The People's Court - General Discussion

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't think she cared about that since the concussion had no bearing on the outcome of the case

On the contrary: that allegation was central to the old biddy's schtick designed to generate pity and to further denigrate the contractor. Apparently, it worked on a old softie like MM.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

On the contrary: that allegation was central to the old biddy's schtick designed to generate pity and to further denigrate the contractor. Apparently, it worked on a old softie like MM.

I agree with this. The contractor was definitely sub-par, but apparently he did install the smoke detectors. It's not his fault she wasn't capable of changing the battery without getting hurt. To quote Dirty Harry, "a man's got to know his limitations"; and that goes for women too.

[teebax]

I have lost the channel that gets TPC, and I'm super angry I'm missing a bunch of new episodes. I ordered a new antenna and hope my dvr will be able to start recording again tomorrow. Why couldn't this have happened during one of the 30 weeks of reruns they seem to have? Argh! 

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, teebax said:

I have lost the channel that gets TPC, and I'm super angry I'm missing a bunch of new episodes. I ordered a new antenna and hope my dvr will be able to start recording again tomorrow. Why couldn't this have happened during one of the 30 weeks of reruns they seem to have? Argh! 

I feel your pain. ? To coincide with the start of the season, DirecTV and my local CBS provider had a fight over rates. Soooo, whole season passed without NCIS, Big Bang or the new Young Sheldon.  I do have an indoor antenna, so caught some of the episodes. Problem is, my CW and CBS providers are right on the edge of the antenna's range.... so I never know if the DVR will record or not

[SRTouch]

1. exes fight over deceased son's remains: skipping this one... I'll watch litigants feuding over estates - even patio furniture - but draw the line when they start suing over who gets to keep the urn of cremated children (even adult children). Going from preview clip and intro... They have been divorced 25 something years. Mom raised the kids and says Dad was absentee father. Son gets into drugs - Mom says because of Dad - says they even spent time in jail together. (In hallterview, he counters that she was a runaway teenage prostitute.) When son dies, they have him cremated and have ashes put into two urns. Mom refuses to give Dad his urn. Dad suing for his urn - not asking for money. Mom's intro says she wants cut of the GoFundMe account - asking for $150. Like I said, I skipped ahead when Douglas started swearing them in. I stop and listen as MM tells them she has no jurisdiction - case should be in probate court... she gives a little heart to heart talk on family healing - which I zipped through and these people ignore. So, half show wasted on case that belongs on Dr Phil. Only question I have - did mommy ever squeeze out a tear during all her carrying on?
2. Firestarter sleep over: plaintiff says she agreed to let defendant's daughter sleep over - seems girl was classmate of her kids and defendant had early shift and needed someone to watch her and make sure she got to school after he went to work. Ah, but seems daughter is a budding arsonist. Little girl gets up in middle of the night and sets couch on fire. Luckily, no one injured, but plaintiff wants damages paid for. Little more to it than just little angel not being supervised properly - which is defendant's defence. Plaintiff learns after the fire that little girl has a history of starting fires - which would have been nice to know before she came to spend the night. She's a tad miffed as she feels this is information which should have been shared... she's asking for 5 grand. Defendant's intro brings out that plaintiff wasn't letting the girl sleep over out of the goodness of her heart - she was getting paid. His theory is that fire was plaintiff's fault, because she left a lighter out in plain sight. Kids will be kids, so as a mother she should have known to lock away the lighter when everyone went to bed. Ah well, Pops is a shouter, who figures if he talks loud enough, and talks over everyone, he can dodge any liability. Maybe because I woke up with a headache, can't take this guy yelling over MM after she tells him to calm down. Sooooo lots of remote action with zipping through his testimony(?). Dude has the eight year old in court. Started out with daughter standing next to dad, but she gives MM attitude and throws up her hands while MM is talking. MM has her sit down, then tries to get dad to control HIMSELF. Dude gets booted from courtroom around the 50 minute mark - and continues ranting as Douglas escorts them out. MM understands plaintiff's anger, but feels she is only due $2,500 in damages. Apple didn't fall far from this dude's tree... little girl is kind of scarey as she parrots dad while talking to Doug.

Edited February 28, 2018 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

exes fight over deceased son's remains: (...) Only question I have - did mommy ever squeeze out a tear during all her carrying on?

No, that blubbering hyprocrite could only produce a big load of snot.

I do not know what I hated most about that case: the fake tears, the time wasted on it, both litigants trying to smear as much dirt on each other as possible, or MM giving them that ponderous heart-to-heart.

Couldn't the show staff see from the start that just on the basic facts of the case, she would rule it being out of her jusridiction except for that paltry amount? I suppose they thought that half an episode dedicated to that sordid human interest spectacle had some value.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Firestarter sleep over:

I could not not make much sense out of the girl's testimony, by hey she is just a child I thought. And then I realised she just took after Dad who thinks that talking loudly will compensate for the incoherence of his speech, as well as his idiotic defense.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

exes fight over deceased son's remains: skipping this one

This low-down, despicable trailer trash fiasco was hard to watch. Gee, Father and Son prison time. How nice. Daddy probably wants the ashes so he can sniff them and get a free high. No, wait - Daddy wants to sneak into the cemetary, dig a hole over his momma's grave so he can stick Sonny's ashes in there and get away with paying no fee for a burial site. But he saw the light and decided that was not a good idea. His grief and all muddled what passes for a mind.  Isn't the internet great? Now people can get on there and beg strangers to pay for their family member's burial. Wow. And here I paid for my mother's funeral myself. Wish I'd had a computer then! "GoGimme" - what a great tool for scammers and lowlifes, although I was happy to see not everyone is an idiot and donated only 1K, although IMO that was 1K too much. 

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

No, that blubbering hyprocrite could only produce a big load of snot.

Oh, gee. I was trying to eat my dinner - filet mignon -  while Momma was LOUDLY sniffing and snorting a ton of snot. I had to mute that. Gross. I'm so glad the overdose of the 27-year old son didn't seem to affect anyone's appetite. JM got tears in her eyes over this and once again wasted her breath trying to counsel these savages. JM? I know your heart is in the right place, but please give your advice and sympathy on someone worthy of it, and it's not these redneck yahoos fighting over a few ashes and 130$, since they were to split the proceeds from the "GoGimme" fund. 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Firestarter sleep over: 

Well, dad is a "single black father" which seems to be something special, so plaintiff agreed to keep his hellspawn overnight. Little arsonist sets the couch on fire while looking for her deoderant? Since when do 8-year olds need deoderant? I don't think I even knew what that was when I was eight and I'm pretty sure even if I had that looking for it wouldn't require a visit from the fire dept.  Anyway, I don't fault the belligerent, snarky girl pyromaniac (even if she was totally insolent and rude to JM and lied right to her face) after hearing her "single father" who is a low-IQ, combative, mouthy asshole. JM had to throw both of them out. What chance does the kid have, with that for a father and a  mother who "do what she do"? Kid is a budding sociopath, judging from her words in the hallterview. Plaintiff is a big old liar, so there. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by AngelaHunter
Because after the WINE I can't spell

[teebax]

I got my signal back for this??? Fantastic. 

[ElleMo]

I hope the mom gives the dad half the ashes. She was crying that her daughter has been stuck in the middle.  Give him the ashes and she won't be.

In the other case, that little girls eyes creeper me out.  They were like shark eyes.  "What did you learn today?"  "She lies."  Oh boy, she's probably setting a fire tonight.

Were there no fire alarms in the apartment?

 

In the other episode, there was a tenent suing a landlord and the landlord was on something.  He was looking all over, up at the ceiling, to the left and to the right.  Even Doug asked about it in the hallterview. He said mention of his friends death threw him off.  But I noticed him looking up as soon as he got to the front of the room.  His head was turned up too.  Not just rolling his  eyes.     Lovely  representative of New Jersey. 

