Guest February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 45 minutes ago, Schnickelfritz said: Anthony's patriotic friend was only identified as "Greg". Darn Now Greg is one hunk o' man, that's for sure. A wingman of sorts. Remember the scene in Saturday Night Fever with Tony preparing for his night out? Can't you just see Greg doing the same thing in front of the mirror with his "chopped up patriotic shirt"? Catches the whole lot of them. And alas, I am already spoken for... Link to comment
Megan February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, DoctorK said: I am about 20-200 in my left eye which without glasses is really bad, but this guy who looks like he is playing the system and seemed to be able to see Doug's hand to shake it. I would love to know if he uses his white cane when he is not in public. I hate to be so cynical but in this environment we have seen so much hustling and dishonesty that it is hard not to be. Too much creepiness and dubiousness in this one for me. Doug is savage nowadays, I love his hallway interviews.. I think he shook that guy's hand on purpose, I don't recall him shaking hands with people often. How is this blind guy climbing through windows and fighting cops with swords?! From his mug shot it's obvious there is some sort of impairment with his eyes but I sincerely hope he's still not working with teenagers. Anthony is a predator of vulnerable teenage girls. Edited February 17, 2018 by Megan 6 Link to comment
AZChristian February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 I would hope/suspect that after the TPC episode, SOMEONE who has connections with that school has referred them to the episode, and the school will ensure that Anthony never "sees" the school again (not that he ever did, because - you know - he's blind and all). Sometimes you can hide an arrest, but it's a lot harder to hide an appearance on national television. Sounds like the hubris he displayed on the show ("Have her call me back by 3:00 or I will call the FBI, DFS, etc.") also happened with the cops: "If the cops come in here, they will be hurt." Small man's syndrome on display there. 5 Link to comment
aemom February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 (edited) I saw the episode with the crazy neighbors, the crazy motorcycle guy, and the crazy balloon ladies. Crazy all around! The thing with the neighbors. Honestly, if that all started the way she said, I might have taken a plate of cookies or something upstairs and nicely asked them, not to let their dog pee on the balcony and if it happened again, then I would have gone to the office. It seemed that they were fueling so much drama and it was hard to know which story to believe. The guy with the bike is nuts. Why the hell would anybody grease your tires? You left a repair shop. Chances are that there was some grease somewhere in the lot, or on the road and that's how it happened. Or maybe you just don't know how to drive that well. He sounds like a nightmare. I liked the wedding balloon lady up until she admitted that she harassed that poor shop girl and wasn't sorry. I have had many instances in my life where I have to call or visit and get something dealt with and I have been really mad. And I have told them that I am really mad and that it is not their fault, but they need to transfer me to the right department, or give me a straight answer, or whatever the situation is to rectify the problem. I never yell and I am super polite, but firm. And it has always yielded results. That being said, the woman must have done some of the balloons the night before, because they should not collapse before 24 hours. And when it has matttered, I have even paid the extra for the special magic they put in the balloons to guarantee 48 hours. With that stuff, they tend to last close to a week. So the balloons did look like crap, so she did deserve her money back, but she could have been nicer about it. Edited February 17, 2018 by AEMom Clarification 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 50 minutes ago, AZChristian said: Small man's syndrome on display there. DId JM say "Napoleonic complex" to him? And about Greg: It's even creepy the way he - at 44 - is best buddies with some 20-year old whackjob. Maybe he gets to share in the spoils when Ratso spirits yet another disturbed young woman/teenager off to Howard Johnson's. 26 minutes ago, AEMom said: she harassed that poor shop girl and wasn't sorry Here and other cases, I just hate when people say, "I have a bad temper" or "I had to take it out on someone" as though that excuses them, it's out of their control or maybe they're even proud of it. "I can't help the way I feel!" No, we cannot help the way we feel, but we can control the way we act, if we are functioning adults. 10 hours ago, Megan said: Doug is savage nowadays, I love his hallway interviews.. Isn't he though? It's awesome, e.g. "Wow, the judge really made you look like crap in there, didn't she?" It's nice to watch some hallterviews after so long skipping them when Levin's puppet, the Hall Clown was there. 8 Link to comment
Jamoche February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 4 hours ago, AEMom said: The guy with the bike is nuts. Why the hell would anybody grease your tires? You left a repair shop. Chances are that there was some grease somewhere in the lot, or on the road and that's how it happened. Or maybe you just don't know how to drive that well. He sounds like a nightmare. I've seen enough viral "idiot with too much car for him to handle peels out and crashes" videos to suspect that's what happened here. 5 Link to comment
VartanFan February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 Whoa - that blind creeper. That voicemail was certainly revealing, eh? I can’t imagine the alternate universe that some of these litigants live in. He obviously thought he was SO in the right, that he’d sue, AND come on TV to do it. Chutzpah! 3 Link to comment
quarkuud February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said: Mr Magoo's name is Anthony Geno Martinson and here are some of the records available out there. Arrest on 08/09/17 https://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Anthony_Martinson_34046058/ Anthony's patriotic friend was only identified as "Greg". Darn "Occupation: Independent contractor with DOD Like the Department of Defense? Or is there another DOD I'm not thinking of? Disgusting Oily Douchebags? Debutantes and Old Dudes? Anyway, poor Rachel. I hope she can come out of this OK. Edited February 17, 2018 by quarkuud 3 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz February 18, 2018 Share February 18, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, quarkuud said: "Occupation: Independent contractor with DOD Department of Ophthalmic Devices (in the subcategory of Division of Dolts) The government hires BLIND computer "workers"? What job would that be? Actually, that might explain a few things.... Edited February 18, 2018 by Schnickelfritz 4 Link to comment
quarkuud February 18, 2018 Share February 18, 2018 14 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said: Department of Ophthalmic Devices (in the subcategory of Division of Dolts) The government hires BLIND computer "workers"? What job would that be? Actually, that might explain a few things.... Oh, it's not really the blind part that surprises me. The government is a major employer of people with disabilities. Blind people (eg Skilcraft) make most of the office supplies used by the government. I was a government employee, and I knew of a couple blind employees who used screen readers to do their jobs. I didn't know them personally, but I don't see why this would be a total deal-breaker, as long as the tools needed are actually ADA-compliant. But that guy? Don't you need a background check for government contracting jobs? 2 Link to comment
AZChristian February 18, 2018 Share February 18, 2018 When I used to work in a large downtown office building, we had blind people who ran a little shop in the lobby . . . soft drinks, panty hose (in case someone found a run right before a big presentation), snacks, etc. Pretty sure they were contractors . . . not employees of the bank whose building it was. Maybe that's what the jerk does. Link to comment
Schnickelfritz February 18, 2018 Share February 18, 2018 (edited) Maybe he thinks being a janitor in a government building translates to working for the DOD. I should add that I have nothing but respect for blind and legally blind. I am letting my unrelenting hatred for this a**hat color my snark. My dad was legally blind and worked for 40 years as a purchasing manager. Sorry, Dad! Edited February 18, 2018 by Schnickelfritz 3 Link to comment
aemom February 18, 2018 Share February 18, 2018 On 13/02/2018 at 5:21 PM, Florinaldo said: Was there any defendant in today's cases who showed a gram of redeeming value? For me it's a toss-up between the I-don't-know-nuttin' slumlady and the I-didn't-get-dat-money mother as to which one is the most despicable. Plaintiffs presented their cases well and were well organised, defeating the usual stereotypes of deadbeat tenants and fathers (even though the latter paid support under a court order). On 14/02/2018 at 9:59 AM, AngelaHunter said: I know! Here I was automatically thinking "Deadbeat Tenant" and "Deadbeat Baby Daddy" and ready to sympathize with both defs, but my world was knocked askew by defs who began by seeming so nice and sweet and revealed themselves under JM's questioning to be simply vile liars. So nice we can still be surprised. by little twists here and there. I was surprised too. The slumlord was scary and the lies coming out of her mouth were unbelievable. I'm glad the plaintiff got extra. The parents with matching hairdos, the guy is still kind of an ass because she had to get court ordered payments, but once that's all settled, then fair is fair in terms of payments. You can't get extra. How do you not notice extra money in your account when you're on assistance? I didn't like the defendant in the loading dock case because he was acting like a smarmy jackass from the get go who was convinced he was going to win, so I did enjoy MM taking him down a peg. I always enjoy people who deserve it being taken down a peg. I wasn't sure if the guy was legally entitled to his claim, but I'm glad he won. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 19, 2018 Share February 19, 2018 (edited) AS-IS boat purchase: I know next to nothing about boats, but then this is really about plaintiff's claim that defendant promised a needed repair would be done before he takes possession after he buts her $40,000 yacht/cruiser/boat. Says when he came back to take possession, he was assured repair had been done, so he proceeded to motor/sail the boat on the 6 hour voyage home. Then he discovers repair NOT done, which actually meant boat was unsafe to be in the water. Defendant says he spent hours inspecting boat, so he had every opportunity to determine whether or not repairs were needed and were done. Hmmmm same as with all used vehicles, best you can do is inspect and make educated guess as to whether there are hidden problems - heck, even brand new, off the lot vehicles are subject to recalls. Thing is, have a mechanic or other knowledgeable person inspect the car/plane/boat. This plaintiff claims to be highly qualified to do the inspection himself, but he hired an independent expert to come inspect the boat. (Ah, "survey" I knew boatsy folks had their own term for inspections.) This expert came up with a list of things which the seller, defendant, agreed (in the contract) to fix before plaintiff was to take possession - and he says the problem he's in court about is on the list. So, if this problem is on the list and wasn't repaired defendant will be on the hook... ah, but maybe he should have brought an expert to explain the things he's complaining about. Never a good thing when the judge has to ask WTH these trim thingys are and what are they supposed to do? Soooo, not really an AS-IS sale, this is a sale where certain things must be done - like a house sale where seller agrees to fix the bad roof/plumbing/etc. Defendant agrees what plaintiff is complaining about was to be fixed before plaintiff took possession. Really, question should be simple... does she have proof she paid to fix it, and/or does he have proof it wasn't fixed and he had to pay to get it fixed after he took it home? I suppose another question would be, is she liable if she paid, but her marine shop got paid for work they didn't do? I'd say, yes, she has to pay the buyer, then she would have to go after her guy. Nobody had their expert in court, but the defendant does have an affidavit from her guy. Oh, and turns out he writes that the trim problem was maybe intermittent and he checked but it worked for him, so he didn't make the repair. Her guy agrees the repair may be needed, but argues plaintiff overpaid to get it done. Oops, so her guy opted not to fix it, but according to the contract seller agreed to get it fixed. Sort of too late now for her mechanic to argue cost of the repair, he's already paid to have it done. (Personally, if I have the money for a $40,000 boat, I would have spent the money to have it done right rather than a half assed repair.) Ah, but now there's timeline questions. Plaintiff says he notified defendant right away that there was a problem, but she says weeks went by with no hint if problem - in