judge Judy has done that too, ensuring some irredeemable asshole gets not a penny as reward for revealing him/herself as a cretin of the highest (or lowest) order.

I would have loved to see MM do that today, but at the same time I appreciate that she tries to make her outcomes more realistic and "by the book" than other court shows.

[meowmommy]

I'm a day behind, I know...

On 12/5/2017 at 4:27 PM, SRTouch said:

Unfortunately, the dog isn't in court, so we won't get a repeat of JJ paying for the puppy and saying neither of these losers will be going home with it.

Oh, I want to see that!  Anyone have a clip?

On 12/5/2017 at 6:10 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I expected to really love this, since it was a contract case, but one that featured COOKIES! Gourmet cookies. What's not to love?

The defendant spent so much time giving his sales pitch, hawking his wonderful product, that I wondered if they generated the case just for the publicity.  But then, it would have made sense to bring cookies.

[Schnickelfritz]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Last was best. I don't really care about the engine or truck or why it was never delivered to plaintiff. Def was the star here. He starts scolding JM (and call me crazy but I have a feeling he would not have done so to a male judge) telling her he could not fulfill his obligation to tow the vee-hickle or whatever it was, to plaintiff. He's got 5 kids and a wife! He owns a towing company but you can't expect him to take a whole hour or two from his kiddies to TOW something that plaintiff paid for, can you? He was so mouthy, rude and arrogant JM kicked him out, but needed him to return later to answer some questions. Enormous Face lumbers back up the aisle and immediately starts again: "Do you know what "hearsay" means?" he asks JM before launching into another tirade, which earned him not only Douglas as an escort, but someone from security as well. He was so obese and so angry I really thought he might keel over mid-rant

All those surprised by this..... stand in line... alone

http://www.registercitizen.com/news/article/Towing-company-boss-to-pay-110-000-for-12405720.php

 

I couldn't get the official filings to load but maybe someone else can

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/findings/Whitfield-v-Statewide-Roadside-Asssistance-FPC.pdf

[AZChristian]

According to Google and the Better Business Bureau, this place is permanently closed. No surprise there. 

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said:

All those surprised by this..... stand in line... alone

Ooh, nice find. Not such a huge surprise to find out that in addition to being a an ill-tempered, belligerent, arrogant jerk asshole, he's a slimeball creeper. What would make such a vile, repulsive creature think that any woman would want his pudgy, sweating hands on her? Does he have some magic mirror that reflects Prince Charming back at him, instead of Jabba the Hut? Eww.

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

According to Google and the Better Business Bureau, this place is permanently closed.

Great. Think of all the time he'll have to spend with his happy little family now.

[meowmommy]

Catching up in the middle of the night with today's,

7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ah, dude, really needs to do something with that 2-toned 'tache, as one side is so light it looks like he slipped and shaved it off.

When he came in, I first noticed this thing sticking out of his face.  At first I thought he had cut himself and had styptic paper, but it's just a wart.  Then I saw the two-tone.

WTF does the plaintiff do when it rains?  Sue the National Weather Service?  MM was sort of indignant over the Islamic Repellent sign, but not as angry as she often gets over less egregious offenses.  And then she walks off like she's JJ as if both litigants are dreck instead of just one.  Plus I'm sure that sign would have totally warded off the San Bernardino shooters...not.

7 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Enormous Face lumbers back up the aisle and immediately starts again: "Do you know what "hearsay" means?" he asks JM before launching into another tirade, which earned him not only Douglas as an escort, but someone from security as well.

My damn DVR went pixellated just after he said the hearsay thing and didn't come back until he was out the door!  GRRRRR!!!!!

7 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Edited 6 hours ago by AngelaHunter. Reason: SRTouch, we posted at the same time. I try to fill in when it seems you're not here, but my recaps just do not compare to yours!

I love both your recaps.  :)

[AngelaHunter]

Here you go, meowmommy:   The video is reversed and zoomed in on. I guess u/loader is trying to avoid deletion but TPC rarely gets removed for copyright. (sorry, it's impossible to get the bolding off)

 

 

[meowmommy]

Oh, thanks, AngelaHunter, so, so much appreciation for your effort, but I guess I wasn't clear; I was asking if anyone has the JJ clip that was cited where she keeps the puppy and sends the litigants home empty-handed.