The.next case was two very well spoken men.  Both were very polite too.

Watching the final case right now.  Is the there such a thing as permanent concussion?

[nora1992]

I was on the mother's side in the urn case, and can totally see the father seeing nothing wrong with giving his son drugs as a way to pass time.  For me, keeping an urn of a loved one's ashes is morbid.  Beyond that, what happens when the keeper dies?  Two generations removed, and the ashes/urn are just one of many tkotches for a descendant to dispose of.  50 years from now, will anyone care about the ashes of someone who died years before that person was born?  Just like the forgotten graves at cemeteries - but on a shelf, next to junk mail and a collection of ----.  

And the mother's crying reminded me of how I cry.  My tears are there, but are overshadowed by my cauterwauling.  It didn't seem like a put down to me.

[ElleMo]

2 hours ago, nora1992 said:

I was on the mother's side in the urn case, and can totally see the father seeing nothing wrong with giving his son drugs as a way to pass time.  For me, keeping an urn of a loved one's ashes is morbid.  Beyond that, what happens when the keeper dies?  Two generations removed, and the ashes/urn are just one of many tkotches for a descendant to dispose of.  50 years from now, will anyone care about the ashes of someone who died years before that person was born?  Just like the forgotten graves at cemeteries - but on a shelf, next to junk mail and a collection of ----.  

And the mother's crying reminded me of how I cry.  My tears are there, but are overshadowed by my cauterwauling.  It didn't seem like a put down to me.

In my experience,  the keeper has a plan that he/she expresses to the family.  Often the keeper wants both sets of ashes buried together after the keeper passes.  

[SRTouch]

1. dog attack turns into social media hack: dog attack case with a twist according to preview clip. Plaintiff says gf took his dog out for a walk without a leash, and a pit bull attacked - for some reason he blames her instead of the pit's owner, and he's suing her for the bills - $656.38. Defendant's intro says he went nuts after the dog attack, threatening to kill her if his dog died. They broke up over the incident, and she ended up getting a restraining order to keep him away. Doesn't he look charming as he stands smirking during the intro? His suing her for the vet bills is kind of odd, but the real twist is, at least going from the clip, is that after the incident, breakup, and restraining order all her email accounts or hacked and passwords changed so she can'take access them - and he just happens to work in IT. May be hard to prove he did the hacking, but a little surprised not to see her countersuing. I'm in a quandary here - normally skip dog attack cases, but this email hack and his suing the ex for the vet bills sounds strange enough to watch. So, this first section is about the attack case. Ok, he opens with they dated less than a year, and lived together about 4 months before the incident... oh, and later we find they felt they knew each other enough to become engaged. Ah, the incident. Seems it was a weekend cookout, a group gathered around shooting the breeze while plaintiff grills. According to dude, a recurring point of contention in the relationship is that he always uses a leash with his toy poodle, and she doesn't see the need. On this day she let poodle run loose, even though, according to dude, he and several others told her she shouldn't. MM asks the perfect question, why the heck didn't plaintiff just go get the leash or put the dog inside? Lame answer - in past he's leashed and/or put the dog inside, and she just let the dog back out. Uh, asks MM, how is that protecting YOUR DOG? In my book, if dude knows she frequently let's the dog out, that's just added reason why he should be more vigilant to make sure he's keeping an eye on his dog. Anyway, dog is out running loose with the family and friends - despite plaintiff and "several witnesses" telling her to leash the pup. Inevitable happens, little dog sees another dog, a pit bull, and runs over - other dog sees a fluffy/yappy chew toy and chomps on it. Ok, going with his testimony, he and each of those "witnesses" who cautioned her to leash the dog share the blame. Sooooo, reason for the lawsuit - defendant said she'd watch the dog, she let it run across the street where it was attacked. Huh? Still waiting for a case here. Thing is this smug jerk is not going to admit any personal blame because he really is a smug jerk and in his teeny little brain no one else shares blame and it's all her fault. Nope, dude, ultimate responsibility for safeguarding your pet lies with you. Over to defendant - yeah, she admits she let the dog out, yeah, she got distracted and lost track of it, yeah, dog ran across the street and was attacked.... which I guess is why jackass isn't suing pit bull owner,  his dog was not on his property and was running loose when it was attacked. 'Nother big HUH? MM asks what happens after the attack. Plaintiff, who is dog's owner, stays to tidy up after the cookout and visit with the company while defendant takes his dog to the emergency vet. ok, just now reaching 8 minute mark - dude has no case, but still plenty of time for MM to dig into the breakup. Dude says the incident really wasn't what ended the relationship - says they actually broke up a couple weeks later. Defendant pretty much agrees, says he was verbally abusive and incident just added the last bit of ammunition to his verbal attacks. Finally, she says, when he made the "if dog dies so do you" threat she moves out. Now MM is doing the testifying. Defendant doesn't offer many details, so MM is asking leading questions like, didn't he send mean nasty text messages, like every ten minutes? Ok, great for tv entertainment, but nothing to do with case, and there isn't a countersuit for harrassment (although at the end MM makes it clear defendant has a case). We're seeing the reason case was picked for TV - so MM can make smug jerk look like a smug asshole. Ah, little tidbit that comes out - the reason MM knows what to ask in her leading questions is that her staff got a copy of the transcript from the hearing on the permanent restraining order. Anyway, should have skipped first half, second half worth watching, but not really worth writing about. MM really tears him a new one when she rules. Ah, Doug, got to love him in the hallterview! He zeroes in on the thing that really got me about plaintiff - his dog was just mauled by a pit bull, and he stays to entertain and clean up while his dog is rushed to emergency vet. Even if you skip whole case, watching his answer is enough to exclaim, what an asshole!
2. homeowner vs contractor: dude says he had to hire a second contractor to fix the botched install of his new floor. Course defendants, dad and two brothers, say they did a good job, but plaintiff was nitpicking customer from hell and there was no pleasing him. Plaintiff may be overreaching a bit in his claim. He wants 5 grand and defendants say job was done for $1500. Ah, another cheap getting expensive case when homeowner hires neighbor to install his tile. I'm guessing neighbors gave him a great price, as he agreed to let them do the work on the side, just working weekends. Now, in his prepared and well rehearsed opening, he makes a point to complain about the inconvenience of having the dining room table moved and essentially living in the basement while ghd work went on.... neighbor thought he could get it done in 1 weekend, but ended up taking almost three times that - ah, the horror, renovation took longer than estimated, obviously he deserves a full refund plus an extra $3500. Ah, next complaint, when they show up to work, they park in his driveway, and the truck leaks on his driveway. Dude has pictures of what he says is sub par work, a mess left on his deck when he claims tiles were cut and motor mixed.... not sure if we'll see oil on the driveway, as I'm about to start zipping through this guy's yapping. Ah, MM knows her audience might be getting tired of dude (kind of reminds me of a white haired Danny Thomas - if DO was playing a REALLY annoying character). Over to defendant's when plaintiff says they never finished job and they've already said they did... ah, this is a he said he said case, and this is easy to determine credibility because both sides have pictures. Uh oh, defendant's pictures aren't showing a completed job... but he says when they complained he returned a couple hundred bucks... ah, but dude, maybe one spot, but homeowner has many closeup pictures of problems, and you just have general pictures of the room where we really can't see areas he's complaining about. And, unless plaintiff was taking these shots with a macro lens while work was ongoing, this job was NOT completed. Ah, sometimes litigants just aren't happy when things are going their way. Here MM is giving defendant a hard time, and plaintiff can't keep his mouth shut. To compound his error, MM tells him to be quiet, he apologizes, she starts to talk, and he jumps back in, so she tells him, no, I'm talking here! Quick commercial, and we come back to more MM looking at a crappy job and asking WTH? Ok, now defendant is admitting he couldn't get the tile to fit... uh, dude, we started out with plaintiff saying you're a contractor. Really? It's been years, and I've only installed tile a couple times, but I'm positive I could do a better job laying out and cutting tiles than what we're seeing. We haven't even gotten to the mess on the deck or oil on the driveway, but, defendant's are already in trouble here. Ok, time to figure out numbers... plaintiff paid defendants $1700 for materials and $1500 labor - and new contractor wants $3500 to rip out and replace what was done. Uh, no, as MM says, that would mean defendant's are getting nothing and are paying for plaintiff's new floor. Oh, and now MM asks and defendant admits he isn't a tile guy... I wonder what kind of contractor he would be, because "measure twice cut once" is pretty basic. Ok, as MM goes through new contractor itemized invoice, defendant's are probably going to be out more then they were paid. Ah, but not what plaintiff is claiming - nah, he made the mistake of giving MM pictures of old decaying blacktop driveway and asking for defendants to pay for repairs, power wash and seal - same with weathered deck - wants power wash and seal paid for. Rough justice.... plaintiff gets 2 grand. Hmmm, guess new contractor was able to salvage some of their work - I missed seeing an itemized list of his invoice.
3. another lug nut case: remember case where customer's tire came off after a tire shop put on new rubber... well, it happened again. Plaintiff says he has defendant put on two tires, and next day the lug nuts fall off. Luckily this guy's wheel doesn't come off causing mega damage, so he's asking for the $511.51 he paid. Defendants say he came back after they replaced his tires claiming lug nuts came off and wanted his new tires for free as an apology. They figure dude's just trying to scam them. Hoboy, scratch the new tires story. When plaintiff starts talking he tells us he was getting tires installed after getting pulled over because his tires were beyond bald - like the wires in the steel belt was coming off. So he went to the 25-and-under used tire shop to get some new old tires - paid defendants 80 bucks for the tires and install. Sooo, he's driving his beater on his new old tires, and feels a new vibration. Ah, maybe one of his new old tires is bad - might be best to park it til he figures out what it is. Ah, what the hell, decides to go ahead and drive to work. Ok, dude feels a vibration, suspects tire might be bad, but apparently doesn't bother to bend over and look at the wheel. Anyway, vibration gets worse, and eventually he DOES look - whoa, one lug nut gone and another about to fall off ( I swear, sounds like this beater only has 2 lug nuts). Course, this genius doesn't carry basic tools in his beater, so hops back in and continues to drive. He gets it home, decides to call AAA. Ah, maybe once upon a time he had AAA, but when he calls and asks them to come put lug nuts on his car he's reminded he no longer has AAA. Ah, what to do... can't get someone to come put lug nuts on his car - so he decides to drive some more (on 1 lug nut) and go back to the tire shop. Have to laugh when MM asks dude what his job is - he's a safety officer for a school district... I guess being a school safety officer has nothing to do with actual safety. Anyway, when he gets to the shop they agree to replace the lug nuts - but want him to go get them from the parts store - not to worry, though, they'll take a couple lug nuts off different wheels so the wheel with 1 nut doesn't fall off. Oh no, guy refuses to drive with missing lug nuts - even though he's been driving with 1 lug nut on a wheel for a couple days - so he insists the shop send someone to get replacement nuts. Heck, the shop guy even pays for new lug nuts. Hmmmm, instead of asking defendants their story, MM goes straight to tearing apart plaintiff's bloated damage claim. Ok, sounds like she might have been willing to give him half a day's lost wages since he wasted a morning while shop dude went to parts store and put on the new lug nuts, but no this joker is asking for the half day he twiddled his thumbs at the shop, plus half a day to file this case, plus a full day to come to court today. Oh, and the new lug nuts the shop bought don't match the others on his 04 volvo, so he wants them to buy new lug nuts all around. Shop guys aren't about to admit they might have made a mistake, they figure guy is just an "opportunist" who thinks this is his chance to get big money.... yeah, a whopping $511.51. Nope, I believe the shop screwed up. Also believe plaintiff screwed up, repeatedly - driving on bald tires, buying cheap used tires at El cheapo used tire shop, then continuing to drive when he feels vibrations, especially when he drives with only one lug nut. Yep, shop screwed up, then plaintiff got pissed and is asking for more than he probably deserves - not asking for bonanza, but wants what he feels he's out because of time wasted dealing with problrm they caused. MM agrees - sort of. She's willing to give him money for time he spent at shop waiting for replacement lug nuts - but not a whole half day because he could have gotten a ride to work. Nothing for matching lug nuts or other wasted time... net award a whole 43.13 bucks. 