fact his only immediate question was how to turn on the air conditioner. Ah, plaintiff turns out to spend a LOT of time looking through papers for his evidence, and never finds what he's looking for - but trust me judge, it's here, while defendant seems to have stuff more organized - she just has to wait for phone to come on and then we call her mechanic. Ah, appears plaintiff may have given up looking for his evidence. Her mechanic seems honest over the phone. Agrees there may have been that intermittent problem, but is 100% positive the piece that plaintiff paid to repair because it had been bent was NOT bent when dude took possession. Rough justice time - MM says her guy should have replaced the part he thought was causing the intermittent problem, but there's the question of did he damage the boat after taking it. Before coming to court defendant offered to settle for half the bill, and that's what MM decides is fair, so plaintiff gets $600. neighbor dog feud: ok, no dog fight or vet bills - but still irresponsible dog owners. What I gather from intro, little old lady has her dogs that she let's out on screened pool enclosure. Evil neighbors have their dogs that get loose and have ripped holes in the screens. Plaintiff wants screen repaired. Defendant says screen was old, already needed to be replaced, she ain't paying. Ok, as we go to commercial we have plaintiff arguing defendant has a pit bull mix, but defendant arguing her dog is not a pit mix, but is a black mouth cur. Unfortunately, MM doesn't know what a BMC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mouth_Cur is - but they are a legitimate dog breed - totally different breed and temperament from a pit bull... think Old Yeller. Still, what I know suggests they're a breed which needs a lot of socialization, exercise and training or they might be territorial and/or agression... oh, and as any working and hunting breed known as a smart breed, not exactly a dog to leave alone in the yard as it might get into mischief and find its own job/entertainment. Ah, well, intro paints all the litigants as clueless jerks. Gravel voiced plaintiff with her insistence that there is no such thing as a BMC, that's just a made up breed to disguise pit mixes. Oh, if we're to believe defendant, plaintiff told defendant's little 9yo that they hoped her dog would drown. Then defendant - maybe her dog is a BMC, maybe not, but she admits it has escaped her yard more than once and gone to neighbor's house - neighbors obviously do NOT welcome the dog's visits. This case about the screens is just the latest round in the feud, and this isn't the only dog defendant's have which routinely gets out - their weinheimer has also been reported to animal control. Which has MM asking, why not build a better fence?! Yep, apparently it's common for defendant's dogs to get out, and defendant is of the opinion that it's no biggy, they're not mean and come home. Hoboy, I'm about done with this one when, within a minute, defendant testifies her dog has only gotten out the one time, well... maybe 3-4 times in last six months, nah, a couple times. Yes, could be she is talking about her different dogs, but 1 time is too many - especially when a neighbor complains. Oh, and gravel voice admits husband threatened he was going to drown the dog, she argues her hubby wasn't saying that to little girl, the 9yo just overheard him. Plaintiff wins the $160 for new screens.... Rental move out kerfuffle: hmmmm, strange case, had to listen to intro twice, and still not sure I know WTH the case is about. Apparently, plaintiff was moving out and she was feuding with landlady. She scheduled movers to come on the 31st - which she says was her last day. Ah, but landlady says she was scheduled to be out on the 17th. Place was a mess, so defendant scheduled a dumpster to be delivered so workers could start cleanup. Ah, but dumpster is delivered on the 31st, so when movers get there they find driveway blocked. Tenant plaintiff says the delay cost her extra, as movers were delayed. Soooo, she wants 1200 bucks because her movers took an extra 2 hours? Ah, some of that is part of the deposit that she claims she should have gotten back. Since defendant is getting sued, she decided she should have charged more for cleanup and damages, so there's a $1400 countersuit. So, anyway, according to plaintiff she had rented the house for three years, but was informed that lease would not be renewed because defendant wanted to move back in. No problem, plaintiff found a house nearby and bought it. Ah, but move in to new house was delayed a couple weeks.... which is where dumpster feud comes in. Plaintiff paid rent through midnight August 31St, so when defendant told her a dumpster was being delivered on the 31st they had a kerfuffle. Problem is defendant is in hurry, so wants to get in and start cleaning (and probably doing a bit of reno), so dumpster delivered a day before tenant scheduled to be gone. Oh, and had plaintiff's original schedule held, she would have had a couple weeks for cleaning. Oh well, dumpster delivery more an inconvenience than a major problem - I mean how much did movers charge increase because they had to work around it?... case really about deposit - place probably a bigger mess than it would have been if plaintiff had those extra couple weeks. But if defendant already had a contractor and dumpster scheduled, sounds like she may be sticking tenant with reno bills. Does she may want a bunch of reno before she moves back into her house? That doesn't mean tenant has to contribute above and beyond what normal charge would have been. Ah, landlady has the pictures. Seems tenant hired landlady's pool guy to paint - may be great with pools but a disaster as a painter. Anybody who has ever painted knows the quality of the job is in the details (and prep/cleanup). ... this guy slopped paint around where it should not have gone, lousy prep/cleanup. Hey, often more work to correct than it would be just to repaint whole thing, because I'm guessing roller marks and uneven paint even when paint belongs. Ok, plaintiff will get something for movers (more than just blocked driveway, turns out construction materials has them blocked passage through garage, too). Defendant gets some of what she withheld from deposit - normal stuff where judge goes over itemized statement and tosses a few items as normal wear and tear. Looking at the pics, I found myself right back in the days where I went in to clean/paint apartments after tenants moved out. Plaintiff moved in with new kitchen applicant's - and she really did a job on them. Not sure what break down was, but quick look and I'm no longer thinking landlady is padding the bill - well, maybe now with the countersuit, but not the original amount withheld. Rough justice - nobody gets what they want. Forget tit for tat countersuit - MM not only doesn't give her extra, she trims part of the original amount withheld. Plaintiff also gets something for extra work/charges by movers. Net $441 goes to plaintiff. Edited February 19, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 19, 2018 Share February 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: AS-IS boat purchase: I know next to nothing about boats, but then this is really about plaintiff's claim that defendant promised a needed repair would be done before he takes possession after he buts her $40,000 yacht/cruiser/boat. That was a little tedious, since I know nothing about boats either, but was suprised Captain Ahab didn't know more. Anyway it was restful listening to litigants who can speak their language beyond toddler level. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: neighbor dog feud: Skipped and I didn't even wait for whatever the dogs did. Plaintiff's "I smoke 5 packs of unfiltered Camels every day" voice was enough to make me hit "FF". That was painful, even for the 15 seconds I watched. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Rental move out kerfuffle: That was kind of boring as well. The only interesting parts were the incredible mess plaintiff made of the ceramic stovetop - I just got one of those 6 months ago, and I'm wondering how on earth plaintiff managed to wreck it to this degree. But of course, when using someone else's property, who cares how much you damage it? Oh, yes - the other interesting part was the way the "pool man" painted the walls. Honestly, that was a disgrace and looked as though he painted with a mop. New Rule: Don't hire a pool man to paint your home. As JM always says, "The cheap comes out expensive." Or as I say, "Pay me now or pay me later." Edited February 19, 2018 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
teebax February 20, 2018 Share February 20, 2018 Mine didn't record today, but it looks like I didn't miss anything. Thanks for the recaps, as always! 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 20, 2018 Share February 20, 2018 (edited) hair nonsense: I said yesterday I know next to nothing about boats - well, I know even less when it comes to these hair cases. Looking at this girl on the screen who evidently spends hundreds buying hair, all I can think is, why? And what does she do with it? Fashion is another subject I know diddly about, but I know what I find attraction... and am not seeing it on screen with plaintiff. Not only am I not a big fan of gray/green tinted mop head hair.... but WTF is with the skin tight dress that emphasizes her big belly and thunder thighs as she marches into the room? Anyway, her case is about hair she bought from defendant. Defendant not nearly as much fun to look at - Short hair dude with full beard which covers up most of his neck tattoo. His story is he sold girl the hair, she picked up the hair and she's now trying to get a refund while keeping his product. Guess he sells hair on line, and also has a salon. So plaintiff bought extensions online, paying with paypal, and made an appointment at the salon to have her hair done. Hmmm, does that sound logical to anyone? If she's going to the salon to get dude to do her hair and incorporate these extensions onto her head, why not wait until you can touch and see WTH you're paying 500 bucks for? Even I know that there are different quality hair extentions. Oh dear, this girl is not just hard to look at, she's hard on the ears. Anyway, her story is she shows up for her appointment and dude is outside - she waits for dude to come in - dude isn't exactly hurrying in to take care of her - while waiting she asks his assistant if she can see the hair she bought - what she's shown isn't what she paid for - she's still waiting - finally, after waiting 45 minutes, she heads outside and confronts dude. Somehow I doubt this girl waited 45 minutes - I figure 10 minutes tops and she'd be pitching a fit. We see the same type of nonsense at the pizza shop where I work... customers call in claiming their delivery is over an hour late - great now with computers when you can pull up their order and tell then exactly when they REALLY ordered - uh, sir, you couldn't have been waiting over an hour ago, we received your order at at such and such time, which was xx minutes ago. Not liking girl (yes, I know I shouldn't be calling her a "girl," but she sounds like an entitled little spoiled brat - not an adult.) Time to cross the aisle and hear from defendant. Right off the bat we learn little missy showed up a half hour late to her appointment. Yes, he was outside when she finally arrived... talking with another client who was arriving (or maybe waiting) via uber - and this other client was a repeat cystomer coming from out of town and he was rolling out the red carpet. Ah, well, maybe what he's saying makes sense - but not to me. Apparently MM wants clarification too, as she calls up his assistant/witness..... ah, well, commercial break, and perfect time to zip ahead as I'm finding this oh-so confusing (and boring). anyway, guess MM does her text sleuthing routine, decides plaintiff DIDN'T leave with the salon with the hair, orders dude to refund the money. landlord vs tenant: landlady says tenant sold her storage shed that was on the property she rented defendant - she's suing for $4900. Defendant says she told landlady shed was an eyesore and falling down, and besides defendant wanted to put an above ground swimming pool in that spot. Says plaintiff agreed she could get rid of the moldy pile of rotting wood called a shed. Says later on their tenant/landlord relationship hit the skids, and plaintiff resurrected the shed as a point of contention. Oh dear, defendant thinks she deserves 3 grand in pain and suffering. Uh oh, I can hear it already - landlady barely understandable - not only accent, but missing front teeth... but, you see, there's a reason why she can't afford store bought teeth. Ah, MM is earning her money today. It's actually hard to watch plaintiff talk - and pretty much have to since I turned on CC to figure out what she's saying. Out of the kindness of her heart, she rented to defendant for $1200 - even though she had a potential tenant willing to pay $300 more a month, defendant was in such need she let her rent the place. Huh, this tenant who wanted an upbove ground pool is so needy she can't afford the full rent... my image of her pool has shrunk into a kiddy wade pool. Oh dear, now plaintiff is talking about eviction proceedings, and we already saw tenant saying how terrible the place is - but yes, she's still living there, just not paying rent.... ah, squatter! Ah, but