The People's Court - General Discussion

AZChristian · March 8, 2018

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

. . . thought plaintiff should foot the bill for her vacation because she didn't like the hotel.

I've traveled with friends a couple of times. During the planning stages, when one of us says to the other, "I'll take care of everything," it's pretty well understood that the person who says that does NOT mean, "I'll pay for everything."

Broderbits · March 9, 2018

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

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

I once had a dog that actually enjoyed being vacuumed; he just thought of it as a new kind of petting.

But Furby sweetheart, every cat I've ever known agrees with you: vacuum cleaners are monsters!

AngelaHunter · March 9, 2018

14 hours ago, Broderbits said:

But Furby sweetheart, every cat I've ever known agrees with you: vacuum cleaners are monsters!

Mine actually hit the floor and scurry off like there's an air raid warning.

"Run! Run for your lives! The Roar Monster is going to get us!"

SRTouch · March 9, 2018

This one is from November 20, and was recapped on pg 88. oh dear, tis the season for yet another rerun... I've decided to stop writing until the new cases start - or at least until bad weather

teebax · March 9, 2018

18 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I've traveled with friends a couple of times. During the planning stages, when one of us says to the other, "I'll take care of everything," it's pretty well understood that the person who says that does NOT mean, "I'll pay for everything."

The defendant knew what it meant, too. She was just trying to save face on television by playing ignorant.

I mentioned on this board my upcoming trip with a colleague to San Francisco. She has paid her half of the room. I covered the rental car, and she's covering the gas. We'll each pay for our own meals and entertainment. Why all people traveling with friends don't do something similar baffles me. As MM would say, we call those people "litigants."

AZChristian · March 9, 2018

3 minutes ago, teebax said:

The defendant knew what it meant, too. She was just trying to save face on television by playing ignorant.

I mentioned on this board my upcoming trip with a colleague to San Francisco. She has paid her half of the room. I covered the rental car, and she's covering the gas. We'll each pay for our own meals and entertainment. Why all people traveling with friends don't do something similar baffles me. As MM would say, we call those people "litigants."

I always put together an Excel spreadsheet for shared expenses (hotel room, rental car, gas, etc.). At the end of the trip, the spreadsheet automatically did the math and told us if one owed the other money. I've been on several trips with friends, and if everyone agrees ahead of time, there's no drama. And no trips to People's Court.

Schnickelfritz · March 9, 2018

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

This one is from November 20, and was recapped on pg 88. oh dear, tis the season for yet another rerun... I've decided to stop writing until the new cases start - or at least until bad weather

Prepare to type. New episodes all next week. (Hurrah!)

And then we are back to reruns the week after.... (Boo Hiss)

AngelaHunter · March 9, 2018

1 hour ago, teebax said:

The defendant knew what it meant, too. She was just trying to save face on television by playing ignorant.

Of course she did. I have the dearest friends but not once has any of them offered to take me on all-expense paid trip just because I'm such a wonderful person.

People like the def leave everything to someone else - "You pick the time and place and accomodations and don't bother me about it" and then if they don't like it, feel they needn't pay their share. If she truly wanted a place on the beach - because not everyone has the same priorities - she should have spoken up instead of sitting like a lump and stiffing her friend who I don't blame even if she did leave def. alone (No wonder. Who wants to listen to her whining?). No shame has she.

aemom · March 11, 2018

I'm all caught up! SRTouch's adorable little Furby reminds me of my long departed kitty. They have similar adorable faces. Mine was a good cat, I miss him sometimes, even though he's been gone over 20 years. I never got another after that, because it was too hard when I lost him.

On to the cases:

Dog attack/media hack case - interesting that we hardly heard a word about the dog, it was mostly how the plaintiff went batshit crazy when they broke up.

Lugnut case: the irony was not lost on me that the school safety officer was driving on the baldest tires imaginable. He was even already pulled over for it! I don't know how things work in certain parts of the world, but here if you get pulled over because something doesn't work on your car, you get a citation with so many hours (24/48/72) to resolve it and report back to a particular location that the work was completed. I'm surprised that didn't happen for his tires.

On 3/3/2018 at 10:02 AM, AngelaHunter said:

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.

I try not to read the posts for episodes that I haven't seen, but as I was scrolling the other day, I happened to catch the above and I was so surprised that AngelaHunter would write tooken, but now that I've seen the episode, it all makes sense and all is right in the world. Phew! :-)

As for that case, it was really sad the state of these small kids being bounced around between these two sisters who really seemed to hate each other and try to one-up each other. I just love all the bling these people on social assistance can afford. Here in my neck of the woods, we talk about all the beer and cigarettes people buy with their welfare cheques. I was somewhat surprised that MM didn't give the "family is so important speech" to these two, but perhaps she recognized the futility of it.