[TresGatos]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 1:44 PM, SRTouch said:

exes fight over deceased son's remains: skipping this one... I'll watch litigants feuding over estates - even patio furniture - but draw the line when they start suing over who gets to keep the urn of cremated children (even adult children).

My mom died in 2003. In 2004 I got a phone call from my brother, who have gotten a phone call from our father who told us our mother's widower had been convicted of child pornography and had been sentenced to 9 years in Federal Prison. My mother's will hadn't been probated (though he claimed it had) so I ended up going to Probate Court to fight for my mother's ashes. I succeeded after several appearances and after having the Judge tell me that there was a possibility that my brother and I had no right to know what became of our mother's remains. Finally, I was awarded her ashes after the step-monster's girlfriend, A slatternly bottle blonde who was giving herself a wedgie with her shorts (yes, shorts!) jammed up her crack, wailed out "But he (the step-bastard) wants those!" She knew all about the charges against him, which included his trying to solicit what he thought was a 15-year-old girl (but who turned out to be a 50-something male law enforcement official) and had taken my mother's ashes out-of-state despite being ordered not to by the Court (the Feds seized the house which had been my Moms - she put step-pervert on the deed 2 years before she died) so they ordered she ship them to us. She did, through the USPS, and when we got them my mom's urn, which she had chosen before her death and which had since been discontinued (Trumpeting elephants all over the enormous thing) was smashed to bits. Step-criminal's whorefriend did buy another box from Hobby Lobby but I found a different one and sent the one she had bought back to her. I refrained from placing a dead bird in it first but that took an enormous amount of self-restraint. In any case, the Court did not award any money from my mom's estate (she worked in factories her entire life while she supported step-creep for several years during their 14 year marriage) with which to inter her so she is in our study. Maybe I should start a Go-Fund-Me account! (Sorry for rambling. This case struck a nerve if you can't tell).

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

- Daddy wants to sneak into the cemetary, dig a hole over his momma's grave so he can stick Sonny's ashes in there and get away with paying no fee for a burial site.

Something like this happened in our town just a few months back. The cemetery noticed ashes and bone fragments and it turned out a family had come and just dumped the ashes because they didn't want to pay the fee.

7 hours ago, nora1992 said:

Beyond that, what happens when the keeper dies?

They are often found in storage units after a storage auction.

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

dog attack turns into social media hack:

Is it a new thing with guys the plaintiff's age, that they want to look like 1930's era Dust Bowl prisoners on release day? Cuz pallid, short-ass, vindictive plaintiff was rocking that look. But, well - he's no John Dillinger, since his mode of showing how tough he is, is hacking def's accounts and posting nasty things online about her. What a man he is! OMG, she's slept with over 200 men! She's into 3-somes, or even 5-somes! In spite of her vast experience, she's lousy in bed. She just lies there. (I'm sure he's a really exciting Casanova) He knew all that when they started dating, but it didn't really bother him. *Sigh* then we have to hear that the dog who bit the Toy Poodle is a dreaded pit bull, as though that makes worse than had it been a German Shepherd or a Cocker Spaniel or even a Jack Russell terrier. Not sensational enough, I guess. The monstrous pit bull didn't do all that much to the poodle, since the tiny dog survived. Plaintiff had no control over what def did with his dog, since his family demanded his constant presence and would never understand that he had to step away from the cooking for a second to see if his dog was dead or alive. What an annoying, creepy little shit he was. Def better stick with her 3-somes. 