[AZChristian]

12 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said:

All those surprised by this..... stand in line... alone

http://www.registercitizen.com/news/article/Towing-company-boss-to-pay-110-000-for-12405720.php

 

I couldn't get the official filings to load but maybe someone else can

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/findings/Whitfield-v-Statewide-Roadside-Asssistance-FPC.pdf

Didn't read the second link, but there's also a link where he was supposed to be involved in an issue with the town council.  According to the minutes of the meeting:  He showed up late, and was then thrown out because of his behavior and was heard screaming obscenities in the hallway.

My life is so blissfully boring.  His wonderful family with 5 kids must live in constant fear that they're going to set him off.  Watch for this guy on a future episode of Dateline.

[AngelaHunter]

8 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

His wonderful family with 5 kids must live in constant fear that they're going to set him off.  Watch for this guy on a future episode of Dateline.

Someone needs to get him so worked up that he'll pop a blood vessel right in the middle of some rant.

[Florinaldo]

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

then, plaintiff makes sure to mention how he's a minister (whoa, they must have a hell of a choir - not sure I could sit through a sermon with this dude talking) and planned to use the tractor for church projects.

He is one of many litigants who think that by loudly or visibly proclaiming their special status, they are establishing from the start their unassailable morality and the veracity of their testimony to come. This includes pastors and missionaries, self-proclaimed churchgoers ("see the big-ass cross I am wearing around my neck!"), animal rescue people ("my dog is a rescue, so any accusations against him are victimizing him further"), former and present military personel, single mothers of throngs of kiddies who think society owes them a boatload, etc. I usually take it as a red flag that there is a good chance, but not a certainty, that they should be doubted at every word.

 

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Plaintiff slipped and was injured, and wants defendant to pay

He is the poster child for vexatious litigants, looking for the most minor and silly reason to bring a case to court. I guess this is how they find their kicks  in an otherwise empty life.

 

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Now defendant is getting heated, more arm waving and raised voice until MM is telling him to take it down a notch and lower his voice

At first I could not decide if that it his usual everyday behaviour of if it was an act he was putting on (after all, he knows he does not have to pay for any award and he already got a free trip under his belt so why not have some fun?). In the end I chose the former.

I think that when MM called him back into court, she did not really expect he would behave differently but decided, perhaps with prodding from her producers, that they could not pass on the opportunity to create another good TV moment.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Didn't read the second link, but there's also a link where he was supposed to be involved in an issue with the town council.  According to the minutes of the meeting:  He showed up late, and was then thrown out because of his behavior and was heard screaming obscenities in the hallway.

My life is so blissfully boring.  His wonderful family with 5 kids must live in constant fear that they're going to set him off.  Watch for this guy on a future episode of Dateline.

Ah, now I get it. The reason he thinks he knows so much about how court should be conducted is that he has spent so much time in court himself.... uh, still, maybe he should wait to start teaching the lady wearing the black robe about her profession until he wins one...

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I think that when MM called him back into court, she did not really expect he would behave differently but decided, perhaps with prodding from her producers, that they could not pass on the opportunity to create another good TV moment.

Could well be true... after all when he comes back in MM was letting plaintiff tell us about why he finally thought to finally sue the "Mouth..." dude was going on about how some guy, doesn't know his name, told him he'd never see the engine or get his money back because defendant had money trouble and owed the landlord alot of money. So, yeah, as he's walking in, what he was hearing was pretty much the definition of hearsay, which really had no place in an actual courtroom... especially since the case was basically over in my mind.... but it did make for some memorable TV courtroom drama

[ElleMo]

16 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said:

All those surprised by this..... stand in line... alone

http://www.registercitizen.com/news/article/Towing-company-boss-to-pay-110-000-for-12405720.php

 

I couldn't get the official filings to load but maybe someone else can

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/findings/Whitfield-v-Statewide-Roadside-Asssistance-FPC.pdf

Couldn't figure out the second link, but I did find yelp reviews: https://www.yelp.com/biz/statewide-roadside-assistance-toms-river-2 " As soon as the manager was aware of who was calling he started to scream profanity and threats. One of which I remember very clearly 'you will pay dearly' "

[SRTouch]

ah, well, after a classic yesterday, ending with MM calling for security, back to reruns. I watched a couple minutes - was less than impressed - went back and read the recap on the original September 6th airing decided to skip it this time. Here's a quick summary mainly from old recap back around page 77.

case 1: one time coworkers re-connect through FB - one makes other a couple loans within a short period - what could possibly go wrong... only possible reason to watch is the lame defense... almost from the beginning she abandons the "gift" notion that plaintiff offered to "help her out"... then she tries to argue timing of the repayment plan... then the old "it's in the mail" excuse... oh, and she does a little mudslinging, which makes her even more pathetic sounding.