The woman who bought the 2002 car and expected it to purr like a kitten. Please, can we never see a used car case on TPC again?!

The loser landlord who sublet the apartment to the student. He was a prize and I'm so glad that MM threw the book at him. I was wondering why mom was the plaintiff when she never said a word, but because she actually wrote the cheque, she had to be the one to sue.

SRTouch · March 12, 2018

well... my little hiatus didn't last long. As @Schnickelfritz posted when I said I was going to wait for new episodes before posting, here we are with a week of new episodes.

cruise ship deadbeat: litigants were highschool chums and on again off again daters. Plaintiff says they went on a cruise together. When they get back defendant had big bill - but no money. She says she loaned him the money. Oh, and if having to bail him out on that trip wasn't enough, she also paid for a trip to Mickey's House that he was supposed to pay his share, and hasn't. Defendant's intro claims plaintiff is just a woman scorned and a gold digger and only suing because they broke up and he's moved on... hmmmm I never realised a gold digger was someone who fronts you over $4,900 so you can go on fancy vacations. Right off the bat I have a problem with the intros... course inaccurate intro material is part for the show. Ah, but here MM starts out by asking where they're from: Miami - how old they litigants are: plaintiff is 20 and defendant 26 - when they started dating: 3 years ago.... huh? I thought I heard they met in highschool? Sounds like maybe she was 17yo and in high school, and he was what? 23 and a college man (or head burger flipper at the burger joint). Ooops, rewind and double check ages... she's 28 not 20 - ah that makes more sense. Soooo, according to silly girl, they've been chums for three years, occasionally dated, and she acted as his ATM - making the occasional loan, which he would eventually pay back. When they went on their cruise together he lost big at the casino, and she ended up covering his tab and he was to pay back. That's $1500 that she says he owes from 8 months ago and that he never paid a penny back - so why does she turn around and agree to front him $800+ for season passes at Disney World a few months later. Then, after receiving nothing from those two loans, she lays out another couple hundred for Cirque du Soleil (And what math is she using where 1500 + 800 + 200 = 4900+.... ah, turns out she also has hundreds on her credit cards.) then, she says, they start fighting over the nonpayment of loans and end up breaking up. Ah, she's one of those who think her word is all the evidence she'll need to win her $4900 claim. Really, your honor, she paid the money, she just doesn't have her bank statement... but she has evidence of the other "loans." When asked, dude offers to show where the $1500 cruise gambling debt was paid with his American Express card. Geez, is dude really claiming the silly girl was showering him with gifts and he was living within his means... and SHE'S the gold digger. Not saying she isn't over reaching a tad with her claim... sounds like she's trying to make him foot the whole bill for their entertainment rather than his half. Ah, but what's this? She may not have brought her bank statement for the cruise gambling debt, but she says here's his handwritten note promising to pay for the Disney trip plus the extras (like the food and his new $700 Saks designer wardrobe). Ah, the note.... did this genius really sign the bottom of a blank piece of paper and let silly girl fill in the top with what she wanted? I'm really not liking dude.... And what's with defendant's witness? Not sure what his role is in this, or why MM is letting him stand there like a co-defendant. Then he starts interrupting.... dude begging for a slap down, and so far just a light wrist slap from MM. Hmmmmm silly girl is a high school teacher. She's going to win, but won't get what she's asking for. What's with the texts MM is reading? These two charging thousands of dollars on plastic and sending texts complaining about not having lunch money because cards are over the limit!?! Earlier it was plaintiff unable to prove what she was saying about the gambling debt, now it's defendant claiming he's paying for his Disney pass with his card - and unable to back up his claim. Then he says no biggy - yeah, right then why does silly girl have to take you to court to get the money? Ok, rough justice time --- forget the cruise, $700 rent for time he lived with her - no proof -- all the fancy duds from Saks she put on her card for him - he left them at her place when they broke up, she never tried to return them, they're hers to try to return or give to goodwill -- he agreed to pay for all the Disney trip and expenses, MM figures the bill just under 2 grand.