25 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

homeowner vs contractor:

Ack, all the stripey shirts had my eyes messed up. Plaintiff knows defs are doing his floor under the table, and that this isn't their regular work. Plaintiff knows this, because they said they could only do it on weekends, yet complains that he and his wife were inconvenienced. None of the 3 defs had a clue as how to tile. Honestly, my brother and I tiled my renovated powder room. Neither of us had tiled a floor before, and it looks a million times better than what the gang of stripey defs did in plaintiff's house. There are lots of places to cheap out on home renos, but floor tiles is not one of those places. Tiling floors is not for amateurs - and no -  the tiles don't "settle" and no one who has ever done that job would say they do.  Either they are set right or they are not. Once again, a plaintiff who is completely in the right gets super greedy and apparently wants his floors done for free. 

 

30 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

another lug nut case:

I was just scared when plaintiff said he works for the school board that he meant he was a teacher of some sort. With his had cames, had wents and had rans, I thought please no! Turns out he's a crossing guard or something like that(?) Whew! Even so, a "Safety officer" who drives until the wire are sticking out of his bald tires is somewhat suspect when it comes to safety. Defs were a little shifty but plaintiff was not entitled to all the money he lost because of lug nuts. 

17 minutes ago, TresGatos said:

My mom died in 2003. In 2004 I got a phone call from my brother, who have gotten a phone call from our father who told us our mother's widower had been convicted of child pornography and had been sentenced to 9 years in Federal Prison.

Good lord. Only 9 years? My stepfather was just an alcoholic. Sorry you had to deal with such horrors. :(

[Broderbits]

This is sort of off-topic, but regarding one of the tire case defendants: can anyone explain to me the significance of those button-style earrings? Are guys who wear them trying to make large holes in their earlobes? I have long wondered about this.

I didn't watch the child's remains case, but reading the comments here has made me realize I need to do something with my husband's ashes before I die and my kids find the box. It's ok if they remember me as nutty, just not nutty in that way.

[Brattinella]

21 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

This is sort of off-topic, but regarding one of the tire case defendants: can anyone explain to me the significance of those button-style earrings? Are guys who wear them trying to make large holes in their earlobes? I have long wondered about this.

I didn't watch the child's remains case, but reading the comments here has made me realize I need to do something with my husband's ashes before I die and my kids find the box. It's ok if they remember me as nutty, just not nutty in that way.

It is really not a good look.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/heres-what-gauged-ears-look-like-without-the-gauges-in

[Broderbits]

49 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

It is really not a good look.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/heres-what-gauged-ears-look-like-without-the-gauges-in

Good gravy, that's horrible!!!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

It is really not a good look.

What - rolled up, floppy Silly Putty ears are not hot? Gee, you guys are picky. That's nothing. You need to see the guys with huge holes like that in their cheeks. You get a close and personal look at their molars. 

[AngelaHunter]

20 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I can't even look at that again.

I don't want to even think about it, let alone look at it. The eyeball tats? Makes me want to curl up in the fetal position. 

[TresGatos]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Good lord. Only 9 years? My stepfather was just an alcoholic. Sorry you had to deal with such horrors. :(

And still he was only our 2nd worst stepfather....

[VartanFan]

On the exes fighting over ashes.  Even though they were both repugnant and the father/plaintiff was even more so....the agreement (contract) was that he would get his urn and she would get hers....and in fact, he had paid for his urn with his half of the funeral money.  They did also have an agreement about the go fund me, but if I was MM, I would have dismissed the counterclaim and sent that back to their home state also.  Now Mom has all the ashes, a full 1/2 of the go fund me, and half of the remaining funeral costs covered by the plaintiff??  The thing is that the defendant...despite all the ‘it’s his fault our kid is dead’, ‘he had him sell drugs’, ‘he got him hooked on drugs’, ‘he got shot at his house’....agreed to half and half of the ashes KNOWING ALL THIS BEFOREHAND.   To me, it’s not much different from the cases we see where the father is a bad dad and doesn’t pay child support and therefore the mom won’t give visitation.  You’re still 1/2 the parent genes.  

[aemom]

Still behind, but I had to comment on the case with the hair, the missing shed/flooded house, and dispute over purchase of AC machine.

For the shed case the plaintiff said something to the effect of "I gave her a better price on the rent because she was desperate and needy," to which I could only say to my TV "Lady, YOU are desperate and needy because you are missing many of your front teeth!" I thought of poor Teebax as well. I actually think that she was a slum lord and didn't fix the flooding issue because if she won't spend money on TEETH she won't spend money on a rental. MM disappointed me when she didn't ask why the defendant would spend money to put in a pool in a rental! Who does that?

For the hair case, Doug disappointed me by not asking what the writing said on the hairdresser's giant neck tattoo. The plaintiff had a pretty face, but that wig and those clothes were not doing her any favours.

For the AC purchase case, I liked how civilized they parties were, but was thinking again about what people think is appropriate dress for court. "I'm heading off to court, what should I wear? My sluttiest nightclub dress, My most rainbow coloured wig, my jeans and my Downton Abbey t-shirt?" Does nobody have any sense of dressing for the occasion anymore? I say this and the guys I work with all wear jeans, running shoes, and t-shirts every single day, so I don't know anymore...

Teebax, you can find the episodes on YouTube. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by AEMom
Forgot something

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, AEMom said:

"I'm heading off to court, what should I wear? My sluttiest nightclub dress, My most rainbow coloured wig, my jeans and my Downton Abbey t-shirt?" Does nobody have any sense of dressing for the occasion anymore?

That IS the result of their sense of dressing for an occasion. After all, who knows who might be watching? Could be a reality show contract out there somewhere.

 

33 minutes ago, AEMom said:

if she won't spend money on TEETH she won't spend money on a rental.

Hee! We see people here all the time willing to spend money on everything BUT teeth!

[AngelaHunter]

I hate cases like the Battling Sisters when kids are involved. Deshondra is suing Diondra (could be wrong. I forget names 2 minutes after hearing them), both of whom are displaying large expanses of cleavage.  Then it's Sec8 and food stamps and evictions and 2 unfortunate children "tooken" away from plaintiff, who left them alone all night and can't support them ( she doesn't have to buy them food since her sister feeds them with her food stamps) but both can buy fake nails, and bling and piercings and wigs and eyelashes. Her sister, the def, has the kids who were tooken - JM pointedly said "taken" but the hint was not tooken. I guess the plaintiff thought the first kid wasn't enough so she squirted out another one and who knows where the baby daddies are. Guess they're not contributing to the support of the fruit of their loins, so the taxpayers will, like it or not. Both of them thought there was something amusing about this sordid mess, the def going so far as to clap her hands. JM did not agree, but her beatdown was largely ignored. 

Then we had Momma suing def who rented a room to her boy, but then def got evicted for illegally renting out rooms in his place. He wouldn't admit that and said his lease was merely terminated due to a "lifestyle change" which I guess meant illegally renting out rooms. Duh. Def was such a dick I'm surprised Momma let her baby boy move in there. Def says he's keeping plaintiff's 1400$ deposit because there was damage to walls and floors. JM wants to know if plaintiff did all that damage in the 25 days he lived there. "I don't know," says def. "I wasn't there." Okay then. Oh, def is also alleging that plaintiff didn't remove DEF'S furniture when he left. He sounded demented. JM ruled against him, giving plaintiff every penny she possibly could. 