#2: pit bull attacks Boston terrier... zipped through first time, skipped completely this time... same old story with couple twists. Defendant tries the "not my dog" and "I was hospitalised at the time" defenses - both fall apart when MM asks questions... too much for defendant, he has a hissy fit and gets the boot

#3: entitled snowflake doesn't understand why she has to pay rent after she and ex bf break up and move after giving 1 week notice. First time around I declared this a dud, with Elmer Fudd landlord and gussied up plaintiff with nose ring and retro afro parted and colored in the middle. Last time I decided to take Sillycat out to check the bird feeder situation.... too cold for that today.... brrrrr -  30 degrees with wind - this time let's just enjoy the sun from inside

[Brattinella]

16 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Last time I decided to take Sillycat out to check the bird feeder situation.... too cold for that today.... brrrrr -  30 degrees with wind - this time let's just enjoy the sun from inside

Same here, we have all the heaters crankin'.  Bundled under a blanket in bed with the laptop, coffee by my side.  Heaven!

[AngelaHunter]

I see that "Neal" did his own writeup on Yelp

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

what he was hearing was pretty much the definition of hearsay, which really had no place in an actual courtroom...

Yes, but if Neal were as savvy about legal matters as he thinks he is, he'd know that JM was going to disregard that hearsay.

I see he wrote his own blurb on Yelp:

Quote

Neal is married with 5 young young children and a Loving wife,

REALLY young children it seems. I bet everyone, including Loving wife, has to tiptoe around that house.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

then the old "it's in the mail" excuse...

Ah, yes - one of the two biggest lies in the world.

[Brattinella]

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Ah, yes - one of the two biggest lies in the world.

I know the other one, quite well!

[meowmommy]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Here you go, meowmommy:   The video is reversed and zoomed in on. I guess u/loader is trying to avoid deletion but TPC rarely gets removed for copyright. (sorry, it's impossible to get the bolding off)

 

Okay, so I'm as stupid as these litigants--you were giving me the clip so I can see where he got escorted out by security!  Duh!!!  Please feel free to beat me about the head and shoulders!!!!!!!!!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

you were giving me the clip so I can see where he got escorted out by security!  Duh!!!  Please feel free to beat me about the head and shoulders!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I was! But I'll spare you the beating, since I have way too many "Duhhh" moments lately!:)

2 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I know the other one, quite well!

From experience? Uh oh. Don't mind me. I'm into the (well-earned) wine. XD

It's funny how some cases look way worse on second viewing. This is true, IMO, for the overly-entitled renter who didn't bother paying her rent, still got her security back (because Herbert just wanted her to go away - far away) yet is suing for money. I once had a history teacher, a lovely maiden lady named Miss Bradwell. She caught me and my friend putting on makeup behind our stacked up books and told us, "If you spent as much time putting stuff in your head as you spend putting on your faces you'd be much better off." Plaintiff made me think of the wise words of Miss Bradwell, although IMO my friend and I could be more easily excused since we were 14. The hair (THE HAIR! The flipping hair!) the scarf, the jewelry, the makeup, the freakin'(gross) nose ring, the low cut top, the carefully chosen outfit, and nothing in her head. Zippo rattling around in that thick skull. She seemed to find JM silly and ridiculous for expecting her to meet her obligations, and never stopped grinning and smirking. Silly judge just doesn't get it, that Herbert should be responsible for tenant's U-Haul and other shit.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

one time coworkers re-connect through FB

Another one that's worse on repeat. Nasty hag ("If I had known I had to pay it back I never would of took it.")is no doubt raising her kid(s) to be amoral - and probably illiterate -  bottom-feeding parasites just like Mommy, her motto being, "Just take whatever you can get from anyone."

Edited December 7, 2017 by AngelaHunter
Durrr - wine

[Brattinella]

Yes, unfortunately from experience, @AngelaHunter. :((

Luckily, nothing happened.

[AngelaHunter]

30 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Luckily, nothing happened.

Luckily for YOU, you mean. Hee!

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Silly judge just doesn't get it, that Herbert should be responsible for tenant's U-Haul and other shit.