switcheroo. Whole different take once motor mouth defendant gets the green flag. Seems this is another hurricaine case - this time Irma. Storm knocked out the lights and a falling tree damaged some plumbing. Landlady didn't have home owners insurance, and didn't want FEMA involved (not sure why - does FEMA insist on insurance?) Anyway, tenant wasn't staying in house with no lights or water, so she went to FEMA, who put her up in an extended stay place. Says she notified landlady, but landlady did nothing. After a couple weeks she contacted code enforcement. Landlady couldn't afford the plumber, so tenant paid the $1700 to get plumbing fixed, and says plaintiff agreed to her withholding the $1200 rent until she was repaid. Course, landlady says no such agreement. Ah, new questions for defendant.... MM asks for receipts for the plumbing bill - sure thing, here they are - nope, not email estimates that could be from anyone, actual receipts of what you paid. - nope, but trust her, she wouldn't lie, she paid plumber $1740, didn't get a receipt (or, apparently, even a freeking work order). Oops, forget switcheroo, all this is worth is crayon-toilet-paper receipe story. Looking like tenant decided hurricaine = boNANza. Oh, well, this case is about the shed, so MM puts the plumbing issue aside to get back to the missing shed. Ok, nobody has pictures of the shed. Plaintiff has a home depot picture of a shed for sale for $4900, but defendant describes a homemade disaster made of inside paneling. Thing is, defendant got rid of plaintiff's property and has nothing backing her claim that she had permission. She's back to how this case is just retaliation because she got code enforcement and FEMA involved - and FEMA is in process of declaring house a lost cause. Oh, and not a squatter who is living in a place and just complaining - she already has a new place and will be there soon. Ok, main suit is for old shed nobody has a picture of and was old when plaintiff bought property 6 or 7 years ago - hard to say it was worthless, but surely not worth more than a couple hundred bucks. Countersuit turns out to be for plumbing as well as pain and suffering.... forget the pain and suffering, and plumbing is a question since defendant brought no proof - and apparently what she put in filing is half what she's claiming today. MM needs an expresso, so takes a recess while seeing if this plumber who does estimates by email and doesn't give receipts ever got paid. Hmmm, I thought maybe she was going to call plumber, but no, either she couldn't reach him or she didn't try. She comes back and goes rough justice on the litigants. She believes defendant paid a plumber something, also beIieves shed had some value - no real idea what was paid or what the value is - calls it a wash - awards both sides $800. Incomplete sale: plaintiff says defendant still owes $800 for an auto air conditioning repair/charging machine she sold him. Hmmm, defendant claims purchase price was $1800, lady has received $1500, machine has been paid for. Oh dear, hope somebody has a contract, bill of sale, receipt or something. Of course not... plaintiff works for a company that sells thousand dollars pieces of equipment, sues customer for non payment, then comes to court without the purchase order. As if case doesn't seems flimsy enough, deal was verbal between plaintiff's dad and the buyer, and dad isn't here - when asked plaintiff just says he's "not present." Ah, key individual on defendant's side also missing. Seems deal was send deposit and machine will be released. Defendant says they send a mechanic with the money, he came back with the machine. Oh, and mechanic is the one on defendant's side who struck the verbal agreement with missing dad. They say mechanic paid the deposit - plaintiff says they released machine without deposit being made - hmmm what are chances deposit was cash and these folks don't believe in receipts, either. Least defendants are up front with why mechanic isn't here... he was fired - MM why did you fire him? - d, stealing. Ah, but with lackadaisical business practices, can't prove he stole deposit. Well, not enough for a criminal case, but is there enough for MM to decide that more likely than not plaintiff never received the deposit. Seems plaintiff repeatedly sent invoices, starting from when thieving mechanic took delivery, showing $1800 was owed. When defendant finally bothered to read the invoice and see that there was a problem, they had had the machine for 5 months and had made several payments. Plaintiff offered a further discount, or to consider what had been paid as a rental and return machine, but now they can't even agree on what original deal was. Sort of non case - neither person who made the verbal deal is here to testify. Guess it comes down to defendant's have possession of machine which plaintiff's invoices say cost $1800. So, MM is going to take defendant's claim that their crooked mechanic said real price was for $1500. Plaintiff wins. After ruling defendant looks over and tells plaintiff "no hard feelings" and she says "I understand"... so guess no feud - but hopefully both sides learned they need better bookkeeping. Edited February 20, 2018 by SRTouch 1 3 Link to comment
AZChristian February 20, 2018 Share February 20, 2018 Not only did the plaintiff in the hair case have on clothing that was more than one size too small, her nipple was noticeably protruding while she was talking to Doug. Maybe she can take her $512 and buy a full-sized mirror and some clothes that fit. 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 20, 2018 Share February 20, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: hair nonsense: The Weave Wars continue, with this Battle of the Bags of Hair. Plaintiff, Ms. Fountain - WT actual F? The super-tight pleather skirt over the protruding abdomen, the SHOES??, the fake everything... it all left me speechless. The def - resplendant with a dizzying myriad of neck tats - is named Tokyo? Did I hear correctly? I often miss names when I have to FF so not to hear anything that Levin's puppet, the stupid former Hall Clown has to say. I hope Tokyo kept his "very high-profile" hair client who came from New York - in an Uber! - for Tokyo's incomparable weave services. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: landlord vs tenant: Both litigants were simply horrible liars. Teebax Alert: You better skip this one. Plaintiff's jacked-up teeth - she's missing the lower front ones - and weird sideways cud-chewing motions will not make you happy. Gross. Def to JM, "Just wait til you hear this." JM is not your BFF with whom you are having cocktails and dishing. But she paid the plumber 1740$ No, wait. She paid 840$. Err. make that 1400$. Whatever, just trust her. She pays everything in cash and would never dream of getting a receipt. Neither litigant felt the need for anything that might be construed as evidence of what they were saying. And yeah - a 30-year old, rotting plywood shed is worth big bucks. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Incomplete sale: It gets worse with this. Both parties are in business, but they both think, "Why would anyone get receipts or write down any agreements or contracts? We don't DO that stuff! We trust everyone!" Best part is that neither party are the people who made the so-called, unsubstantiated deal. Plaintiff's father did it ("Where's your father?" Plaintiff: "He's not here." No shit, Sherlock) Defs say that plaintiff dealt with their employee and he took the 300$ over to plaintiff. He's not here either. He was fired because he's a thief. But they're SURE he didn't steal their 300$. He's a conscientious thief, because we love oxymorons. And even plain old morons, seen here in spades. Okay then. How a judge can listen to this kind of messed-up stupidity and try to make a ruling, I just don't know. 1 5 Link to comment
Brattinella February 20, 2018 Share February 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: The def - resplendant with a dizzying myriad of neck tats - is named Tokyo? Did I hear correctly? I saw a case today where the defendant was named Toshiba. I swear! 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 20, 2018 Share February 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, Brattinella said: I saw a case today where the defendant was named Toshiba. I swear! Ah, Toshiba. I remember her well. Her parents were big fans of Japanese electronics, IIRC. 3 Link to comment
AZChristian February 20, 2018 Share February 20, 2018 40 minutes ago, Brattinella said: I saw a case today where the defendant was named Toshiba. I swear! I saw that one. I wonder if her mother was in Tech Support. 2 Link to comment
hisbunkie February 21, 2018 Share February 21, 2018 I enjoy watching these wretched people who want to come off as money is plentiful and means nothing to them. Tokyo Rose, I'm looking at you. He is so well known that he has celebrity customers taking Ubers from New York City to Philadelphia for consultations. Yet, he is willing to lose a day's worth of clients, travel to NYC (Uber?), have his name associated with poor customer service and look shady? Really? You have money to throw around? 1 Link to comment
Katy M February 21, 2018 Share February 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, hisbunkie said: I enjoy watching these wretched people who want to come off as money is plentiful and means nothing to them. Tokyo Rose, I'm looking at you. He is so well known that he has celebrity customers taking Ubers from New York City to Philadelphia for consultations. Yet, he is willing to lose a day's worth of clients, travel to NYC (Uber?), have his name associated with poor customer service and look shady? Really? You have money to throw around? I had a friend who was sued. She was sued for whatever the original amount was, plus he also tried to add on a day's lost wages to sue her, and that amount was more than the damages. He, of course, did not win that money, although, he did win the rest. However, when my friend told me what had happened, I rolled my eyes and said "I would never sue for less money than I could make in a day." And I stand by that. Life's too short to be petty. But, some people just are. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 21, 2018 Share February 21, 2018 suing ex over car loan: seems the voluptuous Irit Smith just can't stop throwing money at ex hubby Keon - even after they split - says "he always has his ways with me." Not sure what ole Keon's defense is. In intro he claims he was making the payments until he lost his job, he's looking for work, can't get blood from a turnip.... besides, awhile back he gave her money when she was short and never got it back - so he's countersuing for that money. Ah, but says Irit, he's always posting on social media about the good times he's having spending money on his new gf. Ah, what a lovely couple... and they co-parent a 7yo son. Irit is suing over the money she recently paid to get Keon a new ride - she put out $2500 for the car, so either a beater or she only paid for part. Guess MM opened the door for Irit to testify about charmer Keon being $15,000 behind in child support when she asks why Irit gave him money for a car when they've been divorced for years. Not that I'm putting much stock in the "he needed a car so he could get to work" explanation. Geez, even as she's telling her story, Irit is making excuses for deadbeat Keon, jumping to his defense when MM questions the back child support. Only surprise listening to her is that she actually filed suit... bet she would have dropped the case had TPC not stepped in. Over to Keon - takes zero time before he starts proving what a deadbeat he is. When asked, he tells us he's employed in the "spirits" industry... lots of nonsense where he waves his hands and says a lot of nothing while looking up, down, and all around, but sounds like he sells booze to clubs, resturants etc. Ok, guess he might need transportation to make his business calls... not sure why ex-wife had to buy it. Anyway, she buys him a car so he can keep the job and start catching up on support - and he quits shortly thereafter because the boss changes his schedule. If it weren't for court TV I'd never get to hear how these deadbeats rationalize pretty much everything. Instead of doing everything he can to support his son, like maybe a second job or just extra hours to build up sales, Keon quits the job he has. Anyway, within first minute I'm building a dislike for Keon. When MM asks why he stopped making the car payments he starts out praising Irit, she's so big hearted and all, but then, somehow, he spins it so that she's the reason he stopped making payments... yeah, he was going to pay, but Irit got "irate" over the "female" he was seeing... really, they've been split up 7 years and she's still carrying a torch for deadbeat Keon? Oh dear, seems Irit began harrassing him... uh, maybe even asking for some of the $2,500 he owed her (or even the $15,000 he owed for his son's support). Really too much for Keon's sensibilities to show us all those harrassing texts - texts where she using "expletives" and gets personal... ok, gotta admit Keon has a MUCH better vocabulary than most court TV deadbeats... ok, no case here, just MM having fun poking at Keon's non-defense. Ah, right about now, as we go to commercial, Keon admits he's $15,000 behind in support payments, tells us there's no justification for being behind, then