Finally, we have plaintiff who pays 6K for a 14-year old Nissan with 135K miles on it. She bought it "As is" but of course, like a zillion other idiots,  thinks that doesn't apply to her. The car makes noise and defs initially agreed to look at and fix it - which they had no obligation to do -  but that wasn't enough so plaintiff thinks she can just drop it off at the dealer and stop making her payments. Um, no. That's not the way it works. She leaves penniless, but seems rather cheerful about it all in the hall. I somehow don't think she learned anything. 

[SRTouch]

1. Feuding sisters: ah, what a mess - and I'm not just talking their outfits, the wigs, and jewelry... is defendant wearing giant hoop earrings or are those cuff bracelets in her ears - and that... whatever it is... she wears in a piercing between her nose and upper lip sure draws the eye. Plaintiff isn't sporting facial jewelry, no, thing that draws my eye is the caterpillar eyelashes.Two BIG women, wonder if defendant's weight has anything to do with her walking cane. Plaintiff suing over loans and furniture left with her younger sister.... defendant says big sister got evicted and agrees sis stored some stuff at her place - but says sis later came and got the junk - far as she knows nothing belonging to big sister is still at her place.... well except the kids. Seems CPS removed kids from Big sis' custody and the kids now live with Lil Sis. She agrees Big loaned her $600, but she figures that money should go towards support of Big's youngins. From the preview clip I'm sure we'll be hearing MM harp on family suing family - oh and Lil calling cops on Big, resulting in kids being removed from Big and placed in Lil's custody. Anyway, plaintiff suing for $2500, and defendant countersuing for $1200 worth of rent. When testimony starts first up is this $600 loan. Seems back in '16 Big loaned Lil $600 which was supposed to be repaid when Lil got her tax money - oh and Big had Lil sign a promissory note. Big says she wasn't evicted, her lease was not renewed. So, she stored all her junk in Lil's basement for a couple months. When she found a new place she came and got some of her furniture, but everything wouldn't fit in the little truck. So she says she told Lil that she'd be back for the rest... weeks go by, and when she eventually comes back Lil won't let her in the basement. Ah, now it's family drama time. Reason Lil won't let her get her stuff is they're feuding over the whole calling cops and CPS giving Lil custody of Big's kids. Family drama I really don't want to hear about... even though I'm sure some folks might enjoy hearing Lil Sis tell us how the kids were "took'n" and placed her, Lil Sis' custody. I listened enough to determine that the custody exchange predates the loan - oh, and the kids turn out to be a 6 yo and a 6 MONTH old who were left alone in Big's house while she was working her night job. Big says a neighbor was supposed to be watching them, Lil says the neighbor called her and told Big left kids alone, AGAIN. Apparently authorities decided Big was unfit as a mother, since Lil has has custody since '15. Does it strike anybody else as odd that the feud didn't erupt when Big lost custody? No, it was after that that Big was loaning $600 and storing her stuff in Lil's basement. What caused the flare up that would have made Lil refuse to let Big reclaim her junk? Oh, and as we go to commercial we hear MM questioning this whole custody thing. Seems the two sisters worked out a deal where Big has custody for the summer, and MM jumps on that and wants to know if this deal was approved by CPS. Also, question I have is whether Lil was receiving financial aid/food stamps for those kids while they're staying with Big? Not to forget section 8 - something tells me these two know how to work the system and get into Byrd's wallet. Ok, real reason for this case... Lil let Big have her kids for the summer, but when summer ended Big wouldn't return the kids. Lil in family court now asking for their return to her custody,  so tit for tat, Big suing for a three year old loan and stuff left in Lil Sister's basement two years ago. Oh, and seems while they were fussing about Big not returning the kids, Big gunned her car to back out of Lil's driveway and ran over Lil's foot - which I guess is why she's carrying a cane. Ok, I'm about over this one... clock says about 8 minutes left, thankfully half that will be commercial and me zipping through Harvey on the street. Ah, what a family... now they're dragging in texts from their momma, who apparently asked about a freezer that Big says was in a basement, and there was a cousin living in house with Lil who was evicted - Lil assures us SHE wasn't evicted, the marshal was there to put out the cousin. Could it be that cousin was on the lease and she was subleasing (maybe illegally) from cuz. Notice that when cousin was kicked to the curb she left the same month. So, how many extra people were living in this house, which was most assuredly being paid for by section 8. Her story is that that's when she learned Big had left stuff in the basement. She says she thought Big took everything, but as she's leaving she looks and discovers furniture left behind. She took pictures of the stuff, but these two couldn't arrange to have Big come get her crap. Heck, the texts from mom are asking if mom can come get the freezer, Lil saying yes, come get it, but Lil says mom was a no show... makes me think mom and Lil both thought stuff was abandoned by Big and they were divying up the stuff and deciding what they wanted for themselves. Seems Big figured easier just to go to court and claim the stuff is worth 2 grand and sue instead of going and getting stuff she had left there 6 months earlier. Once again, kudos to judges who sit through this crap without a fast forward button.  Now sisters are cross aisle talking and laughing about airing their dirty laundry on tv, MM calling them pathetic, and they just keep their yammering and talking over each other and the judge... ah, but I have the button, so I zip ahead. I stop and listen long enough to hear MM declare junk in basement was abandoned property, and that the $600 was a loan  (complete with promissory note) that Lil decided not to repay because she unilaterally decided to treat it as child support. Same thing with countersuit for back rent. Yes, Big may have lived with Lil for awhile, but there was no rental agreement, and Lil can't make one up after the feud erupts. So, net result is Big gets her $600... no doubt to be continued as these two will continue to fight over the kids (Lil has court appointed custody, but for now Big has temporary order granting her custody - wonder if that's just a judge letting kids stay with biological mother til a hearing after Lil, the legal guardian, let kids live with her for the summer).... really sad thing is I'm not sure they're fighting because they want the kids or if they want the financial aid/food stamps/section 8 money the kids bring with them. Oh, and case goes long, half hour where it should have been 10 minutes.
2. Used car kerfuffle: plaintiff bought a car from a dealer, says it broke day the first day she had it, she took it back and left it (with the keys) on his lot. Wants her money back. Defendant says she bought the car, drove it for weeks, then called complaining of road noise. Says it's a SUV with big tires - so, yeah, there's road noise - says this is really just buyer's remorse, a deal is a deal. Ah, after the loud, hefty, harpy sisters of the last case I'm already loving soft spoken plaintiff after her first sentence... probably typical silly used car entitlement case and before it's over I'll be back to snarking at her. Wellllll, doesn't take long. Says she bought this 15 yo SUV and had the dealer deliver it to her at work. When she went to drive it, it was loud and had a vibration... uh, is this while she's driving or while it's stationary? If it's stationary, that's bad, but if she's driving, yeah, I might buy dealer's tire explanation.... still, didn't dealer's intro says she test drove the vehicle before buying it? What, did the prep guys go 4 wheeling and break something since she drove it? Maybe delivery guy hit a pot hole. Ah, he also said she drove it for weeks before saying something was wrong, but she's saying she texted salesman claiming something was wrong the day it was delivered. Oops, now she says when she got home that day check engine light came on, and she's on the phone again that first day. Says they tell her they'll take a look, and she takes it to the lot. They check it out and figure maybe the tires need to be balanced... huh, tires sound minor - what about the check engine light? Ok, Louis, the mechanic checks it out. She says he came in and told her he needed to order parts - does not sound like tires. MM would like to talk to Louis and asks defendant if he's here - plaintiff chimes in that he's not here... then who is guy plaintiff brought as a witness? Ah, the service manager. Actually, service manager tells a credible story. Plaintiff's testimony has me thinking they ignored the check engine light, turned it off, balanced her tires and send her on her way after she was cooling her heels for three hours. Service manager says they put it on the computer, light was indicating a bad sensor, they replaced the sensor. And, yes, they did balance the tires... but had to send it off site since they couldn't balance they tires in their shop. Hmmm was that because they don't have the machine? Or, maybe previous owner put oversized wheel/tires on the vehicle? Anyway, they put in a new sensor, and reset the check engine light, and asked her to bring the car back the next day so they could farm out the tire balancing. When she came back the next day, they gave her a loaner and kept her car for 2-3 days... not sure why they didn't just give her the loaner the first day instead of having her make an extra trip. Car finally returned - still loud and vibrates. That's when lot owner says, hey we checked it out, all we can see it might be is the tires. Ok, turns out she's been complaining since she got the car.... but is she looking for ways to undo the deal or is there really something wrong with the car - and back to my earlier question - did she test drive this thing like the dealer intro claimed? Seems to me she needs the old "expert witness" to have a chance here, and appears she just dumped it on the lot without getting a second opinion when she wasn't happy with dealer's service department. Hey, might have been a good idea to take it to a tire shop. What's this, MM asks and plaintiff says yes, she took it to another shop, and here's the printout of the problems. Ok, some nonsense about leaks - imagine a 15 yo vehicle, with over 130,000 miles, leaking. Ah, but also, second mechanic heard noise from bad wheel bearings and recommended replacing front bearings. Not at all surprising in a 15 yo vehicle - not that expensive. I don't see that as a reason to undo the sale, but I do question dealer service department not thinking of checking the bearings. Anyway, plaintiff dumped the car back on defendant's lot, and stopped making payments ($4700 financed). Ok, now the all important question - yes, this was an as-is sale, no warranty.... so defendant really could have told her to pound sand when she first started complaining - instead he had the car in his shop, replaced a sensor, paid to have another shop balance the tires, and is even storing her car now for free. Now we get the standard, do you know what "as-is" means? It means there is no warranty. You can buy a third party warranty.... ah, but they didn't offer me a warranty! ... really, does she really think that's their job?
3. College roommate woes: best case of the day... mommy in court suing sonny's roommate/landlord. Seems she rented room from defendant for sonny to live in while at college, the kids get into kerfuffle, both kicked out. And, of course, special snowflake is blameless! She's here suing over the deposit. Deposit doesn't argue that he refused to return the deposit. His argument is that deposit went to his landlord, who kept the deposit claiming get room was damaged. Plaintiff and son look surprised - really, is this the first time they're hearing this? Hmmm does he have anything proving none of the deposit was returned? Nah, course not. Defendant well spoken, strings words together well enough, just that he's talking a lot and not saying anything. Why were you evicted? Blah blah blah lifestyle changes blah blah. What does that even mean? Not sure, that's what was in the letter - So, was it because you were sub letting a room? Not sure, but I have the letter, uh, maybe there was a problem with subletting and Airbnb-ing - uh, yeah, that might have been a problem. Oh, and pretty much blows his defense in my eyes. If it was just the litigants there and their landlord kept deposit because damage was done, that's one thing... But if dude is doing these Airbnb side deals and defendant bringing in people for a night or two at a time that's different. Now I'm thinking he's going to have to prove sonny boy caused damages. Looks even worse when MM starts talking about sonny's stay. Sonny found this room on CL,  and expected to be there for 3 months (he only needed a room for 1 semester). Mid month of first month, defendant tells him he is losing the lease, so they gave to be out at the end of the month. It really hurts your defense when you tell the judge sonny was there 1 maybe two months, not really sure - then MM asks sonny, who says I moved in on October 1st and was out on the 25th. So kid (who is actually 22yo) paid 1 months rent and a  $1400 deposit and lived 25 days. Ah, college IS a learning experience... sonny learned not to trust CL ads. Maybe next time he needs a room for 3 months he might check in to an extended stay place. Ok, dude was playing at being at landlord, but really has no idea of a landlord's responsibilities. MM spends a few minutes educating him, then tells him to return plaintiff's deposit. Doesn't work, though, he keeps arguing the same nonsense even after being told it's nonsense. I love when he argues sonny should be on the hook because sonny rented a furnished room, then failed to remove the furniture when requested upon moveout. Even better.... when mommy hears MM is going to figure what the per day rent was and rebate 6 days since sonny had to scramble to find a new place, she pipes up and says she paid the deposit two years ago to make sure sonny would have a room these three months - yep, he's had her money two years interest free. That will never do, says MM, we'll tack that on, too. We never hear the prestatutory interest and court costs, but we know plaintiff gets a $271 rent rebate. Oh, and defendant had to pay more in interest since he wasn't to be found first (or second) time plaintiff tried to bring him to court.