purse was run over: really!? According to intro, defendant to ran over plaintiff's purse - agreed to pay for any damaged items, then refused when she presented him with a $4000 bill (claims it was a designer bag filled with high priced stuff). Defendant is a landscaper - says plaintiff left her bag on the ground in the garage - yeah, he ran over it, but WTH was it doing on the ground - he says he did nothing wrong. If intro is even close plaintiff has no case - even if she can prove any of the stuff she claims was damaged was actually damaged. Whoa, I was thinking this was some rich entitled b*tch, but turns out the two were coworkers for some big landscaping company and the incident happened at work. She tells us she was collecting gas cans from several of the other landscapers, laid her designer bag down, and careless defendant ran over it. Is she really trying to convince us that she carries a purse/contents worth 4 grand around while working for a landscaper (well, I guess she works in the office, but was filling up gas cans for 3-4 other employees landscapers... yeah, I'm sure sure all the office worked carry around almost 5 grand worth of purse/contents when they go to fill up the gas cans)? Sorry, never mind what she was thinking carrying in this fancy bag at work, she just said she laid the bag down next to a lawnmower in the parking lot and defendant ran over it... so, best she can come up with is everything is defendant's fault because he had no business moving his truck around in the parking lot... oh, and after the incident he ended up quitting the job he had had for two years because she made the work place so uncomfortable. Ok, maybe not rich entitled b*tch - maybe just a b*tch who doesn't accept responsibility for her own actions. Her case is going nowhere in a hurry, but MM let's her show her "evidence". Evidence consists of a couple broken iPhones, smashed sunglasses, misc other items - but no fancy designer purse. Huh, why hang on to these items but throw away the purse? And who knows when these items were broken? Seems when college kid ran over the bag she had a hissy fit and kid was sent home for the rest of the day. On the way home he calls his dad, and dad has the text from plaintiff demanding kid replace the broken items - and she wasn't asking for $3900+. He has dad here with him. Plaintiff claims at 1 point dad said they'd pay, but dad and defendant say once they thought about it they couldn't see anything kid did wrong. Time for MM to tell a story about someone stepping on her glasses once upon a time when she took them off and set them next to her on the ground... and she just accepted that it was her own fault, no reason to have a hissy fit and demand someone else pay. Hokay, case dismissed, plaintiff stunned and complains to Doug she didn't get to present her case. Ah, seems she wanted to say defendant offered to settle for $250, then changed his mind - so of course she sued for 4 grand.
homeowner vs contractor: seems simple - homeowner says she hired contractor to do work, gave him a deposit, but the day he was to start he called saying he'd been in a car accident. Months have gone by, he still hasn't done any work, she wants her money back. Ah, she said/he said case. Defendant says he showed up on day he was to start the job, but homeowner wasn't there. Says they arranged to start the next week, but when he went to start he finds she's off to the Caribbean (don't think I heard anything about that after the intro). Hey, he bought the materials, and cleared his schedule and showed up with his crew twice - loosing money both times because she wasn't there - he deserves to keep the deposit. (She's asking for the thousand deposit back plus an extra thousand for aggravation, wasted time and lost wages.) Hmmmm like I said - simple case which will probably come down to whoever has texts saying "where the hell are you?" Ok, maybe not so simple. She makes a good case as she has a text on day he was to start claiming he was in an accident, and will call to arrange a start date later. Then, phone calls instead of texts - and contractor is being contacted by three different people - the plaintiff, her son, and her bf and he says lines of communication were all messed up on her end with messages not getting passed on. He seems to think homeowner had some weird conspiracy going on, where she would send him texts but son and husband would call, so there would be no record of what was said on the phone (and no evidence of these phone calls when MM asks if he has his phone records.). Not sure what he thinks the motive for the conspiracy was... like JJ says, if it doesn't make sense.... ok, seems her own texts disprove part of her testimony. She said work was to start on 18 September, and she asked for her deposit back on 25 October - but her texts show her asking for the thousand back on 25 September - not October. At that time contractor tells her he's already bought materials so can't return her money and tells her he can deliver the materials to her since she wants someone else to do the work. Hmmm sounds reasonable. Ah, but that's all flapping gums, despite repeated requests for any EV-I-DENCE of what he's saying contractor has nada... no phone records, none of the employees he says were at the job site, not even the receipt for the materials he supposedly purchased. Then, as MM reads us the homeowner's text asking get where are you? Contractor interrupts with can I just say something and MM says, no you can't. (Oh, and of course she is not impressed with him when he says 'no contract' when he tries to argue the start date.) Then when he can't stop laughing when MM starts giving him grief for coming with no evidence he gets the boot and homeowner gets the deposit - but not double like she wants.