proceeds to offer the reason (lame excuses)... no dude, just stick with no justification and tell us how you're getting a second and third job to catch up - or even that you're going back to family court to get the amount of support adjusted - don't give a sales pitch full of crap! Ah, after the break MM slams him... Guess she was getting tired of his sales pitch, too. She goes back to Irit, asking why Irit hasn't done more about the arrears in support, saying she'd toss his ass in jail if she were the family court judge and he brought this nonsense to her. Ah, well, this side trip really has nothing to do with the actual case - well, except that his defense to both is the same. Course, on TPC MM takes the time to explore these little side trips and rip litigants even though it doesn't matter to the case. Yep, she does that here, and Keon gets worked up enough that he and MM are yelling and talking over each other - not out of control, "security, Security, SECURITY!!!" type yelling like that one time... and smug deadbeat Keon still has that half smile even as MM is calling him a lazy deadbeat. Decision time... ok, these two both included nonsense in the damage claim - she wants a day's lost wages, but no pay stub. Ah, and the thousand he's countersuing for. Seems when they broke up 6 1/2 or 7 years ago, when son was 3 months old and they were still married, he moved out and paid rent and expenses for a while (at the time she was going to school). So, now, 7 years later, he's thousands of bucks behind supporting the son and owes her a couple grand for a car and other loans... he wants rent money from when they were married... all kinds of stuff wrong there - including fact that, if he thought this was a legitimate debt, he should have raised it during the divorce. Ah, Keon just came out with what may be the best possible response to MM's question, "is there anything else?" His answer, "I don't think I want to talk anymore." Unfortunately, spouts more nonsense when he gets outside... well, actually, what he says isn't bad, just that I don't believe anything he says. cruise kerfuffle: two neighborhood friends plan a cruise together. Plaintiff put $500 towards the cruise, but then decided not to go. She says neighbor ended up using her $500 to take someone else on the cruise - she wants the money back. Hold on, says defendant, plaintiff backed out 2 weeks before departure and her $500 had already gone to the cruise people, so she needs to get the money from them. (Want to see what those eyerolling teenage brats will look like when they grow up? Just watch defendant.) Ok, could go either way. The $500 may well have been non-refundable. If defendant's new cruise companion paid full price (or maybe more since it was last minute) than plaintiff out of luck. But.... if plaintiff's money used used to pay new shipmate's ticket, she ought to get it back. Ah, but does defendant pay her, or should she sue defendant's son's gf - the new shipmate? Ah... one of those cases where MM gets sidetracked by family/friendship. This time the neighbors have been friends for 24 years, so be prepared for "how could you let $500 break up this friendship?" Ok, yep, the $500 was non-refundable. Reason plaintiff backed out was cruise was to take place shortly after a hurricaine, so she decided not to go. Ah, but, according to plaintiff, she had other people ready to buy/use her ticket, but defendant said let my son's gf go, and she would make sure plaintiff was paid. Well, gf went and she wants the promised money. Nah, says drfendant, she never promised to pay, she just told plaintiff the gf wanted to go and suggested the two work out a deal - she never guaranteed payment.... then right after that, she tells us she "vouched" for the girl. MM, "what do you mean, you vouched for her?" D, "I told her I'd make sure she got the money." Uh, why are we here, again? Ah, nonsense about timeline and amounts. Plaintiff says half was to be paid on certain date. Defendant argues she agreed to pay something on that date, but not half. So, no meeting of minds, big kerfuffle when day comes and half isn't paid as plaintiff expected. Ah, just like I quickly tire of the teenage eyerollers, I'm about ready to fast forward through this case to get away from this defendant who has things stuck in her little mind and doesn't hear anything MM is saying. Another thing that strikes me is defendant talking about struggling to pay rent and bills... yet she is off taking a cruise (with unemployed son's gf, yet!). Anyway, defendant guaranteed payment, so she has to pay... like I said, why are we even here! wants deposit refunded: what? Another idiot who expects their money back after they change their mind and back out of a purchase. Yeah, on occasion we see deposits refunded, but the default is non refundable because the seller request on the sale going through and pulls whatever it is off the market. This time we're talking a $1500 on a car. Ok, once testimony starts things change a tad. Seems plaintiff put down $100 as a deposit to hold the jeep. Defendant takes car off the market, says she turned away two other interested buyers. During following week plaintiff was on vacation, but had another $1500 dropped off towards the purchase price of $5400. Ok, silly plaintiff now paying additional money for the jeep, still hasn't even test driven thing, and is off on vacation talking with bf about whether or not this is a good buy. Ok, buyer's remorse, she decides to back out of the deal. Says she realised $100 deposit was non-refundable, but feels she ought to get back the additional $1500 payment.... hey, may have a point if she has anything saying the $1500 was refundable, but when asked her reasoning seems to be she feels that's the way it should be... and MM tells her, no, not the way these things usually go. Ok, another case where litigant wasn't even the one doing the deal - yesterday it was absent dad and thieving mechanic, today defendant never even met plaintiff, all her dealings were with absent bf. Ah, but bf is at work, so plaintiff is here in his stead. So, of course first thing out of defendant's mouth is whose this, never met her, never talked with her, what the heck?!? Oh, says plaintiff, she was there, just never got out of car. Can she even sue? Seems like deal was between AWOL bf and defendant. Even if it was plaintiff's money bf was spending (or actually sending his brother to pay defendant), would she have a case with defendant? Nope, not seeing it, not unless bf is actually her hubby. If she can prove the money was hers, she has to go looking to bf to get it back - she can't sue on bf's behalf (well, I guess she could if she has power of attorney or something). Not that it sounds like MM would be inclined to give BF the money back, but this sure makes it cut and dry. Ok, unless MM is going to really shock me, there is no case - this will just be a lesson in how foolish people buy used cars. Oh, and talking about foolish people.... that $1500 that bf's brother paid. Well, turns out only proof that money was paid is defendant admits receiving it... sort of. Seems bro left the $1500, in cash, in her mailbox - guess it's better than under her doormat. (Side note: I'm old enough that I remember Mom leaving the milkman cash in an envelope stuck in the empty glass milk bottle on the front porch.) Ah, well, MM is breaking out her pencil - guess she doesn't want defendant unjustly enriched. I still question bf not being here and this plaintiff suing. Oh well, guess I see her point. She doesn't make defendant return the whole $1500, instead she makes her return $500, but says only reason she has to return anything is that defendant later sold the jeep to someone else. Sooooo defendant just too honest for her own good - only proof $1500 was paid is because she admits it was left in her mailbox, and only reason any of the $1500 is returned us because she admits she sold it to someone else when bf backed out of deal. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 21, 2018 Share February 21, 2018 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: suing ex over car loan: seems the voluptuous Irit Smith just can't stop throwing money at ex hubby Keon Another, "Oh, how I love that man of mine!" Again, a woman who seems put together, educated and doing well but just can't stay away from this loser and even had a kid with him although he can't keep a job, can't buy his own car or pay his own rent. He's also a deadbeat who doesn't support his own child and seems to find that amusing and that there's a good excuse for that. OH, she's just mad because he's got another "female." He frivolously quits a good job (when he has a child he needs to support) because he's afraid he has no independant will and would probably start drinking or who knows what, if he keeps that job servicing "gentlemans' clubs" = strip joints. He can't be bothered making an effort to see his child because, well, it's too much trouble and he's got some femalle to fill his weekends. Who needs some whiny kid messing that up? That he obviously thinks he's something special just made him more repulsive. Plaintiff knows how to pick 'em. Interesting that plaintiff, for whom English is a second language, spoke way better than anyone else we saw today (or nearly any day) for whom English IS a first language. She didn't say anything like "She ain't got no job", which we heard in the second case and which I couldn't bear to watch after that. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: wants deposit refunded: This could be new record. Is plaintiff the dumbest person we've ever seen here? Oh, well - maybe her brain-dead boyfriend (who apparently works 24/7) is dumber, but we can't be sure since he didn't have the cojones to show up today, but sends his pathetic little ultra-dumb girlfriend to do his dirty work. There are actually people who would leave 1500$ in cash in a stranger's mailbox to pay for a car they never even bothered test driving. Understandable part: It was an 18-year old who dropped off the cash. Bad part: His mother told him to do it! Quite the family. This could be a new entry in Ripley's Believe it or Not. Miss Moron is just very lucky defs were honest. They could have said there was no money and after threats from dummy boyfriend, I wouldn't blame them. JM hopes plaintiff learned some lessons here. Don't count on it. As JJ says, "Beauty fades, but dumb is forever." 5 Link to comment
SRTouch February 22, 2018 Share February 22, 2018 (edited) Here in Oklahoma, kiddies are off for second day in a row because of icy roads. Last night was a nightmare delivery pizza... not only the roads, but business rivaled Super Bowl Sunday as nobody wanted to get out, kids had day off, and soldiers off except for mission essential folks. Along with overcast and icy drizzle, we're hearing the occasional thunder - which means 3 of the cats are staying in the storm shelter under the bed. Other than that, today was made for hibernation! Road rage incident: plaintiff says lunatic defendant went off on her - not just yelling and cussing, but reached in and grabbed her through her open window, then smashed the window when she managed to get it up. She's suing for $5,565.04 - her broken window and $5,000 in medical bills. Defendant... first impression here isn't too good. As his intro is read, he stands there with hands in pocket, looking off to the side looking all low brow/caveman. What his defense says is that plaintiff went nuts, tailgating and flashing her lights. Even if that's true, what's his defense for getting out of his car - well, maybe just to see if she's all right, but then just go back to his car and call the cops if he feels it should be reported. Anyway, his intro has him approaching the screaming road rage woman close enough that she spits in his face and she apparently grabbed his hand and bit his thumb Then we get the "cops didn't cite/arrest me, so obviously I did not wrong" defense. He has a countersuit for.... $35 - guess to get his bite wound checked and the medical folks check plaintiff for rabies. Ok, don't see any intriguing legal case, just foolish people loosing it in traffic. Plaintiff pretty believable as she tells her story. She says defendant's vehicle (he was the passenger) made a right turn in front of her, cutting her off - so she blasted her horn at them. Says they didn't like her toting her hotn, so they did the brake check deal a few times while idiot defendant hung out the passenger window flipping her off with both hands. Says she slowed down, and they gave it up and drove ahead. Ah, but everybody was heading in the same direction, and when she turns into her neighborhood these yayhoos are right up the road. She doesn't want them to know where she lives, so she stops in front of a house down the road from her home. Ah, but caveman defendant see her, and decides to start up again. He comes up and starts yelling at her through her partially open window, so she grabs her phone and screams she gonna call for the cops. Soooo, she says he reaches through the partially open window like he wants to grab her phone or maybe her car keys. Says he must not have wanted cops called, cause looky here at his record... yep she did a little research and found he has a history of incidents - including at least one where he assaulted someone with his motorcycle helmet - doesn't really speak to this incident, but then it might show a history. Anyway, as she tells the story he was