Edited March 2, 2018 by SRTouch

[califred]

I don’t have time to watch today bc we are headed into Waikiki for the weekend but thank you all for cracking me up with your recaps ?

[meowmommy]

Hi, TPCers!  Have been offline for a month, moving crosscountry back to AZ (Hi, AZChristian!).  And instead of TPC at 11 am EST, it comes on here at 3 pm MST, so I'll almost always get to read the crib notes, aka SRTouch's amazing recaps, first.

48 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

is defendant wearing giant hoop earrings or are those cuff bracelets in her ears

They'd be a belt for some people.  Put the two together and you could do embroidery with them.

48 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Big gunned her car to back out of Lil's driveway and ran over Lil's foot - which I guess is why she's carrying a cane.

Unless you've stuck your foot out, how do you get your foot run over while no other body parts make impact with the vehicle? 

48 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Also, question I have is whether Lil is receiving financial aid/food stamps for those kids while they're staying with Big? Not to forget section 8 - something tells me these two know how to work the system and get into Byrd's wallet.

They got bling money but they get SNAP and cash assistance and section 8.  Any "rent" money awarded should go back to the taxpayers.  When MM asked Big if she got any benefits from the government, Big's tone of voice was so "of course" it made me see red.  Because she clearly sees handouts as a right and a way of life, and not something to be appreciated and eventually ended.

Edited March 2, 2018 by meowmommy

[AngelaHunter]

42 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Does it strike anybody else as odd that the feud didn't erupt when Big lost custody? No, it was after that that Big was loaning $600 and storing her stuff in Lil's basement.

Why would it erupt then? Big got someone else to feed her kids - Byrd will do it (I'd hate to see the list of dependants he claims on his income tax forms)! No way is she going to bitch about that. 

Quote

 I'm sure we'll be hearing MM harp on family suing family 

Even MM couldn't find anything redeemable in these cretins. 

44 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Oh, and case goes long, half hour where it should have been 10 minutes.

Two minutes would have been sufficient for me. 

45 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Seems she rented room from defendant for sonny to live in while at college,

I wonder if anyone is ever going to learn to stop finding total strangers to live with on Craigslist. Probably not. 

[hisbunkie]

What? No comments on guy wearing flag sweater AND Rosary Beads for a necklace?  

[ElleMo]

<Does it strike anybody else as odd that the feud didn't erupt when Big lost custody? No, it was after that that Big was loaning $600 and storing her stuff in Lil's basement.

I wonder if the custody thing was a scam.   Sister gets money from govt to take care of kids and Mom gets to see them whenever she wants.  Bet sis was still getting money when the kids were away for the summer.

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Sister gets money from govt to take care of kids and Mom gets to see them whenever she wants.

We've seen this before on JJ. Kids are tooken away from abusive/neglectful, always-single parent and placed with Grandma or whatever family member who gets money to care for them and unfit parent from whom kids were tooken virtually lives there too -  "I just visit" - and they split the windfall.