Edited March 12, 2018 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · March 12, 2018

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

cruise ship deadbeat:

"I'm not stupid," says mush-mouthed, stupid def. Well, had he added, "Compared to my former girlfriend," I would have agreed. These are not lovestruck teenagers, but adults aged 27 and 28. What plaintiff found so irresistable about the mumbling idiot def, I don't know. But plaintiff helped reinforce a sad fact: She's a teacher who says, "Had came" and "fiddy-fi' dollars" and who not only can't speak English properly but is so lacking in judgement and common sense I don't know how she got a teaching certificate. But maybe, like "home healthcare workers" no qualifications or certifications are needed anymore. Neither of them can pay for food or rent, but want what they want right now and really need Fendi bags, etc. And who was def's silly, tiny little friend, standing next to him and shouting out? JM should have had Douglas show him the door.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

purse was run over:

Okay, all these landscapers should be teachers, because all them could at least speak properly, way better than the teacher we saw. Plaintiff had 900$ worth of "essential oils" in her purse? LOL! At least that gave me a laugh today. She needs to carry around a ton of little bottles containing essential oils on her landscaping jobs. She had no idea how ridiculous she sounded. I don't have 4K worth of stuff in my (Walmart) purse, but even so I have never put it down in a parking lot and walked away. Who does that? She should have taken the 250$ def offered her and been grateful for that.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

homeowner vs contractor:

Ugh. Meat-headed, dumbass def took the money and ran. He's a liar but not a good one. "My guys" - as if he has any "guys." Every word he said was BS. Of course he has no evidence, because - duh - there is none. Such an asshole was he that JM couldn't stand looking at his stupid meat-head grin anymore and threw him out. What really bothers me is that he's not actually going to have to pay the money back since the show will do that. I just hope that everyone in his area saw this and that no one ever calls him again for a job and he was so despicable and such a jerk I hope he ends up homeless.

Edited March 12, 2018 by AngelaHunter
because I can't spell after wine

Florinaldo · March 12, 2018

18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

maybe just a b*tch who doesn't accept responsibility for her own actions.

I have no problem with someone carrying around expensive luxury items in their oversize bags to pretentiously impress people they meet, although I am sure she inflated their value for this case. But once you decide to do that, assume the risks and do not do something as stupid as putting said purse on the floor in a busy garage and then try blaming someone else for your own negligence! I am sure that she threw a hissy fit, to which the young defendant did not really know how to react; he also implied she is close to the owner or manager of the business which would have added to his discomfort.

In the hallterview she played the frequent disrespect card. Today, people have such really thin skin that they feel "disrespected" when the wind changes direction. In this case, the defendants decided, wisely, that their offer of 250 $ was excessive because the young man was not at fault. Oh, the odious crime of lese-majesty! You were quite correct in characterising her as a b*tch.

Since this occurred in a business, shouldn't she have brought her case against the company? Unless she did not want to compromise her relationship with the owner or her employment.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Florinaldo

Broderbits · March 12, 2018

Regarding 1st case defendant and 2nd case plaintiff, I'd like to know who they're trying to impress with such unfortunate designer label mania. They must think it makes them "classier", but as soon as they speak that idea is blown straight to hell. By all means go on national tv and let the world know exactly how stupid and petty you are, exactly the kind of mark the label business is looking for. Suckers!

AngelaHunter · March 12, 2018

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

In the hallterview she played the frequent disrespect card.

"Disrespect" has become nearly as serious a crime as name-calling and both have become the basis for court cases.

VartanFan · March 13, 2018

Regarding the purse-bloating mania - I would suspect that the owner of the business really should have submitted this to the business insurance. Also, particularly the business phone, I’d suspect would be the owner’s responsibility. The other stuff? Who has that shit in their purse...and then brings it to work.....and then puts it on the ground?? Huh?

meowmommy · March 13, 2018

On 3/11/2018 at 2:49 PM, AEMom said:

I'm all caught up! SRTouch's adorable little Furby reminds me of my long departed kitty. They have similar adorable faces. Mine was a good cat, I miss him sometimes, even though he's been gone over 20 years. I never got another after that, because it was too hard when I lost him.

So sorry. I lost my adorable angel (see my avatar) 11 months ago and I said I'd never get another cat. I lasted two weeks. I still cry for him all the time, but my new kitties are like balm on a raw, raw wound.

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

"I'm not stupid," says mush-mouthed, stupid def.

Mush-mouth doesn't begin to describe this moron. At least I can turn on the closed captioning. Poor MM has to sit and decipher these assaults on the vernacular in real time, without a translator. And if he said "to be honest with you" one more time, MM should have demanded his tongue get notarized.

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She's a teacher who says, "Had came" and "fiddy-fi' dollars" and who not only can't speak English properly but is so lacking in judgement and common sense I don't know how she got a teaching certificate.

Maybe she's a "teacher's assistant," and holds herself out as a teacher the way some HHAs and CNAs pretend to be nurses.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I'm sure sure all the office worked carry around almost 5 grand worth of purse/contents when they go to fill up the gas cans)

And who the hell leaves their purse unattended even when there's only 20 bucks in it, much less $4k. I wouldn't be worried about it getting run over but getting pinched. I don't know how the kid, doing his job the way he was supposed to, would ever be liable for something completely unforeseeable. No way should he ever expect a purse to be in his path. And as Florinaldo and VartanFan said, when you commit a tort in the course of your work, usually it's your employer who's responsible. I love that the audience applauded when the verdict was announced! Too bad there was no basis for a countersuit.