holding her up against the headrest with his hand on her face, so "out of desperation I just bit him - got him pretty good!" To which MM says, "good!" By now, defendant has hands out of pockets and looking down - kind of glum looking, and unless he has a REALLY good story and switcheroo, he might as well get out his checkbook. Anyway, time to give him a chance at spin control. Oh, lots of handwriting and pointing to get his story across. Ok, denies his gf cut off defendant, but says after they made their right turn plaintiff did a little of horn blowing and light flashing. Ok, maybe so, plaintiff admits honking, so if a driver feels you cut them off they might honk and/or flash their lights - maybe even flip you off.... doesn't mean it's smart to get out of your vehicle to go yell at them. Ah, does this idiot actually think anybody will believe this story? Here she is, sitting in her car - he's outside, and she starts spitting at him? He's so shocked that, instead of taking a step back he asks how old she is? Then she reaches through the half open window and grabs his hand and bite him!? Really, sitting behind a steering wheel, turns and lunges through a half open window, grabs and bites him? Oh well, at least turns out defendant doesn't sound like a caveman, even if he has zero impulse control. Hmmm, time to talk numbers. Plaintiff really didn't have physical injuries, but I agree with MM that having some stranger reach in and grab you could cause nightmares, depression, etc. Ah, but MM figures plaintiff did a little more honking and flashing than she's saying, egging on defendant, so doesn'the give her all of her medical bills... end result - plaintiff gets about half what she wants... oh, and defendant doesn't get his $35. When he gets outside, Doug asks if he realizes how scared plaintiff is of him, and dude ignores the question and complains MM wouldn't let him present his case - seems he has 20 pages of... something... that would have shone a new light on the case. Love, Doug, his response is, what could you possible have? another cruise case: seems a group of firefighters decided to go on a cruise. Plaintiff was going to bunk share a cabin with defendant. But, then a death in family caused defendant to back out, she canceled her trip, which ended up messing up plaintiff's reservations and costing her her deposit. Intro for defendant doesn't mention any family death, says trip canceled because plaintiff kept coming up with excuses instead of her share of the money... oh, and she tacked on a defamation claim because plaintiff has been telling stories at great firehouse. Have to say, defendant does NOT look like my idea of a firefighter... fire department employee - sure, why not - but a firefighter?anyway, preview clip sort of gives things away. Shows MM questioning plaintiff's reason for canceling, asking why there are repeated texts saying she's short of money before there's a mention of a death. Anyway, testimony has these two, coworkers but not really friends, going on this cruise with the group. Plaintiff agrees to go and room with defendant, but having never been on a cruise she let's defendant make the arrangements and plaintiff will pay her share. So, that's what happens... defendant makes the bookings and puts it on her card. And things fall apart when she tries to collect from the plaintiff. Defendant expecting to be repaid in days, which turns into months. We're not talking big money here, $300 for airline tickets and $50 deposit on the cabin/room. Soooo, takes a couple months for defendant to get the $350 deposit money, so she gets smarter and draws up a contract for the for the balance - and actually gets it signed and everything - even breaks down how much in gratuities are supposed to be paid. Ah, but problem is the long lead time between when they agreed to go and when the money needs to be paid... well that isn't really a problem - the problem is plaintiff isn't squirreling away money every payday, instead she's living paycheck to paycheck and has no money come due date. 4 days before payment is due, she texts defendant and says no money this week, but she pay next week. Uh, my understanding is that at that late date, if you don't make the payment you lose the deposit - not lose it to defendant, but the cruise line and airlines. Ah, her excuse, just like intro said, us that she was using the money she had saved to help pay for a funeral. Sorry to hear that, but what does that mean about the debt. Defendant doesn't have the deposit - the cruise people do. Only way for defendant to save the deposit money is to front an additional $1000 towards plaintiff's trip (assuming plaintiff even wants to go - otherwise money is gone and defendant scrambling to fill the empty bunk in the cabin.) Even going with everything plaintiff has said (and we already have hints there are problems with her version) I'm not seeing a case against defendant for the deposit. After MM questions plaintiff's version and expresses her doubts, she turns to defendant and asks what she did when plaintiff told her she wasn't able to meet the deadline. Almost as soon as defendant starts we hear plaintiff interrupt with "not true!" Defendant says she has the text, and MM just about claps and says let's see it! Ah, defendant is on the ball after the first bit where plaintiff jerked her around with making the deposit in months instead of days. Ok, now for the twist. MM says defendant would have been within her rights to go on the cruise and sue plaintiff for her half. Ah, but she couldn't afford the $2000 bill by herself, so she ends up canceling. Then the weather took a hand and a hurricaine blows in, cruise line cancels the trip - too late, she already canceled. So, defendant sat down and figured other everything she, the defendant was out - $250, subtracted that from the $350 defendant had paid towards the trip and wrote plaintiff a check for $100. Pretty generous, IMHO, I would have kept the $100 and said that was my fee for making all the arrangements. Plaintiff wants the whole $350 back, even though defendant is out the non redundant deposit and charges for canceling the flight. Guess her thinking is that she could have used the flight tickets for something else, so defendant should never have canceled her ticket - guess she figures defendant should be willing to act as an unpaid travel agent and just forget her our out of pocket expenses - not to mention the aggravation of making the reservations and chasing deadbeat plaintiff for money. Ok, not much of a shout down, but best part of case (which, truthfully, wasn't that good) was after commercial and short stuff street talk... MM engages in an attempt to adjust plaintiff's hubris - waste of time, plaintiff blameless in her mind. Ok, main suit over, just waiting for the announcement. But now we hear the defamation countersuit. Hoboy, not only did plaintiff go off and text defendant she was ready to fight her over the nonrefundable deposits, she then went to the supervisors at the firehouse pleading her case and telling them defendant is a thief and ought to be booted out of the volunteer fire department. Again, plaintiff is no, threatened to, but never followed through and complained to the bosses. Uh, again defendant on the ball, has text from chief, plaintiff complaining, WTF, you two need to handle this. Ah, but MM says not really defamation.... plaintiff here in court suing because she thinks she's right - even though she's 100% wrong, she has right to opinion... besides, once chief heard both sides he sided with defendant, so no harm done with the complaints. Plaintiff awarded the $100 defendant was willing to give all along - nothing on countersuit. (And again, second day in row, we have folks fussing over cruise at least one litigant couldn't afford. Hey, America, give the plastic a rest and live within your means!) Kaput AC compressor: plaintiff is actually repair dude who buys a compressor for defendant, then gets fired and us stuck with the compressor and $1005.21 bill. Couple things wrong with his case at first glance - he's the pro, why is he taking word of customer about make/model of compressor instead of checking for himself - gotta question the grand bill, I'don't think he could return it, may be stuck with restocking fee - third, this guy is too big, not just hefty, but hamhock hands and broad shoulders - don't see him as aneeded AC repair guy. Defendant's intro doesn't help clear things up much. She admits she ordered the compressor, but says she just ordered what plaintiff told her to order. Says when it turned out to be the wrong compressor, she tried to return it, but couldn't because the box was damaged. Hmmm her story makes as little sense as his. I mean, I have never had a repairman/tradesman ask me as the customer to order a part. Now, I have ordered a part online based on what a repairman said was wrong and then had him do the repair, but don't think I'd order a part costing over a thousand without knowing return policy. Ok, forget all that.... Intro had me talking whole different case. Now, plaintiff is ordering compressor from defendant's company - not for her at all, she's the supplier. When he receives the compressor for this totally different customer - and yes, he actually went and diagnosed the compressor as bad and ordered from defendant - it arrives in a damaged box. He's not worried about the box, so he opens it up and goes to install it - and it's not the right compressor. When he tries to return it and get the right part, defendant's company says, nope, box is damaged, it's your, you bought it. Ok, feel better about plaintiff - now defendant looks shady. Ok, even worse, shifty Ed on defendant's side screwed up and didn't order the compressor at first - thought plaintiff was price checking, so told him the price and didn't order it... oh, and plaintiff says not the first time Ed has forgotten to order something and left him, plaintiff, scrambling for a part and paying for overnight shipping. So, Ed not exactly parts guy of the year. When compressor comes in, every agrees shipping box damaged. Plaintiff and Ed open it up and check, compressor looks undamaged, so plaintiff accepts delivery. Soooo, when plaintiff called Ed, the parts guy, he sends a picture of the compressor model number. Ed admits he didn't order that model - says it was obsolete, so he ordered a replacement - but the replacement doesn't fit because he needed to cross reference the model with the air conditioner model. Uh, Ed, sounds like you know what you're saying, but why order a thousand dollar part when, in your words, the compressor model number is only half what you needed to order the right part. Ok, by now plaintiff's customer is going nuts. First, AC not working as promised because part not ordered when Ed first called, now, wrong part, and looking at another couple days delay... customer tells plaintiff to hit the road, going to hire someone who knows what they're doing. Ok, in my mind Ed caused the screw up that lost plaintiff the customer. And now plaintiff has this compressor that Ed ordered - knowing it might not fit because he didn't have all the information he needed. Ah, but Ed says, plaintiff had plenty of time to do reseatch and make sure right part was ordered - uh, Ed, isn't that what YOU get paid for?... Oh, and Ed admits the compressor arrived in his place in damaged box. Plaintiff, probably understandably upset with Ed and maybe with a few choice words, shows up at the parts store with the compressor, and is told he bought it, can't be returned cause he accepted it in damaged box. Ah, here's the twist... because Ed didn't order it when plaintiff first called, plaintiff paid extra to get it overnight via UPS - but defendant's company won't guarantee parts which are sent UPS. Huh. Makes no sense to me. Sounds like they're just dodging their responsibility - but they say that's their established policy and that they made sure plaintiff understood that before they placed the order with UPS shipping.... nope, MM doesn't believe Ed... plaintiff wins. Edited February 22, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
Brattinella February 22, 2018 Share February 22, 2018 Nasty weather today for sure, SRTouch! For most of the day I was praying the freezing rain would stop short of bringing our power lines down! 2 Link to comment
DoctorK February 22, 2018 Share February 22, 2018 Any one want to take bets on whether the pencil neck road rage weasel guy behaves that way if he by mistake jumps out on an adult male? I don't think so. 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 22, 2018 Share February 22, 2018 14 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Road rage incident: Ooh, I guess finding a woman alone in the car made def, who is a 30 year old man and has the self-control of a toddler, feel like a big tough guy. I liked his mangy little sweater vest, though, and his sulky face. Not saying plaintiff was a totally innocent victim. Who sits in their car with the window down waiting for some maniac to approach them? I certainly wouldn't. But, I can only hope that the next person the lunatic def assaults beats the crap out of him. I shouldn't be surprised he has a girlfriend, considering the level of desperation we see in women these days, many of them will put up with anything to have a "man" in their lives. 18 minutes ago, SRTouch said: another cruise case: Wow. Plaintiff seemed so cool and calm, until we hear how she threatened def. and we see the nasty, reptilian beast emerge who even threw attitude and a major stink eye at JM. Scary. I guess being "sisters" in the fire dept counts for little when a few hundred bucks is at stake. Like JM, I thought it rather bizarre she didn't bring up the dead infant thing until later in the texting. Maybe she forgot about it. Or maybe she made it up to get out of a committment she made and realized she couldn't possibly afford. Who knows? Def. was articulate and reasonable - even after being harassed and told by plaintiff "I don't care if I go to jail" (which I would certainly see as a threat) and she even wrote up a contract and they both signed it! Wow, often lawyers we see here and others who make a living serving clients don't bother with stinkin' contracts a lot of the time. 25 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Kaput AC compressor: I know nothing about compressors and care less about them, but it was restful to hear litigants who never mentioned spitting, cursing, smashed car windows or other destruction/violence. 5 Link to comment