And why should she have to pay rent for February when she was MOVING that month!? Guess it took her the whole month to get her fabulous self moved out, and who does the landlord think he is, asking for rent!? We should all move to her planet and get away with this stuff too.

[meowmommy]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Another one that's worse on repeat. Nasty hag ("If I had known I had to pay it back I never would of took it.")is no doubt raising her kid(s) to be amoral - and probably illiterate -  bottom-feeding parasites just like Mommy, her motto being, "Just take whatever you can get from anyone."

I can't bring myself to watch reruns of TPC.  It's hard enough to sit through the first runs, which is why I treasure recaps, especially from you and SRTouch.   Now if they ever want to show Judge Wapner's greatest hits, or even some oldies but goodies from Koch or Sheindlin, I'd be up for that.  I'm somewhat surprised that Levin hasn't put together clip shows, like maybe MM's greatest beatdowns, because I think those would go over quite well.

[Jamoche]

20 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Okay, so I'm as stupid as these litigants--you were giving me the clip so I can see where he got escorted out by security!  Duh!!!  Please feel free to beat me about the head and shoulders!!!!!!!!!

And the weaponized puppy - "She pointed it right at me!" Now we know JM's weak spot :)

[SRTouch]

Sept 21 reruns

1. fleeced by dog groomer: ah, yes, defendant here takes her two big sized mutts in for grooming, then won't pay the bill - which ran over $500 apiece. Like I said, big dogs, cross between standard poodle and cocker spaniel, I guess since she calls them cockeroodle - or some such made up breed.  It's a rush beauty make over for the two dirty mutts, they need to look fantastic for the doggie party defendant is throwing, so wasn't time to schedule an appointment with their regular groomer. Customer happy with the results, but for whatever reason the credit card machine is on the fritz and she leaves without paying. No biggy, thinks groomer, she was thrilled with the results - even took time to write a glowing yelp review.... refuses to pay. MM makes her pay.
2. BAD photgrapher: capital letters not a mistake. Defendant hired to memorialize Hispanic girl's quinceañera - a big deal in certain cultures where a girl stops being a girl and becomes a woman. Plaintiffs going all out, even hiring a choreographer to make sure the dancers get it right. Course, for such a big event, plaintiff hired a professional... just not a very good one. Actually, not actually a REAL professional, but someone who does this on the side. Camera dude goofs up big time, loosing one of the memory cards along with half the party pix. Compounding the goof, he tries to pretend like he's delivering the completed package when he drops off a flash drive. Instead of being up front and apologizing for losing a significant portion of the party pics, he drops the drive in their mail box while they're out of town, leaving his customers discover for themselves that stuff is missing. Not cool, dude! In fact, so not cool that MM not only orders a complete refund, but tacks on an extra $300, in large part because of defendant's lack of any remorse.
3. Apartment deposit case: nothing we haven't seen many times before. Plaintiff rented from defendant for 2 years. Left the place in reasonable condition, so figures she should get the deposit back. Ah, but despite not exactly being a spring chick, she apparently doesn't realize what the 30 in 30 day notice means. Then, she figures the landlord only is supposed to prorated the rent, so doesn't feel he was right to keep a full months rent when she was just there part of the month. Ah, to top it off, landlord was going to let her slide and be satisfied with keeping the deposit, but since she dragged him to court he countersues for every penny he can pad her bill with. Plaintiff loses, defendant gets around $600 from the countersuit - which would have never been filed is plaintiff had not sued him.

[SRTouch]

Oct 2 rerun summary :