43 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"Disrespect" has become nearly as serious a crime as name-calling and both have become the basis for court cases.

Nowadays it's an excuse all the way up to pulling out the guns.

teebax · March 13, 2018

Thank goodness the articulate plaintiff in case three was also a teacher. Maybe she counter balanced thr bad impression of teachers left by the first plaintiff, who didn't sound like any of my colleagues.

I have a Philadelphia Eagles Dooney bag, purchased as a birthday gift by my partner last year. There's no way in hell I'd put it on a driveway, hurrying or not.

Regarding the cruise taste, did you catch the deadbeat boyfriend bragging about his Rolex? I wonder which desperate woman bought it for him. Either that, or it's a Feauxlex.

howiveaddict · March 13, 2018

Funny she had all the crap from her purse, ( and the chi straightener didn't look that damaged) but didn't have a picture of the purse or kept the purse. She probably threw the chi down to make it look damaged. Her "designer" purse was probably bought by someone selling them on a street corner. As for essential oils? Who carries around all that kind of crap. Also, is the work phone was in her purse, then the owner should have been mad at her for leaving it on the ground. Also, It kind of sounded like owner and her had a thing going.

AngelaHunter · March 13, 2018

On 3/11/2018 at 5:49 PM, AEMom said:

, I happened to catch the above and I was so surprised that AngelaHunter would write tooken, but now that I've seen the episode, it all makes sense and all is right in the world. Phew! :-)

I'm surprised I don't say tooken by now, after watching these court shows all these years.

16 minutes ago, teebax said:

Thank goodness the articulate plaintiff in case three was also a teacher.

In my memory she's the first teacher we've seen on this show who doesn't have awful grammar.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Maybe she's a "teacher's assistant,"

An assistant, a substitute or even a nursery school teacher should not be saying "had came". The horrific grammar of litigants always had me wondering how they could possibly have gone to school and speak that way. Now I see exactly how.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

So sorry. I lost my adorable angel (see my avatar) 11 months ago and I said I'd never get another cat.

Awww. I lost my 17-year old "special boy" last July. I still have his 21-year old mother who, in spite of living with me the last 16 years, remains defiantly feral, convinced I'm the "Cat Murderer" except when she's hungry and stands in the doorway and screams at me. I never ever went and got a cat. They've always just appeared on my doorstep.

Silver Raven · March 13, 2018

What does one do with essential oils, especially carrying them in one's purse?

meowmommy · March 13, 2018

53 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

The horrific grammar of litigants always had me wondering how they could possibly have gone to school and speak that way. Now I see exactly how.

My seventh-grade English teacher would have ordered up either fifty lashes with a wet noodle, or a karate chop to the Adam's apple (her two favorite threatened punishments for bad grammar). I was pretty literate before I entered her class, but I came out of that year with an deep understanding of grammar and sentence structure that has served me very well over the subsequent almost-fifty years. But when I saw my teacher a number of years after I finished college, she complained that by then, the 1980s, she wasn't getting the type of student who wanted to learn, nor the type of parent who wanted their child to learn, rather than graduate. I had nursing instructors who supposedly had college degrees but who only knew nursing, not grammar and syntax. So drop that down to non-professionals like most of our litigants here, and don't be surprised when they don't know and don't care how the language was designed to be used.

Edited March 13, 2018 by meowmommy
Because if I'm going to bitch about grammar, I'd better get mine right.

Jamoche · March 13, 2018

15 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Regarding the purse-bloating mania - I would suspect that the owner of the business really should have submitted this to the business insurance. Also, particularly the business phone, I’d suspect would be the owner’s responsibility. The other stuff? Who has that shit in their purse...and then brings it to work.....and then puts it on the ground?? Huh?

I could see the insurance company saying that the employee's property was damaged through her own negligence, so that wasn't covered.