teebax February 23, 2018 Share February 23, 2018 This is the first day this week my atenna had a clear signal so my dvr recorded the show. I'm back! To answer Angela's question, road rage guy wouldn't have behaved like that with a strong man. My brother is 6'8" to my 5'3" and wonders why he doesn't encounter the same bad behavior I experience. Gee, I wonder why that is. It's a mystery for sure. The cruise case was timely. I'm traveling this sunmer with a fairly new friend for the first time. We're splitting expenses, and I prepaid my half of our rental and had the rental company invoice her for the other half. She said she was strapped this week and wondered if we could hold off on her part until closer to the date. (Insert buzzer sound ?) Wrong answer. You pay now or I go solo. I'm sure she's good for it, but I watch way too many court shows to handle a trip payment that way! They would have waited for the other half, but I don't want to chase people for money. And, by the way, she did come up with the money. My threat to just go on my own and leave her behind led to her magically finding some dough. 9 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 23, 2018 Share February 23, 2018 1 minute ago, teebax said: The cruise case was timely. I'm traveling this sunmer with a fairly new friend for the first time. We're splitting expenses, and I prepaid my half of our rental and had the rental company invoice her for the other half. I did that many years ago, with a woman at my work who I knew, but didn't really know. No problem with the money. The problem came when we reached our destination and she basically dumped me to go screw some guy who approached us our first night there. BTW, he put the moves on me first (I had taken this trip to get away from men). I had zero interest, so he literally swiveled around in his seat and did the same thing to my companion. Not proud she was - no problem being second choice - and took him up on it. You never know what someone is like until you live with them or travel with them. 4 minutes ago, teebax said: road rage guy wouldn't have behaved like that with a strong man. My brother is 6'8" to my 5'3" and wonders why he doesn't encounter the same bad behavior I experience. Gee, I wonder why that is. It's a mystery for sure. Road rage guy would have piddled all over himself if your brother stepped out of that car. 6 Link to comment
DoctorK February 23, 2018 Share February 23, 2018 56 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Road rage guy would have piddled all over himself if your brother stepped out of that car. Like the fake spy guy (actually used car salesman) in True Lies, one of the funniest movies ever. When Jamie Lee Curtis and Arnold run across him in the final scene, he pisses himself once again. 5 Link to comment
teebax February 23, 2018 Share February 23, 2018 16 minutes ago, DoctorK said: Like the fake spy guy (actually used car salesman) in True Lies, one of the funniest movies ever. When Jamie Lee Curtis and Arnold run across him in the final scene, he pisses himself once again. I need to rewatch that movie. I remember liking it. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 23, 2018 Share February 23, 2018 First, mother suing daughter for 95$ over "disrespect" I guess. Daughter's baby daddy took the 40 bucks Mom sent to... someone (Grandma?)and spent it and not even the threat of a court case could make him cough it up and give it to his girlfriend's mother. Whatever. Ridiculous, but Mom gets her 40$ back, but not the 55$ which even her own complaint would make anyone think it was a gift, so I guess she's a winner. Yay for her. I hope she enjoys her winnings. Guy suing "Blue Ox" installers because they sold him a "flat tow" for his car so he could drag it behind his camper and he says someone, somewhere later told him that flat tow couldn't be used on his Honda Fit. The equipment caused his transmission to blow so the installers need to pay for it. Evidence that it was actually this device that caused the tranny to blow? Why no, he has none of that but his hearsay, including what someone at a campsite may or may not have told him in casual conversation should be proof positive that it's installer's fault. As we all well know - I guess plaintiff never watched this show - flapping gums do not a case make. Zero for him. Shifty "jury store" who switched out plaintiff's diamond for a "clarity enhanced" one - I never heard of that (of course I haven't purchased or been given any new jewelry in longer than I care to think about). I learn something new all the time on this show - sent an employee who knew nothing about the diamond but got thrown under the bus since the person who actually dealt with plaintiff didn't care to show up here, and after hearing this case I understand why. Def. was totally honest that the replacement stone was not only crap but even looked like crap, so plaintiff gets her 2900$ back. BTW, has the word "said" become obsolete? "He was like, and I was like, and they were like." The word is SAID. Mr. Bauman, my 9th grade English teacher, must be rolling in his grave since nothing set him off on a rant the way hearing "like" did. Anyway, I "don't want no white platin jury" either! 1 8 Link to comment
Katy M February 23, 2018 Share February 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Guy suing "Blue Ox" installers because they sold him a "flat tow" for his car so he could drag it behind his camper and he says someone, somewhere later told him that flat tow couldn't be used on his Honda Fit. The equipment caused his transmission to blow so the installers need to pay for it. Evidence that it was actually this device that caused the tranny to blow? Why no, he has none of that but his hearsay, including what someone at a campsite may or may not have told him in casual conversation should be proof positive that it's installer's fault. As we all well know - I guess plaintiff never watched this show - flapping gums do not a case make. Zero for him. I kind of felt like the defendant proved the plaintiff's case for him. They provided the Blue Ox paperwork that basically said that they don't care (OK, know) if a car is flat-tow compatible or not and that it is the car owner's responsibility to know that. OK, that's absolutely great for a wholesaler/retailer. But, shouldn't an actual installer know? I mean, car owner came to installer and basically said he knew nothing about this kind of stuff. Installer said they would check. And then came back and said OK, we can put this on. Doesn't a professional installer bear any responsibility for knowing how these things work and whether they're compatible. I mean according to the defendant's own testimony, she said she called Blue Ox and gave them the make model and year and they said that they made a tower (or whatever) for that. Then, she passed on that info to plaintiff. Plaintiff was clearly relying on what he thought was expertise and none of what I just typed seemed to be in any contention. 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 23, 2018 Share February 23, 2018 26 minutes ago, Katy M said: Doesn't a professional installer bear any responsibility for knowing how these things work and whether they're compatible. I think so too, that the "experts" should be held accountable for what they pass on to customers, but the thing here is the plaintiff brought zero evidence that this device caused his engine to blow. Could have been a lot of other things. All he had to do was go to a Honda dealer and get something that said this tow thing would or could damage his car and he might have won. He brought nothing but idle hearsay chitchat as evidence. 5 Link to comment
Katy M February 24, 2018 Share February 24, 2018 56 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I think so too, that the "experts" should be held accountable for what they pass on to customers, but the thing here is the plaintiff brought zero evidence that this device caused his engine to blow. Could have been a lot of other things. All he had to do was go to a Honda dealer and get something that said this tow thing would or could damage his car and he might have won. He brought nothing but idle hearsay chitchat as evidence. That's true that he didn't prove that the device was responsible for the blown transmission, and I'll admit that he would need that proof. However, the judge sounded like her reasoning was that the statement from Blue Ox said it was his responsibility and nobody told him one way or the other whether his car was compatible. 2 Link to comment
AZChristian February 24, 2018 Share February 24, 2018 I took 10 seconds to google "Honda Fit flat tow." No one (car owner or tow bar installer) should be able to claim they didn't know. There's all kinds of info out there. As far as JM's ruling, the only one with any written evidence was the defendant. A written statement will overrule hearsay from a guy in a campground every time. If the plaintiff couldn't PROVE that Blue Ox told him it was okay, it's his word against their statement. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch February 26, 2018 Share February 26, 2018 Garden variety fleecing: plaintiff complains he met defendant on FB, they got friendly, he loaned her money for a new apartment, suddenly she isn't quite as friendly. He wants the $1,100 he loaned her. Defendant says there was no loan, dude gave her the money as a gift... besides, she never wanted him as anything besides a friend - he's married. When he tried to go further than just friends, she dumped his sorry a$$. Says only reason dude is suing her today is so he can see her again - yep, he's just a stalker (apparently she never thought about just returning the money and telling him she wanted nothing more to do with him.) Ok, once testimony starts my thoughts change a bit (case kind of entertaining in a Springer kind of way). According to dude, this wasn't a quick loan shortly after meeting online, no he says they actually met over 4 years sgo, and have communicated off and on ever since. The loans he's suing over were both made within the last year - he says she needed to get a new place because she was breaking up with her bf, he had just gotten his tax money back, so he has the money to loan when she asked - says she was to repay the money in April. Ah, April comes, and instead of her paying him back she's looking for another loan. Why? Asks MM, give her more money - were you maybe expecting a little something extra besides monetary repayment? Oh, and because MM or her staff did their homework, she knows to ask about her new apartment his $700 loan was supposed to pay for - she never moved into a new place, she never paid back the original $700... so why loan her an additional $400 in September when she again wanted to move? Over to defendant - huh, WTH is she saying? She starts out with the $700 was a gift, and the $400 was NOT a gift - that was a loan. But it wasn't 400, no it was 300, no wait, it was $250... ok, she isn't sure how much she borrowed. Ah, what a tangled web... according to defendant, the whole $700 so she could leave bf is nonsense - he didn't even know she had that bf when he loaned/gave her the $700 - but then she didn't know plaintiff had a wife. Now, the 400, 300, or maybe 250 bucks, THAT was to help her move. Ah, but she gave the money to her soon to be roomy, and that back stabbing "b" took the money and HER bf. Oops, her story sort of falls apart under questioning. She's telling us how plaintiff has been flirting and chasing her for years, then trips up with how he was always coming over to visit her and her bf - the bf she just testified plaintiff didn't know about. Ah, seems in her answer she says she and bf pretended bf was her cousin... yeah, why not, if silly plaintiff was really showering her with gifts as she claims when he came a'courtin'. Does she realize how bad a light that puts her in? "For years plaintiff chased me, flirting and bringing me gifts, even giving me $700, and he'd even come visit me and my bf - not realizing bf wasn't my cousin... ah, but all good, cause he never told me about his wife." What's worse, whole time she's telling us this, she's smiling and acting like it's a joke. Ok, quick trip across aisle, as plaintiff claims he has a promissory note, signed by defendant, promising to repay $1,100... no no, defendant says, she never signed anything - has to be a