[SRTouch]

rerun from Oct 18 - summarized here but recapped back on pg 85

first case is the Delaware lady with the old Mercedes-Benz that drives to New York to get her cracked windshield repaired. Her power window doesn't work when she picks up the car. She thinks that should earn her a $5,000 payday. MM decides in her favor, and awards her..... 20 bucks (defendant admits his guy scratched her window tinting when he manually closed the window).

second case is lady who hired her contractor after running into him at the local 7 Eleven - to do over 30 grand in home repairs. Turns out they knew each other, so not as silly as it sounds in the intro... but still contractor did all this work and is coming to court without a contract. Case starts out as the normal contractor vs homeowner, but then we get the twist. Seems State Farm was footing the bill, and sending the homeowner checks which needed to be signed by both contractor and homeowner. First couple checks no problem, but then he stops getting paid. He says 5 checks were issued, but he only signed and received money from 2 - homeowner forged his signature and cashed/deposited the rest. Case comes to a screeching stop when defendant announces there's an ongoing case in another court and her lawyer advised her to take the fifth here. 

case #3 is another contractor case - oh, and a landlord vs tenant case at the same time. Plaintiff hires his boozer of a tenant to do a roof and repair water damage to ceiling of place defendant is living in. Of course, since these two were landlord & tenant for years no one thought they needed a silly contract. So tenant/contractor/denfendant is paid in full to do the work before he starts work - but never actually completes the job. Now, 2 years after being paid, the landlord/tenant relationship has hit the skids and boozer defendant is being evicted.... and job still hasn't been completed. Defendant messed up when he chose his defense. He decided to argue that since there was no specified completion date, he has til the end of time before he has to texture and paint the repaired ceiling. Well, actually, he has several defenses he wants to try, but MM isn't interested in the rent dispute - this case is about the unfinished roof and ceiling repair that dude was paid for two years ago. So, his defense falls on deaf ears - even though he does his best to teach the lady in the black dress the law. 

Edited March 6, 2018 by SRTouch

[stephinmn]

Did anyone get the name of the woman in the second case today? I wanted to check and see how her criminal case is going...

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, stephinmn said:

Did anyone get the name of the woman in the second case today? I wanted to check and see how her criminal case is going...

Hasn't been on here yet.  I'll try to remember to get it for you.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, stephinmn said:

Did anyone get the name of the woman in the second case today? I wanted to check and see how her criminal case is going...

Denise Sekur

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

She thinks that should earn her a $5,000 payday.

Funny how some cases look worse the second time around. Outrageous, this woman was. She must have mistaken court for the lottery office. Things break on 18 year old cars, even when that car is a Mercedes. She doesn't get that because it broke while in def's shop doesn't mean HE broke it.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

second case is lady who hired her contractor after running into him at the local 7 Eleven

What stands out most - aside from plaintiff's criminal behavior (and her kids have an amoral, vile cretin for a mother, poor things) is that plaintiff never thought of keeping a copy of a 30K contract. Wow. I'm surprised he hasn't been cheated over and over again, since he feels the person who is paying - or not paying -  him should provide his evidence for him.

[teebax]

I got my signal back just in time for reruns. Fantastic... 

[SRTouch]

original air date November 3, recap on pg 87.... 1st and 3rd cases let MM break into her family value mode - I zipped through both cases first time around, and watch even less this time, while 2nd case is about a bad fit for room rental - also one where remote FF button gets a workout

1st case - the daddy with long range divorce plans. Thinking back, I have a hard time remembering case, but no problem remembering my disgust at plaintiff and his plan for his divorce. Oh, and this is the mommy dressed in teenager outfit - ripped jeans and tight top showing off how overweight (FAT!) she is - perfect attire for court/national tv. Case is pretty simple... 21yo son wants car he can't afford, so dad cosigns. Oh, and car and insurance are in daddy's name with sonny as additional driver. While this is going on, daddy is keeping secret his plans to divorce mommy.... no doubt so he can move assets around to hide them from eventual division of marital assets. Things go south when Pops finally files for divorce. Sonny is driving around in the car he can't afford that is registered and insured in Pop's name.... and sonny is firmly on mommy's side in the whole secret divorce thing. Pops wants car out of his name, so gives son a deadline/ultimatum to start paying his own way or give the car back.... sonny  drops off the car - not to worry, mommy takes him down and gets him a new car he can't afford.

2nd case - like so many of these cases, this one should never have been filed. These two had a written rental agreement - which tenant didn't bother to read before signing (or apparently before coming to court). He gets all upset that he's expected to help maintain common areas and pick up after himself. Also all upset that he's expected to pay a share of utilities - as stated in their agreement. OTOH, landlord apparently doesn't how to landlord. They get into a kerfuffle and he tells tenant to get out - but keep the deposit because he thinks he can still collect rent. Lot of nonsense - one the less entertaining tenant/landlord cases I've seen.

3rd case- plaintiff hires defendant to stay with 90 something mom over the weekend as she needs someone 24/7 just in case. At first it seems he's reasonable - only asking $400 that he was out in travel and missed work when defendant failed to appear for her shifts. Ah, by the end of the case I'm ready to bop him upside the head. Seems he just kept asking defendant back even though he accused her of neglecting mom from the beginning. Ok, don't like long-winded plaintiff.... partly because he actually hired defendant (whoa, takes 30 seconds of listening to her before I'd decide to keep looking for someone else) but mainly because he didn't fire her ass first time he thought she wasn't caring for his mom. Anyway, this is another one I zipped through last time and  barely watched this time around - didn't get any better.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

 the daddy with long range divorce plans.

Reruns are fine, but do they have to regurgitate cases with the most irritating litigants? This one (I have a feeling his "marital breakdown = he came out of the closet) with Giant-Assed Momma's Little Baby Snowflake? Uber-annoying. I was trying to imagine what my mother would have said when I was 21 and if I told her, "I want a brand-new car!" I'm pretty sure her answer would have been, "What do you want me to do about it? Save your money and buy one." But no, in this case, Baby Huey wants, he gets, because Daddy was sooo mean to his little boy. Sniffle, sob. Ugh.

Then another, older Special Snowflake whose wife finally woke up and realized she married a silly baby who shouldn't be married and who should be living with HIS momma until he grows up. He doesn't even know how to pay a bill. "Oh, boo hoo! Big mean landlord kept me in a state of servitude and forced me to clean and take out garbage, even when I had my little friends over." Shut up you stupid sissy.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

 plaintiff hires defendant to stay with 90 something mom

Get a haircut. You look ridiculous.

[SRTouch]

October 27 rerun - recap on pg 86. I kind of enjoyed watching first and third cases because of how silly (stupid) the litigants come across. Second case more about greed, but still funny how litigants provide evidence for other side.

case 1 - extreme case of lothario(ism).... but at least this dude is (physically) attractive. This is the one where MM is giving woman hard time for throwing money at a bum and woman says, just look at him, all women want him -  MM looks, says yeah he's got some muscles, but not impressed. Plaintiff thinks they have a relationship, even thinks the ring she just helped him purchase will end up on her finger. Plaintiff thinks he's planning to surprise her with the obvious engagement ring - which he claims he wants to buy for his mommy. Well, she happens to go through his phone and calls an unknown number and... she gets surprised alright. Turns out to be his other sweety. Other woman claims to be engaged to two timer - even sends her a picture of the ring... yep, it's the engagement ring plaintiff bought for him (expecting it to end up on her finger) that he claimed was for his mommy. 

case 2 - tenant vs landlord over deposit. Actually, daughter of tenant since tenant passed away after living there 8 years. Both sides reaching for the moon as far as their damage claims. Plaintiff/tenant's daughter seeking double deposit despite knowing she's not even entitled to the full original deposit. Landlord claiming tenant caused damages that her,  landlord's,  own evidence shows she should have fixed as the landlord - also wants cleaning when plaintiff has video showing what looks like a broom swept apartment.

case 3 - (ah, the dude who pulled his old suit to wear to court - not realizing it no longer fits.) repair kerfuffle case where plaintiff drives away from shop after they repair his old car - something goes wrong - must be shop's fault. Ok, it COULD be the mechanic screwed up, but 99.99% of the time it turns out car owner needs expert which they don't have. This tine, plaintiff brought in his 20yo truck for brake repair, picked it up and drove away despite mechanic telling him he needed work done on the antilock system. Short time later the antilock system locks, and he has a wreck. He decides to go ahead and get that fixed, so takes it back to same shop and let's the mechanic do want he had recommended in the first place. Now dude is in court saying the wreck was mechanic's fault. Dude just needs to grow up - and get a new suit.