SRTouch · March 13, 2018

bad hair day: (hair cases - I just don't get the point) plaintiff says she went to salon for a weave and ended up with a permanent bald spot on the side of her head. What struck me early on was her talons in the preview clip. Defendants claim the case is just a shake down. Say plaintiff waited a month and a half before complaining. Hmmm wonder what was going on as defendants came in. Camera was on plaintiff, but we see Douglas heading towards defendant's side, then the audience turns to watch, finally plaintiff turns.... ah, apparently the third member of the defendant's group peels off and sits in the back row - which meant people had to shift around to make room. Actually, looks like maybe they brought in a chair just for her, as she looks to be behind the back row. Anyway, plaintiff claims salon did the weave too tight. Defendant says nope, plaintiff has alopecia - the weave had nothing to do with the hair loss. Quicky google search and I learn that LOTS of people, 20%, have alopecia, which is basically the sudden occurrence of bald spot (s). So, hope plaintiff has an expert or something from a doctor saying that her hair loss was caused by the hair stylist. Oh dear, these litigants may be the type who settle things by physical altercations. Plaintiff barely gets started with her opening before defendant is cautioned about interrupting... maybe #3 of defendant's group was stuck in the back of the room to keep poor Douglas from being overwelmed if they start snatching wigs. Anyway, I just don't get folks who pay good money to sit in a chair for hours while someone pulls their hair. This girl tells us she spent weeks in discomfort, and made several trips back to the salon because her weave was tight.... hmmm I suspect she spends a lot of time in front of the mirror getting her eyebrows, makeup, wig, talons, etc to look just right. About all I'm getting from her testimony is that she came in several times complaining about the weave being too tight, and the stylist and salon owner didn't appear any to concerned about their customer. She has several pictures - guess she has multiple bald spots. Going back to my Google search, a type of alopecia is called traction alepecia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traction_alopecia which is caused by hair being continuously pulled and is reportedly the most common reason for hair loss for African American women. Oh, and the article says is a "substantial risk" caused by hair weaves... soooo, not only does the weave cost a lot, is uncomfortable to point of being painful, take hours to be done, but there's a chance you'll develop bald spots. Sounds like plaintiff sort of assumed the risk when she parked her butt in the chair and asked for a weave. Ah, but did she really come back several times complaining it was too tight only to have salon ignore her complaints? Ok, when they start talking about how weaves are done, tension here but not there, etc I'm lost and reaching for the remote. When I stop MM is reading a doctor's report - hey, traction alopecia just like I diagnosed after 2 minutes on google! Despite what plaintiff said about stylist ignoring her complaints, stylist apparently worked with her, even making her a wig - free (and stylist says the wig costs more than what she was charged for the weave). Plaintiff takes the wig, was happy - in fact she's wearing the wig in court... whoa, sounds like a settlement was made when she accepted the wig - yet she's in court asking for 5 grand. More nonsense which I zip through. Case dismissed. Silly defendant wants to interrupt and ask questions while MM is ruling in her favor.... hmmm was there maybe a countersuit for slander or something?
Bait and switch move: plaintiff says he hired defendant's company to move him, paid in advance, then after the move his credit charge had additional charges which just about doubled the price. Says when he questioned the extra charge, he was told it was because an extra worker was sent to the job. Huh? Why would he be charged extra? Shouldn't that be on the moving company? Hold on says little moving lady. Says the estimate was based on information plaintiff provided. When movers showed up it was a much bigger job than he told them, so the movers called for reinforcements after telling plaintiff it was going to cost more. This will either be a quick and easy case, or a lot of yakity yak - depending on whether they had a contract. One thing, little moving lady didn't bring any of the workers, so unless she has some evidence (like texts or a contract). Ok, plaintiff says all that was added to the original estimate was 1 lamp and a bundle of clothes. Defendant says that's a lie... but she wasn't there - does she have affidavits from people who were there? I'm not impressed with little lady, who apparently thinks if she talks fast enough she'll just overwelm us with words. Estimate was made over the phone based on number of rooms needing to be moved. Well, she says, when the workers got there there was lots more stuff... ok, I can see that happening - workers could show up expecting normal house and find a hoarder situation. She wants to testify about what the foreman told her... nope, hearsay, he needs to be here or an affidavit (least MM sometimes reads affidavits or even calls missing witnesses). Ok, defendant has a speed motor mouth, while across aisle plaintiff is going to talk about what he wants to, and ignore MM's questions. Finally MM calls up the wife, since dude isn't answering. Ok, definite disconnect here - somebody is lieing. Plaintiff side says they never agreed to an increase in price - says first they knew about it was when Discover texted them to alert them that card was being charged double what they had agreed to. Defendant says no way, they consented to the increase - and their text from Discover is a lie because the card hadn't even been submitted when they claim Discover texted them. Still, defendant and her claims are hamstrung as she really has no first hand knowledge - in fact she's now claiming plaintiff never called complaining of the increase. More speed motor mouth - I'm so over trying to make sense of her, I just want to know if plaintiff has a text from Discover which she says could not possibly exist. Instead of asking for the text, MM brings defendant up so she can go through the overages and explain how the low ball estimate ballooned... and I'm not buying her yakity yak. Hundreds of extra dollars for wrapping get furniture - when she says they always wrap the furniture... overtime for extra man hours would make sense if they called and extra guy came to help - but plaintiff says extra guy came in the same truck when they first arrived. Doesn't take long before MM is telling defendant she thinks they overcharged - but she also tells plaintiff she thinks there was more than just a lamp and clothes. She asks plaintiff what he thinks would have been fair, and he says maybe $200 (quite an increase, wasn't original quote under $500). And that's what she goes with - she orders defendant to return all the extra charge except $200.
Used car deal: plaintiff bought a car from defendant with understanding that dealer would fix a damaged mirror - 3 months have gone by and all he's gotten is excuses - wants just over a grand for the mirror repair. Defendant agrees they promised to fix the mirror, says all dude needs to do is bring the car in - she'll even give him a loaner to drive while the work is being done - but dude doesn't want her shop to fix it, instead he wants the money to take it elsewhere. Sort of like the last case - not sure why the dealer sent this woman to be the litigant. Seems she's the general manager at the dealership, and I would have thought someone from the service department would have made more sense. Oh well, she's young, might be attractive if she wasn't so blank faced all the time - and her appearance allows plaintiff to insert foot in mouth by calling her the "finance girl." (When case started she said she was the general manager - now she says finance manger - ah, owner's daughter.) This promises to be a short one, as first couple ran long. Ok, doesn't take long before this looks like a frivolous case. First - to me it's perfectly reasonable for the dealer to insist on their service department doing the work. Then, as soon as plaintiff starts talking we learn he not only wants the defendant to pay someone else to do the work, but he wants them to pay the bank fees because he couldn't afford the purchase and wrote rubber checks because they didn't give him the money to make the repair. Huh? How could the dealer possibly be held liable for $400 in fees when dude is writing bad checks? Apparently dude started having second thoughts from the beginning. He found a couple minor cosmetic things he wanted fixed, dealer did the repairs, but had to return later for a part for the mirror. He signs the contract - goes home and stews about it - comes back and complains about the wording of the contract. No biggie, dealer wants to keep him happy, so rewords the contract and actually reduces the price $400 - new contract signed. Okkkkk so dealer ordered a part and told him to come back in a week and they'd repair/replace the mirror.... ah, that's the rub. Seems he keeps getting the runaround - need to order it, it's on order, will be in next week - 2 months go by and no mirror. Even checks on ebay and finds he could order it himself, but dealer apparently can't get it. Over to defendant to find out what their take is.... and just like last time, the person who dealt with the customer isn't here so nobody on defense side has first hand knowledge. What she's saying is that he was insisting on OEM part from Hyundai, and they wanted to use aftermarket part. Says it wasn't that they didn't have a replacement part - when they offered the aftermarket part he refused and wanted original equipment. Ah, he says they didn't have the part - they were waiting to find one on a wreck. Again, not having first hand knowledge cripples the defense when she has to admit she really doesn't know what the repair would cost. MM is ready to do some rough justice - and will have to go with plaintiff's estimate of repair since defendant has no clue. So, plaintiff gets $675. Oh, and of course all he for rubber checks is a chuckle.