1. granny of the year winner: trashy family, granny and her hubby and her two adult sons and their gf's, plus assorted rugrats, all living together... for some reason never really made clear, defendant, who is the gf of one of the two sons, is asked to pay more rent than anyone else on granny's sliding rent scale. The son she moved in with pays nothing, other son and his gf combined pay $50 less than defendant. If I get the reasoning right, defendant pays an extra $50 to pay for her 2yo... who would be grandson to granny. Defendant admits that was the deal for the two years she lived there, oh, except rent increased from $300 to $500 when she finally moved out because she couldn't afford it. Granny  is in court not only looking for back rent, but also for babysitting her grandson, and for party supplies she purchased for grandson's bd party. Ah, but the real reason for the case is that after defendant moved out, she and sonny got into a custody battle, granny took sides, and this case was supposed to help her son out with the custody case. As so often happens, sticking her nose in backfires, mommy and daddy make up, but granny is left out of the reconciliation. Granny wins the case, mostly because defendant admits she had agreed to pay. MM tells her to enjoy the 4 grand, since it may be the price she pays for never having a relationship with the grandson. Strange case, didn't understand the living arrangements the first time.... still don't.
2. wedding photographer fail: bride picks an out of state photographer friend/acquaintance dude to do her photo album, and it turns into a disaster. Problem seems to be that he sends her pictures to choose to put in the wedding album, she doesn't have enough computer savy to view them. He makes various attempts to get her pictures to her, finally gives up and bypasses her and picks out what to put in the album. Predictably, she isn't happy with his choices, and now wants a complete refund. MM offers to set up up room and have her go through the 500 odd pictures he shot and have him make up a different album.... no, she wants the money. MM gives her what she wants, but only $275 of the 2 grand she asked for... oh, plus the 500 pictures on a cd/flash drive.
3. AS IS means AS IS: idiot buys an old car mid-restoration. Sad story, cause this poor dummy just throws away his money, twice, and then sues. First, he thinks he can trust his buddy who he thinks owns the car... nope, turns out to be buddy's brother owned it. Buddy goes off to jail for awhile, brother decides car just a money pit, so puts it up for sale, asking $6500. Dummy trusts good buddy, the jailbird, and all the stories he told while sitting around drinking beer, so he snaps up the car for the special good buddy price of only 4 grand... even has buddy check it out when he gets out if jail. Ah, but turns out the jailhouse mechanic didn't do very good work, thing still needs a lot of work. He hears about some ace restoration dude and gets the car towed/trailered from NJ to Pennsylvania. Ace says it's junk, not worth towing back to NJ. Idiot plaintiff throws in the towel, gives up on restoring the car, and just signs over the title to ace Pennsylvania dude (who may or may not have completed the restoration on what is now a free car). Now, plaintiff is on national tv asking MM to give him back his money.

Edited December 13, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

granny of the year winner: trashy family, granny and her hubby and her two adult sons and their gf's, plus assorted rugrats, all living together

Another one that is way worse on second viewing. Mommy Dearest is trashy for sure. Her son is a tiny little spineless mope, but the person I would hold most responsible for this mess is "Audra." She speaks well and seems like a reasonably intelligent person, yet her actions are ridiculous. She wants the little mope so badly (Why? Why?) she's willing to move into Mommy Dearest's house and pay ever-increasing rent for the privilege because the 29-year old mope likes it in Mommy and Daddy's house. (if what he said at the end is true, then he shouldn't be around the kid he already had - yes, another women was desperate enough to want him too). Audra really, really wanted him. She even wanted to breed with him because having babies when you don't even have your own roof over your head is a great idea. The mope sits there while Mommy sues his baby-momma, and no doubt sat in a corner like a useless slug while Mommy cursed out Audra. Doug in the Hall ragged on the slug quite a bit. Well done, Doug.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

AS IS means AS IS: idiot buys an old car mid-restoration.

Jr.Fonz sounded ridiculous, but best part was def. saying that his brother "went away." "Away?" says JM. Extended vacation? A career move? Deployed? Well, no, but as we already guessed, he went to the slammer. I don't know what it will take for little Fonzie to smarten up and stop placing all his heart-felt trust in someone he knew for a short time and who is definitely shady. JM was way more sympathetic to him than was I. It's called the School of Hard Knocks, boy. Live and learn. And oh yeah - "As is" applies to you too.

[Florinaldo]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

granny of the year winner:

The mother's choices and decisions are certainly very debatable and even reprehensible, but the son and daughter-in-law are not much better. The latter comes across as a walking doormat with the words "Wipe you feet on me, again, again and again" printed on her back. She really deserves her spineless hubby.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

wedding photographer fail:

So the entitled bride wished the photographer to compensate her for her computer incompetence and general stupidity, as well as her inflated expectations that go well above the budget for their wedding. I wouldn't even have given her the measly amount MM did in her ruling.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Florinaldo

[SRTouch]

Sept 15 rerun:

1. What happens in Vegas: this case is about two long time older Michigan ladies who retire and rent an apartment together in Vegas. Works for maybe 4 years, then 1 of them decides she's tired of their place being a vacation getaway for roomie's friends and family. Wasn't so bad at first, she had a good time with the guests, but when her health started failing she gets tired of the all night gab fests and guests tieing up HER bathroom. To make it worse, she sometimes gets stuck playing the hostess without any prior warning - and at least once the roomie had guests staying over when she wasn't even there. Sooo, she announces she's out of there when lease renewal time comes. Roomie says ok, but it still came as she shock when she moves out because stick in the mud roomie had threatened to leave before. Wouldn't be a case had the move happened smoothly, but the one lady moves out a few weeks early. Both ladies get their backs up and can't talk like adults. MM breaks out the calculator and a pencil... one owes rent, other owes her her portion of the deposit, the one moving out left satellite on in her name for a couple months, etc etc. Turns out, after the dust is settled, one owes the other 80 bucks.
2. neighbor dogs fight at the falling down fence: two clueless dog owners - both know their common fence can't contain their dogs, the dogs don't get along, but nobody is going to spend an afternoon fixing the fence. Nah, they'd rather wait until there's blood drawn, then bring the other stubborn a$$ to court to fight over vet bills. Skipped it the first time, see no reason to watch this time.
3. car repair fiasco: one of those cases which still don't make any more sense the second time around. Plaintiff had an old junker that needs a lot of work. Takes it to defendant for new heads - puts $400 down on an estimated  $700 job. Defendant does the job, but tells plaintiff it runs like crap cuz it still needs a bunch of other stuff. MM gets him to admit that he just got busy and didn't want to devote the time needed to fix this low priority job. Plaintiff gets tired of waiting, but OTOH can't see paying full price for the head gasket job when car isn't running smooth. So, defendant doesn't want to release the car until the job is paid for, and plaintiff doesn't want to pay. Eventually, plaintiff brings out the heavy guns, bringing in his granddad, threatening to bring his mommy, and even gets cops involved. Defendant throws in the towel, let's him have the car and settles for the $400 even though he did the $700 repair. Ah, but not good enough for plaintiff. He wants a complete refund, the new heads done for free, lost wages, gas money, pain and suffering... he wants the whole enchilada for his 12yo runs like sh*t pontiac. MM laughs as she tosses the case, and we get plaintiff exclaiming "wow" as he can't believe her decision.

[AngelaHunter]

23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1 of them decides she's tired of their place being a vacation getaway for roomie's friends and family.

I don't blame her at all. Here she is paying half of everything - including for all the squatters/guests or whatever - to have one of them tell her to "chill out" when she's ill, needs some sleep and can't take all the carrying on half the night.

 

23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car repair fiasco: one of those cases which still don't make any more sense the second time around.

It still makes no sense because I still couldn't understand half of the plaintiff's garbled speech. Yeah, take your ancient POS Pontiac somewhere else.

[Guest]

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 2:44 PM, SRTouch said:

1. What happens in Vegas:. Turns out, after the dust is settled, one owes the other 80 bucks.

Sheesh.  All that misery for 80 lousy bucks. 

[SRTouch]

rerun from September 22 (recap back around pg 80) back then I only recapped 1st case, and @AngelaHunter did the other two

1. lonely old geezer: tired old story - old dude buys a phone to entice acquaintance to cook, clean, and mainly visit him. She cleans his bathroom once, cooks 1 meal, then takes the phone and stops answering when he calls. Mercifully, a short case, as half wit defendant screws up and admits she was taking advantage of old guy - her defense seems to be he bought her the phone as a bd gift, but she somehow forgot her ID, but trust her, judge, that date on the receipt is her bd. Most memorable thing about the case is defendant doing the one arm underarm monkey scratch when she begins to testify.
2. drug PSA short goes wrong: plaintiff hires defendant to put together a short public service announcement about the dangers of drug use. She gives him the money and is in the wind, giving free rein to do as he saw fit. When he delivers the finished product she gives it thumbs down and wants all her money returned. (Ah, now I see why I never came back to recap this after I stopped for lunch first time....) BORING, liberal use of remote was made.
3. landlord suing tenant: snooze fest, watched intro, read old comments, then watched hallterview - defendant rents apartment for her and son when she leaves hubby - after two months, she makes up with hubby - starts looking for ways to get out of lease, including reporting apartment to Housing for mold - she moves out and it takes landlord a couple months to re-rent. Plaintiff wins. Defendant admits in hallterview hubby still a loser... plans apparently in the works to leave him again once she raises another security deposit... 