forgery. Soooo, MM has Douglas bring up her signed ID - and MM says sure doesn't look like she signed the IOU. HMMMM not smart to try to fool the judge with phoney evidence - would have been better to claim it was a loan, but verbal - nothing in writing. Ok, back to the second amount which she agrees was a loan - oh, and once again defendant is changing the amount - now she admits to a $350 loan. Ah, seems she remembers now because she remembers a FB feud with b*tch who stole her bf that mentioned the amount - and she realizes MM might just have that exchange. So, MM says, you admit to borrowing $350, but the $700 was a gift because you're cute? Yep, says defendant. Ok, I'm about fed up with her. More nonsense where she talks about still mooching off plaintiff, says she was happy accepting rides and gifts from dude until she caught him going through her phone - that's when guy got weird. Dude admits he was going he through her phone - says friends were telling him she was playing him, so he decided to look for evidence in her phone. Ah, well, more Jerry Springer stuff with the two when she finds out about his wife (when asked if he's married his answer is "yes, legally") and defendant puts on a fake accent to mock the wife's phone call. Then two start cross aisle argument about how both are calling each other's mommy to tattle on each other. I'm ready for this one to end, and thankfully time's up. Judgement time - no proof $700 was a loan, and MM goes with the $350 - last amount defendant claims to have received and admits was a loan. landlord vs ex-tenant: landlord claims when the tenant moved out he found all kinds of damage - including she used his shed for a target and shot it full of holes. Also claims water damage because she took showers without a shower curtain. Defendant says water damage caused by bad plumbing, shed already full of holes, and she doesn't even have a gun, so no way did she use it for target practice. Ah, well, sounds like a case where pictures sure would be nice. Anyway, when testimony starts we learn she rented place for over a year and a half with no problems. Then, supposedly she turned into a problem tenant. MM quickly realizes plaintiff isn't the best witness (accent problem) so she switches to defendant to let her tells us why she started complaining. Ok, first the plumbjng. Says yard flooded end of September, water had to be turned off, and when she notified landlord she was told she had to pay October rent before he'd fix the leak. Ooooh, not good - in fact she may have deserved a rebate on September rent depending on when water actually turned off. So, she ends up paying a couple hundred bucks to fix the leak. Then text war erupts. She wants plumber bill to come off her rent, he wants full rent, he gives 30 day notice around 7th of October, she admits October rent never paid. Turns out she moved out 7th November without paying rent since September. Sounds like landlord has cash flow problem - can't pay for maintenance until he gets rent, then wants rent even when tenant paid for plumber. Ah, but he says when he went to check on leak there was no leak. Ok, if tenant has a bill from plumber she'll get that money - not sure if she can go on rent strike when landlord refused to pay. I mean, don't think she would owe rent if there was no water, but she had water, dispute was over who was going to pay. At best, if rent was $600 and she paid 2-300 to plumber, she should have paid landlord the difference. The holes in the shed sound like nonsense. He says her friends shot it with a BB gun - she says as far as she knows none of her friends even have BB guns, so maybe a neighbor shot it (really, a BB gun? What's this shed made of, anyway?) Ah, but he has text message, supposedly from a neighbor, complaining about defendant and her friends smoking pot and shooting BB's at the shed - and also into his yard. Hmmmmm, really, that's his evidence? Actually, another case where a litigant is presenting evidence which isn't helping their case. Here, tenant shows a cabinet door hanging by a single hinge, saying see, place was falling apart. Uh, you lived there 18 months (with little kids) with that door hanging like that? Uh, really her pictures are supporting landlord's claim for damages since they show damage when she moved out, but she has nothing from when she moved in. Oh, and creepy crawlies... why show bug infestation after living in the house for 18 months? That's something you complain about right after you move in, not when you're moving out 18 months later. She should never have shown these pictures! Heck, sounds like MM might even give landlord money for the vinyl siding on the shed - if landlord had any proof of what the siding cost. Rough justice - plaintiff gets about $1900 despite little evidence. auto shop mishap: plaintiff suing over damage she claims was done to her car while it was at defendant's shop. Ah, 60's retro look - I missed when she came in, is she wearing bellbottoms? She has the afro - WTH is that lip color called? Defendant admits he scratched her car - says he offered to fix it free of charge, she refused, went out and now wants way more than what the repair should be worth. Ah, dude, she doesn't have to let you try to do the repair. She went to your shop for some electronic installation (putting in some blue tooth deallibop), why should she trust you for body/paint repairs. All she has to do is convince the judge that her estimate is reasonable. Her estimate does sound high - but then a body shop estimate always seems high to me. Also, seems when defendant had his little mishap shop door scratched car on two separate body panels. Ah, what's this I hear as we go to first commercial? Plaintiff here suing over the scratch (also wants car rental for when her car goes to shop), but doesn't even have a picture of the damage. Ok, when we come back turns out silly plaintiff actually signed an agreement that she would let defendant fix the damage. Hmmm, sounds like their agreement was that he would "fix" the car. Can she then change her mind and get it fixed somewhere else and make him pay? Sure seems like she has to at least let him try to fix it, or at least pick where it will be fixed - then if his repair is unsatisfactory she can sue for what another shop says it will cost. Ah, but MM says this signed agreement is not a legal contract, and plaintiff can change her mind. Ok, I get what she's saying - legal contract says both sides give up something. Here, defendant agreed to do the repair, but plaintiff didn't agree to give up anything, so she gets to change her mind. Ok, back to original premise of the case... is her estimate reasonable? Yep, MM says estimate sounds reasonable, plaintiff gets what she asked for. (Again, litigant helped other side. This time plaintiff didn't bring evidence of the damage. All she had was an estimate. It was defendant who had pictures and admitted damaging the car in two places. And MM decided the estimate was reasonable based on defendant's testimony and evidence.) 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 26, 2018 Share February 26, 2018 17 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Garden variety fleecing: Plaintiff's voice so annoyed me I had to ff parts of this. I just wish JM would have given him a harder time about his fake documents, complete with forgery. I guess he never learned that "you can't buy love. You can only rent it." 19 minutes ago, SRTouch said: landlord vs ex-tenant: Def. with her horrific dye job and disgusting lip ring - why was she sporting a huge, aqua-coloured backpack here? Maybe she was going hiking or camping immediately after the show. I noticed Carlos - a fine man I'm sure, who is her boyfriend and I guess baby daddy - was disinclined to show himself here. But he never shot any BBs! They never even SAW any BBs around. She doesn't even know anyone who has a BB gun! The neighbours must have come over, stood in front of the def's door and shot them - dozens of them everywhere. The only thing I believed in this case was the text from a neighbour, complaining about the trashy behavior of the def and her entourage of rednecks, and I believed every word of that. Bedbugs? Get real. I think def went out and collected some beetles, stuck them around and took pics of them. Idiot. You lose. Take your great big backpack and hike on out of there. 23 minutes ago, SRTouch said: auto shop mishap: Foxy Brown, with the biggest fake eyelashes I ever saw, is suing Uncle Fester's garage for damaging her car. Once again, it was totally the fault of the shop owner but he thinks he should get to dictate where she takes her car to get it fixed. Wrong! There are no repairs of any kind to car damage that is going to cost less than 1K, IME. I wouldn't let him fix my car either. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch February 27, 2018 Share February 27, 2018 bad roomies: going by the intro the litigants on both sides are trying to live out Animal House/Bad Neighbor movies. Geez, what an outfit female plaintiff chose for court... not sure if that's a dress or a towel, but couldn't be much shorter... Guess she really likes showing off the tat on her thigh. Saved material on the top, too, but she's wearing a black jacket which barely stretches enough so she can button it under her boobs.... not exactly business casual apparel appropriate for a court appearance. Plaintiffs rented a room from defendant, complain it was non-stop parties, defendant landlord came into their room whenever mood struck him - even kicking in the door after they installed a lock, always making passes at the gf, and they found friend of landlord dead on living room floor... they moved out and want their $1500 security back (huh? Must be quite the place - $1500 deposit on a room? Oh, turns out the deposit was $750 - they get to ask for double in their jurisdiction.) Defendant argues it was plaintiffs who were out of control drunks. Says female plaintiff broke into his expensive booze and drank his Whiskey and vodka, says cops had to be called to break up their domestic squabbles, and when they left they left behind extensive damage... wants a couple grand more for damages. Dude and his witness have a spot of trouble entering the courtroom - unlike folks who open both doors wide, both these guys try to squeeze through 1 door at the same time. Not sure what dude found so interesting on the ceiling, but whatever it was he studied it with an open mouth look of awe while MM goes through her opening summary... actually, after some thought, I wonder if whatever it is is what caused Douglas to laugh and say "I'll take care of it" as he tells MM the litigants have been sworn in. Anyway, plaintiff's practiced opening about the horrors of living in the house just about had me reaching for the remote - well, that and gf's blank look as he talks about landlord getting her drunk and making passes at her... hey, dude, unless he's slipping something in her soda all gf has to do is say no thanks and leave the room - newsflash - she won't get drunk unless she drinks - no matter how many drinks he offers her. Ah, she says that's what she did - he'd make unwanted advances and she'd go hide in her room... whoa, I paused to type that after MM asked her what she'd do when defendant acted the jerk and there gf is scowling at MM with both hands on her hips.... scarey looking! Wonder if she practiced those faces for court or if she always acts like that. Anyway, deal about the deposit.... plaintiffs move out, and ask several times about the deposit, but defendant doesn't respond. Not good... even if he has legitimate damage claims, most, if not all, jurisdictions require landlord to tell a tenant why they keeping any portion of the security. And what's up with the locked door getting kicked in. Intro made it sound like defendant landlord kicked in the door, now his witness says it was some guy claiming to be her father (and, geez, maybe the witness is nervous and tongue tied, but he is definitely not credible). Ok, sounds like the gf put a hasp and padlock on the door because defendant was creeping her out (really, if dude was that much of a creep why was she even thinking of staying?) Ok, over to defendant... uh, yeah, takes just seconds before I'm thinking this dude has killed too many brain cells... I would NOT rent a room in this guy's house. Shades of Two and a Half Men and Charlie gone to seed - wonder if this house is in Malibu? Anyway, dude has trouble looking at MM as he talks, lots of hand gestures and neck rubbing... about as credible as his witness. Ah, as his witness talks, Charlie (ok, dude is actually Lee, but now I'm stuck comparing him to Sheen's character) is back looking at the ceiling. I'm about convinced this is a group of really bad actors with a made up case when plaintiff shushes gf when she wants to speak out. Not looking good for defendant... he and witness just struggled through story about how her father kicked in the door, yet at the time of this particular incident she called the cops and defendant admitted in police report that he cut her padlock - door wasn't kicked in (ah, maybe door kicked in later when she replaced lock.) I'm about over this one, and we haven't even gotten to dead guy in living room. Zip zip, i hit the button and go to decision time. So far, landlord dude may have a few damages (futon, mattress, and holes in door frame where she put the hasp), but he's already kept $750 and is suing for a couple grand more... may