Edited March 13, 2018 by SRTouch

DoctorK · March 13, 2018

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

a permanent bald spot on the side of her head

Plaintiff throughout the case kept repeating that her hair loss was permanent, but in the hallterview she said she was doing fine, getting her hair loss treated, and it was growing back. So much for $5000 worth of permanent hair loss. Also, several of her pictures from before this weave looked like she had extremely thin hair (almost none) in patches on the sides of her head. So much for proving her case.

AngelaHunter · March 13, 2018

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad hair day:

I thought we were just getting a regular ho-hum Weave War case, but then we see the video. Plaintiff appears so dainty and demure here but the vid shows her viciously battling on the street like a wild beast. OMG. Whoa! Frightening. I went to high school - a big high school - and never, ever saw two girls fighting like savage animals or fighting at all. Is this something in style, trendy now?

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Bait and switch move:

Definitely bait and switch, but little def got thrown under the bus, has no knowledge of what happened that day - not one of the three people there wanted to show up today - was annoying as hell and I couldn't understand most of what she said.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Used car deal:

I was trying to understand how such a young girl - and yeah: To me she's a young girl - got the job of "financial manager" (or whatever she called herself) at a car dealer. Surprise! Daddy owns the dealership. But Daddy didn't bother showing up to help out his baby today, and she doesn't have the answers since plaintiff thought he'd get new factory parts for his used car OR they never intended to replace the mirror and just hoped the little dweeb would go away. Reminds me of my friend who used her insurance to get a new factory door for her 13-year old Toyota. I didn't get the part about him expecting someone else to pay because he writes checks but has no money to honour them. Really?