[AKA...CJ86]

Drug PSA, second time around:

-Don't remember catching the Hallterview the first time around, but I think this case was one of those ones that the root of the case is revealed in the Hallterview.  Plaintiff mentioned the vision wasn't hers anymore.  She still wouldn't have won, but if she led with that, she may have been a bit more sympathetic instead of wanting to gyp the defendant out of money.

-It's one of those case that to me, needs an update and I wish TPC did updates--or without Levin on the street giving a quick blurb.  Plaintiff's case was dismissed but she did get the film, and after mentioning scenes with certain angles/shots she didn't like, and her witness mentioning it looked, don't recall specifically what he said, but it was basically film student/amateur, but I'd like to know after being awarded the film, is she going around with this version, is this version part of her reel and portfolio, or did she fix, reshoot, reedit, what she claimed were directing issues, etc.

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 8:48 PM, CyberJawa1986 said:

 Plaintiff mentioned the vision wasn't hers anymore.  She still wouldn't have won, but if she led with that, she may have been a bit more sympathetic

I didn't see it that way. She wants to make this film, hires def and then says, "I'm not feeling well. YOU do it all, however you like" and then sues him because he didn't do it the way she would have done it, if she had felt like doing it. She gave him complete control then gets all huffy because he couldn't read exactly what was in her head. Who could? Maybe he produced crap, but I bet if he had created something saleable, she wouldn't have squawked and sued no matter how far off it was from her "vision." Sounds like she wanted someone else to do all the work so she could get some money for the results. This is what 1300$ gets you. Live with it.

[AKA...CJ86]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't see it that way. She wants to make this film, hires def and then says, "I'm not feeling well. YOU do it all, however you like" and then sues him because he didn't do it the way she would have done it, if she had felt like doing it. She gave him complete control then gets all huffy because he couldn't read exactly what was in her head. Who could? Maybe he produced crap, but I bet if he had created something saleable, she wouldn't have squawked and sued no matter how far off it was from her "vision." Sounds like she wanted someone else to do all the work so she could get some money for the results. This is what 1300$ gets you. Live with it.

Looks like part of my post went poof, but I totally agree with you.  I was just going off the Hallterview where all of a sudden she adds it wasn't her vision, in addition to her laundry list of grievances she mentioned during the case.  

While they were just small projects to add to portfolios, and nobody went to court, I can understand the vision aspect--although nobody was even given sole control of the project, etc. 

What I was trying to say though, again, a long post was poofed I guess, because I love film and I love scriptwriting, so I loved the few cases we had for those this season, that to strategize for a case with no case--she gave him complete control and most what she was claiming--posting on social media, was contradicted by her own contact.  

In short, since I don't remember everything from yesterday, I would have led with the visions clashed/it wasn't the original vision that was briefly mentioned in the hallterview, over the laundry list of stuff she presented in the actual case, that was quickly disproved by the contract, or the messaging between the two.

Edited December 18, 2017 by CyberJawa1986
Edited because I'm having a minor procedure tomorrow and I'm thinking my mind is on that.

[AngelaHunter]

53 minutes ago, CyberJawa1986 said:

In short, since I don't remember everything from yesterday

Hey, I can't remember everything from today.

Hope your procedure goes smoothly!

[SRTouch]

rerun from September 18th. No great legal issues - but good for some laughs. Recap and discussion back around page 79