be more, he gave MM pictures - thing is he didn't meet his legal obligation of giving tenant a list of the damages... no notification, no keeping deposit - only question I have is does he owe double the deposit if he thought he had a legitimate claim? Yep, MM decides they get double, so $1500. Guess part of the counterclaim was for rent, which plaintiff has proof was paid. Nothing on counterclaim. cleaners case: ah, been a while since we had customer suing his dry cleaner. Plaintiff here says when he went to get his clothes the cleaner claimed someone else had already picked them up. He wants $260. Defendant says he's been in business 26 years, and idea that he lost dude's clothes is nonsense. Dude is just trying to scam him. Plaintiff says he always gets his stuff dry cleaners before he wears it after purchase. So, he took defendant brand new clothing, and dude either lost it or gave it to wrong customer. I'm always suspicious when someone claims they've NEVER made a mistake when I can think of several ways they might have. Even the best system can sometimes fail, but we'll have to wait and see what these guys are actually saying. Ok, seems plaintiff got some really good buys at a going out of business sale. Like I said earlier, he takes new duds to be cleaned before wear, so he took his new stuff to the defendant's cleaners on the way home - regular customer, been using them for years. Says he came back a couple times when they should have been ready, but was told by the counter person they weren't back yet. Finally, owner broke the news that his stuff has already been picked up... huh, he still has his claim tickets. Says he was given two consecutive tickets, but dry cleaner dude says he was given three, and picked up all three bundles with the third ticket. Hold on, says plaintiff, my two tickets are consecutive, and this third ticket that was supposedly used to claim the clothing us not even close. Ok, over to cleaner dude, Glenn. Glenn argues took brought in clothing twice that day - one bundle in the morning then two more bundles in the afternoon - which explains why one number is so far apart. Ok, once again a litigant is testifying for an employee instead of bringing them. So, owner Glenn can tell us how his system is supposed to work, but has no first hand knowledge of the day in question. Sorry, Glenn, not buying it without the employee here to talk for themself... in fact, as he talks about his fool proof system I am finding it more likely there was a screw up - his insistence that there could have been no mistake - which means plaintiff must be scamming him - is underwelming. Anyway, I end up hitting the button on this one, too, and zip to the decision. Plaintiff won... actually says he probably would remain a customer since place is convenient and reasonably priced - he just wants a couple free cleanings - oh and his lost stuff replaced - defendant apparently offered free cleaning, but refused to replace the lost clothing. Really, all through case he claims impossible for a customer to leave with someone else's clothes, then in hallway that changes to why would someone pay for and keep someone else's stuff. .. uh, cause they get a cpuple hundred bucks of brand new stuff for $36 cleaning bill, or maybe they're to self important to be bothered to take 15 minutes to bring it back (like the jerks who can't push a shopping cart a few yards and leave it in the middle of a parking space). contractor wants to be paid: plaintiff claims he's owed money for work - defendant said she paid for most of the work, but dude did terrible job painting her kitchen cabinets and she's refusing to pay for the botched job. Ok, maybe if she has to pay someone else to redo them, but he's suing for over 4 grand. Is it really that much to paint her cabinets? Or is somebody's math not adding up. Ah, MM with a contractor case - always better than JJ because JJ sometimes has some weird reasoning (example: JJ looks at a work order with 4 items to be done, sees 1 item completed and assumes that means contractor should get 25% of his money - disregarding fact that that 1 item took up 75% of the time and materials to complete.) In this case, homeowner just bought house and hires contractor to do some reno... original estimate about 9 grand. Contractor says he did the stuff on original contract, but stuff was added. Contract specifies that any additional work will be done at $100 an hour. Ok, contractor start of sputtered when he started, but seemed to pull it together... until defendant starts talking. 1st item on contract is remove wallpaper in bathroom, and homeowner says that never got done. Oops, MM goes back to contractor who told us everything on the contract was done. He again says everything was done, homeowner says, no remember you didn't do the wallpaper, and contractor is scrambling looking for something in his papers. Ok, this would be major, if either of them have proof of what they just said. MM asks homeowner if she has pictures of wallpaper still there and lady starts looking. MM asks contractor if he has any pictures of finished job, and he says "this might annoy you." Oh, dear, after saying and repeating everything was done on the contract he turned in for evidence, he now admits wallpaper was never removed and wall not textured and painted to match as per contract. Ah, yes it was on the original contract, but he did not charge for it and removed it from the itemized invoice. Ok, he squeaks by on that, but guess homeowner maybe didn't realize she wasn't charged. Ok, now price of reno drops to 8 grand plus any extras at 100 buck an hour, and he assures us the invoice he gave MM shows everything. Ok, biggest ticket item is the cabinets, so now MM wants to see what homeowner is complaining about. Uhhhhh, thought this guy started off his case assuring us he does great work and is a licensed contractor. Pictures homeowner is showing sure doesn't support claim - looks like they'll need to be completely redone. His attempts to explain away the pictures sound pretty lame - and pictures pretty damning. .. I wouldn't want to pay. Ah, as we go to commercial homeowner is telling us she has memory problems - which she blames on plaintiff. She tells us another job he failed to do was replacing the smoke detectors. Says she tried to do it herself, didn't know how, and was electrocuted and received a concussion... hmmm, does she have a countersuit? oh, sugar, screen just pixelated and here's Judge Mathis coming out. Don't know what happened! 6 Link to comment
Broderbits February 27, 2018 Share February 27, 2018 Ok, 1st case defendant: if you want to use "big" words like myriad, please learn how to pronounce it correctly. Geesh. 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 27, 2018 Share February 27, 2018 57 minutes ago, SRTouch said: bad roomies: I couldn't help thinking that I wish this case had been on Judge Judy. The creepy, whackjob defendant? "Yes, I said... ooh, the lights! The lights! Look at the pretty lights! Ah, yeah, where was I?" And then he squeezed out some crocodile tears for his dear departed friend, who after a night of heavy drinking/drugging or whatever they were doing, just fell down on the floor (as he probably normally did) and well - he croaked. R.I.P. Looney tunes all around. His witness, who didn't have anything of import to say, kept staring at the floor as though he might find answers there. Plaintiff female, who was so distraught that def was coming on to her, rubbing her back or whatever? That rough bitch was tough as nails and no way would any guy have the gall to do anything to her for fear of being shivved or beaten to death. Even her "current ex-boyfriend" didn't have the nerve to say much when she gave him the eye. What an utter freakshow. I did enjoy it, since no animals or babies were harmed in the making of this debacle. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: cleaners case: Just the restful interlude we needed after the wild 'n wooly first case. Both parties were articulate, polite and reasonable, well, other than the cleaner trying to get out of paying the plaintiff for all the clothes - brand new! - that cleaner lost. $100 of free cleaning just doesn't cut it, and why should it? His assumption that had they been given to someone else that person would rush back to return them? Yeah, someone got two armfuls of new, designer-name clothes and decided it was a big boe-nanza for them. It was nice the plaintiff didn't smash def's store windows and that def didn't call the police on plaintiff. It's nice to know there are still people who don't act like wild animals when annoyed. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: contractor wants to be paid: The contractor - Jethro Bodine - did the entire job! Well, until asked for proof and then it was, "Oh, you're gonna be so mad at me!" He couldn't get wallpaper off, although he claimed he had! He's a contractor and he couldn't do it! I stripped my large kitchen of the worst wallpaper ever created. Yes, it was a tough job, needed to rent a steamer and use a ton of elbow grease, but I'm not a contractor and it was my first time doing it. Not only that, he did a paint job on def's cabinets that looked like hell and was already chipping off. JM wants to know exactly what he did for the additional 4K. "A bunch of stuff" was the reply from the professional. He really should have just shut up and walked away rather than show everyone within a hundred miles of him what shoddy, incompetent work he does. 4 minutes ago, Broderbits said: Ok, 1st case defendant: if you want to use "big" words like myriad, please learn how to pronounce it correctly. Geesh. Oh, I forgot about that. He said "my-rad" didn't he? Haha! 7 Link to comment
babs j. February 27, 2018 Share February 27, 2018 In my town there is a police non-emergency number you can call for something like changing the battery in your smoke detector. I have a good handyman whom I use for that but he's probably older than I am so I'll be calling the non-emergency number if it gets to a point where he can't do the job anymore. Defendant in case #1 looked like an over-grown 3-year-old gawking at all the pretty lights. 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 28, 2018 Share February 28, 2018 (edited) On 26/02/2018 at 4:17 PM, SRTouch said: Garden variety fleecing: It seemed never to have crossed MM's mind that an equally plausible explanation for the mismatched signatures is that the defendant deliberately faked her own on the agreement. I guess this may have been another instance of MM's sympathising with a "bad girl" litigant. On 26/02/2018 at 4:17 PM, SRTouch said: Ah, 60's retro look - I missed when she came in, is she wearing bellbottoms? She has the afro - WTH is that lip color called? It looked like she takes fashion tips from that era's blaxploitation movies and so comes across as the love child of Richard Roundtree and Pam Grier. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: contractor wants to be paid: Another case of a customer getting buyer's remorse and finding all sorts of faults with the contractor's work. Another case of an allegedly professional contractor having no clue that he should keep exact records, correspondance or written contracts and who thinks that vague approximations have any evidentiary value. I am surprised that MM's let the old lady's claim of a "permanent concussion" slide without asking for some form of medical proof. Edited February 28, 2018 by Florinaldo 2 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz February 28, 2018 Share February 28, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: oh, sugar, screen just pixelated and here's Judge Mathis coming out. Don't know what happened! So-called contractor lost and rightly so.... There was no countersuit filed. 3 Link to comment
califred February 28, 2018 Share February 28, 2018 Omg the plaintiff in case needed a drug test before he walked in the court. He was out of it. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 28, 2018 Share February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: am surprised that MM's let the old lady's claim of a "permanent concussion" slide without asking for some form of medical proof. I don't think she cared about that since the concussion had no bearing on the outcome of the case or that the contractor was a less-than-honest doofus who can't even remove wallpaper. 14 minutes ago, califred said: Omg the plaintiff in case needed a drug test before he walked in the court. He was out of it. Oooh, all the pretty lights! The lights! Whoooeeee! 3 Link to comment
aemom February 28, 2018 Share February 28, 2018 I know that I'm really far behind (again), but I just had to comment on 21 year-old Anthony and his 44 year-old buddy who preyed on the 16 year girl. Wow! There needs to be more vetting by the school for these match-ups. The parents seem to have very little control over their daughter and she was very easily manipulated by these child predators. They said that she was in counseling, and hopefully, Anthony and FlagDude never darken their door again. I'd be terrified if a guy like that showed up at my house wanting to spend time with my kids. Thank goodness I don't have daughters! While I'm at it, case #2 - the dental technician case - made me laugh at the end when it turned out that the dentist was cheaper than the technician. The cheap really was the expensive this time. 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.