[DoctorK]

15 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Dude just needs to grow up

Agreed, and I couldn't help but thinking that since he brought his Mommy with him (al least I assume that was her), Mommy should have combed his hair before letting him leave the hotel, maybe just after she dressed him and tied his shoes.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

 extreme case of lothario(ism).... but at least this dude is (physically) attractive.

You think so? Personally, I saw a short, ugly, incoherent and brokeass loser (who can't drive without racking up tickets or pay for his hoopty without messing up, surprising considering he makes 1,000$/day minimum), with a wonky eye who could eat an apple through a keyhole with those near-horizontal teeth. JMO. That he can get pathetic women who have mental issues has given him an Adonis complex.

Plaintiff was kind of incoherent too (no wonder they can't communicate. Neither of them can speak properly) and JM just reached a point where she couldn't take it.  She let the "Febawary and Janawary go, but "KayJoos" got on her last nerve. "Kay's JEWELRY!" corrects JM. I quit there.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant vs landlord over deposit.

Was plaintiff headed to a cosplay as Jessica Rabbit later? Dd you see those SHOES? And those lethal weapon fake nails? Never mind the tight dress, cleavage and the 4 layers of makeup.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

(ah, the dude who pulled his old suit to wear to court

Another ridiculous baby Snowflake who thinks if something happens to his ancient, 20-year old beater and he has an accident, it's just gotta be someone else's fault. It can't be his.  I can picture his daddy, "This will send your insurance up, my little one, so tack that on to your lawsuit. Nail them for 20%! I know the judge will agree with my little man." I guess the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree.

[aemom]

Well it looks like I'll be caught up soon because there are reruns coming up   :-(

I just had to comment on the crazy episode with the parents fighting over the ashes and the woman who's apartment was set on fire by the girl.

Regardless of who did what at any point, if they agreed to split the ashes, then they should split the ashes.  He would be nuts and totally wrong to dig his own hole at the cemetery, but you can't follow him around forever to make sure that he doesn't.  Hopefully reason will set in with him.  I'm sure there's some truth to the drugs story since he has a criminal history of dealing, but it sounds like the parents have been horrible to each other for a long time and the kids have been stuck in the middle of it, probably without the best guidance.  I think MM's speech fell on deaf ears judging from the halterview with Doug.

As for the Miss Firestarter:  She was indeed a little scary looking.  She had this dead-eyed look about her and I'm completely unconvinced that she won't set something on fire again.  Is it a cry for help?  Hard to say, but kids often continue escalate their behaviour when they are not getting the attention that they need.  I suspect that she is not getting the best parenting either.  The woman was totally entitled to damages to put her apartment back together.  Thank goodness that nobody was hurt or killed.

[teebax]

7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

October 27 rerun - recap on pg 86. I kind of enjoyed watching first and third cases because of how silly (stupid) the litigants come across. Second case more about greed, but still funny how litigants provide evidence for other side.

case 1 - extreme case of lothario(ism)....

Lothario was a response on Jeopardy tonight, so thanks for putting that word in my head, SRTOUCH!

This one was new to me, so that's one benefit to having signal issues over the past few months! What in the world made the first plaintiff think that dude was a catch? Please tell me it's not just the muscles. Guys with muscles are a dime a dozen, if that's the sort you go for. Join a gym and meet a few, preferably ones who won't have you finance a $3,500 engagement ring for their mothers and then give it to a side piece. I wonder if JJ would have awarded the idiot plaintiff anything. I know the law is the law, but I am not a fan of rewarding stupidity. That shit should cost you some money; maybe then you'll learn a lesson.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, teebax said:

Please tell me it's not just the muscles. Guys with muscles are a dime a dozen, if that's the sort you go for.

Had to be the biceps. What else does he have going for him? Personally, big, gym-created muscles and abs are a major turn-off to me, but each to his own.

 

2 hours ago, teebax said:

That shit should cost you some money; maybe then you'll learn a lesson.

Agree. At least JM is making her get the ring back. She's going to take a big loss on that at the store, so if that money she (or other women who do this) wasted on a loser causes her a few hard times, maybe the next time some creep hits her up to pay his parking tickets, or rent, or to buy jewelry (3500$!!) so he can play Mr. Big Shot to another woman, after she's known him a few weeks, it might give her pause. I really hope so. She's young, cute and has a good job. Why is she so desperate? JM has asked that question of other women but there's never an answer.

[AZChristian]

9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Had to be the biceps. What else does he have going for him? Personally, big, gym-created muscles and abs are a major turn-off to me, but each to his own.

Agree. At least JM is making her get the ring back. She's going to take a big loss on that at the store, so if that money she (or other women who do this) wasted on a loser causes her a few hard times, maybe the next time some creep hits her up to pay his parking tickets, or rent, or to buy jewelry (3500$!!) so he can play Mr. Big Shot to another woman, after she's known him a few weeks, it might give her pause. I really hope so. She's young, cute and has a good job. Why is she so desperate? JM has asked that question of other women but there's never an answer.

Well, that one glaring white tooth was definitely a draw.  (Not!)

Harvey just said that the store "gave her a refund."  He didn't say anything about a restocking fee or other lesser amount that defendant would have had to make up for.  Maybe they gave her a full refund because the store name was mentioned in the case and they wanted to try to turn it into positive publicity?

If you want to see just how easily manipulated some people can be (even college graduates with their own successful business), try watching "The Push" on Netflix.  Sobering.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Maybe they gave her a full refund because the store name was mentioned in the case and they wanted to try to turn it into positive publicity?

It seems Kay will give a refund within 60 days or exchange within 90. After that I guess you're out of luck or will take a big loss re-selling it. Maybe she was within the time limit.

 

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

If you want to see just how easily manipulated some people can be (even college graduates with their own successful business), try watching "The Push" on Netflix. 

Never saw that, but did watch a show about successful, intelligent, mature women who lost everything they owned to some con man who romanced them. I guess you can work your head around to believing what you want to believe and ignoring everything else.

[SRTouch]

rerun - originally aired Nov 13 - recapped on pg 87 (oh and 2nd case is a dog attack)

Furby here, (that's me in the picture). NEED HELP HERE! Human can opener has been terrorizing us all morning. First he chased us around with the Shark (vacuum), then the loud leaky thing (carpet cleaner). Now he's cleaning the rat cage and already has the mop out. Sooooooo, no tv this morning!

Edited March 8, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

First he chased us around with the Shark (vacuum), then the loud leaky thing (carpet cleaner).

This is what separates us from the animals: We're not afraid of vacuum cleaners.

Boring reruns. First one annoying ladies fighting over cost of a trip they took, where def. in what appeared to be a bridal dress or something one might wear for a big evening out in Vegas - all white lace and chiffon -  thought plaintiff should foot the bill for her vacation because she didn't like the hotel. Went to FF dog rerun, and then Trump butted in to my viewing. The End.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

This is what separates us from the animals: We're not afraid of vacuum cleaners.

Judging by the lack of frequency of me vacuuming, I'm not sure the evidence shows that I'm not afraid of vacuum cleaners.