1. plumber didn't replace the pipe: ah, this was a good one - could have been great if the litigants had been a tad bit more understandable. Plaintiff hired defendant to replace the water line from the street to his house. Plumber dude sends out a crew who dig a 6ft trench exposing the pipe, but then find the reason for plaintiff's problem to be a faulty valve rather than corroded pipes. Valve replaced, defendant figures the plaintiff should thank him since that saved guy a grand.... but no, plaintiff has a hissy fit, says he wanted pipe replaced, so by golly he should have replaced the pipe. He wants full refund even though a crew spent the day on site and fixed his water pressure problem. Plumber doesn't understand WTH dude wants, offers to refund some of the deposit. Turns out plaintiff went to defendant's home/shop, had a hissy fit, pounding on his door and kicking a dent in his car... chuckles when defendant blows the chance for a countersuit for car damage by pulling out the dent with a plunger. MM offers to return the amount defendant had offered to return way back when, but plaintiff has a melt down, and MM ends up kicking him out. Best part comes when MM yells for him to get out, dude storms out, kicking open the gate and can't find the way out and about runs over the cameraman... oh and MM reverses her decision, dude doesn't get the offered refund.
2. motorcycle test drive damage: college dude trying to sell his bike, let's a friend take it for a spin... friend ends up dropping the bike, then won't pay to repair the damage. Pretty simple case, made even more so as defendant can't figure out what his defense should be. First, plaintiff forced him to take it for a ride, then plaintiff made unsafe modifications to soup it up, finally he argues the damage claim was padded.... oh, and he's a struggling college student barely able to feed and clothe himself... this is the case where MM nails the poor struggling litigant with the expensive sunglasses hanging on his shirt. Pretty much every defense is shown to be silly, dude ends up paying for the damage, but nothing for a sale that plaintiff claims to have lost when bike was damaged. 
3. bail loan: yep, nother of those. This one has a couple twists, just not sure the twists make it interesting enough to watch. Basics of the case: defendant gets arrested for DUI - wife borrows money from long time family friend, plaintiff - plaintiff wants his money back, but defendant insists he never borrowed any money. Like I said, simple. Defendant may not have been the one asking, but the money was unquestionably used by his wife to bail him out, and evidence produced in court shows that she'll get the bail money back once his DUI case is settled. The twists in the case - for some reason, plaintiff thought he needed to bring his young son to court, and at one point defendant is implying plaintiff is a little too friendly to his wife.... no reason for kid to be there in the first place. Other twist - well really a sad chuckle/head shake and a clue into the defendants' family life.... MM asks if dude has been arrested before, and dude acts like no biggy, happens all the time - oh, and when he doesn't show up at home, instead of checking at the ER thinking he may have been in an accident, wifey automatically calls the jail to see if he's been arrested. Defendant is typical of many drunks... despite multiple DUI arrests, he insists he was sober, never asked for a loan, etc... still arguing in hallterview

Edited December 18, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

could have been great if the litigants had been a tad bit more understandable.

I must be a masochist to have watched this again. OMG. A tip of the hat to small claims judges, who have the incredible patience to sit through incomprehensible garbage like this. Def. dugged up da paement! Def, toothless it seems, could not stop his running monologue even while JM - who really needed an interpreter -  was speaking. Heartwarming it was,  to see plaintiff's preggo woman trailing after him, after he charged out and kicked the courtroom gates. I just bet she LOOOVES him so much.  Anyone but a judge would have told both plaintiff and def. to GTFO.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

this is the case where MM nails the poor struggling litigant with the expensive sunglasses hanging on his shirt.

When I see all these spoiled, entitled, pansy-assed little shits, I see where the female desperation comes in. Big Baby has got a huge wake-up call coming when he gets out in the Real World and finds out all his co-workers hate his guts because, well, he's an asshole.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

wifey automatically calls the jail to see if he's been arrested.

And? That's what I always do if my hubby is late getting home. I instantly assume he's been arrested, just like the love child of Tweety Bird and Art Garfunkle. (Sorry, Art, to mention your name in any kind of connection with this stupid-looking loser. Oh, and sorry to Tweety as well.)

[AZChristian]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bail loan: yep, nother of those. This one has a couple twists, just not sure the twists make it interesting enough to watch. Basics of the case: defendant gets arrested for DUI - wife borrows money from long time family friend, plaintiff - plaintiff wants his money back, but defendant insists he never borrowed any money. Like I said, simple. Defendant may not have been the one asking, but the money was unquestionably used by his wife to bail him out, and evidence produced in court shows that she'll get the bail money back once his DUI case is settled. The twists in the case - for some reason, plaintiff thought he needed to bring his young son to court, and at one point defendant is implying plaintiff is a little too friendly to his wife.... no reason for kid to be there in the first place. Other twist - well really a sad chuckle/head shake and a clue into the defendants' family life.... MM asks if dude has been arrested before, and dude acts like no biggy, happens all the time - oh, and when he doesn't show up at home, instead of checking at the ER thinking he may have been in an accident, wifey automatically calls the jail to see if he's been arrested. Defendant is typical of many drunks... despite multiple DUI arrests, he insists he was sober, never asked for a loan, etc... still arguing in hallterview

Did you see MM's eyes bug out when she was reading the texts between plaintiff and defendant's wife?  And then she mentioned to def that he should be reading her texts.  Somethin' hinky there for sure.

[AngelaHunter]

54 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Did you see MM's eyes bug out when she was reading the texts between plaintiff and defendant's wife?

I'm glad we were spared those texts. Lovely that plaintiff wanted his little child there to hear this sordid tale.