Broderbits · March 13, 2018

Oh Judge Millian! You took that last plaintiff to task for slurring the word "mirror", but it drives me crazy when you add an extra syllable to "chimney". Heal thyself!

teebax · March 13, 2018

21 hours ago, teebax said:

Not sure how that happened!

Edited March 13, 2018 by teebax

seacliffsal · March 13, 2018

Interestingly enough, JM referenced Chris Rock's documentary on African-American hair "Good Hair" which was on HBO when I was flipping through channels after watching the People's Court after work. So, I watched it-really interesting and sad at the same time. Natural hair is beautiful; but, many people want to change things about themselves.

teebax · March 14, 2018

59 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

Interestingly enough, JM referenced Chris Rock's documentary on African-American hair "Good Hair" which was on HBO when I was flipping through channels after watching the People's Court after work. So, I watched it-really interesting and sad at the same time. Natural hair is beautiful; but, many people want to change things about themselves.

I went natural three years ago, and I'm glad I did. I'll never go back to processing, braiding, weaves, etc. But I do understand why some of my sisters do it. When I was in corporate America, I rarely saw black women wearing their hair in natural styles. Thankfully that's changing. My wallet is happier, and I love getting ready to leave the house in 30 minutes instead of an hour.

The moving company was ridiculous and shady. They don't make enough already? They have to rip off people. I'm glad I have friends who work for beer, served after the move, of course!

I had no problem with his pronunciation of mirror. But I'm a Philly girl, so I say it the same as he does. Picking on pronunciation is a little beneath MM and unfair. You should hear how I say water! I've heard her funky pronunciations of words, too.

BTW, someone called her "miss" today, and she said nothing. I was surprised. I assume she was too busy talking over the litigant, which she does CONSTANTLY, to notice. She asked mirror dude what kind of car he bought and immediately cut him off. We only found out Hyundai later.

Edited March 14, 2018 by teebax
Drunk typing

aemom · March 14, 2018

The cruise/Disney/Cirque de Soleil fiasco: The couple where yet ANOTHER foolish woman buys the love of a man. Seriously, how has the human race evolved so badly that countless women feel the need to buy the love of a man no matter what the cost. And not even a GOOD man! In the end she got part of it back, which was fair, since she needs to take some of the responsibility for her stupidity. Please can we put these cases out to pasture along with the 2nd hand cars that people regret buying?

The purse. I don't get it at all. It was unclear whether or not she works in the office or is one of the people who goes out to actually landscape. If she actually landscapes, why on earth are you lugging an expensive purse around containing so many expensive things that you have to leave in the truck? Why don't you leave some of that stuff at home and save your fancy purse for the weekends? Aren't you worried about stuff getting stolen? "I'm an idiot for leaving it on the ground, so pay me for my stupidity, and not just the $250 that I don't deserve, but let's round it up to a nice 4K because you "disrepected" me." Dumbass got exactly what she deserved - nothing!

The contractor knows nothing about doing business because he had no contract, no receipts, no proof. You can't fix stupid.

The hair case. As I was fast forwarding through the commercials, it struck me about how many black women I've seen on this show with braid and weave and wig disputes and I realized that these wigs and styles seem to be very predominant in the culture and I was curious as to why. And then MM mentions a Chris Rock special referring to just that. I haven't seen the special, and I am still curious.

The moving bill did seem very inflated so that final amount was probably fair.

The case with the car mirror - it was obvious after a while that they were just waiting for a wreck to show up and it was clear that he was the spoiled type who wanted a new one. I also thought MM was kind of mean picking on people's accents. Around here, for Hyundai we say "Hi-oon-die" and not "Hi-oon-day" like MM said. Different regions sometimes have different pronunciations. For the word "library," I always wondered why my mom said "lye-bree" instead of "lye-brare-rie" until I found out a few years ago that mom's way is the British pronunciation (though my mom is not British). I don't know - maybe that's why so many litigants say "axed."

I never, ever watch the case intros anymore because so often they talk about stuff that turns out to have nothing to do with the case. I don't know why they are filled with so much fiction.

Edited March 14, 2018 by AEMom
Typo

meowmommy · March 14, 2018

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

plaintiff says he hired defendant's company to move him, paid in advance, then after the move his credit charge had additional charges which just about doubled the price. Says when he questioned the extra charge, he was told it was because an extra worker was sent to the job.

I couldn't tell if this was local or long distance, although it sounded like local. I just finished a cross-country move, using the same company that did my local move. My local move was strictly hourly, so there was a direct correlation between the number of movers they sent and the amount I paid, but at the same time, the more movers, the faster the move, so it came out the same, I think. All I needed to tell them in advance were the coming and going addresses and whether there'd be stairs and appliances. And even though they were hourly, they worked hard and they worked fast, which is why I booked them for my cross country move. My long distance move was based on weight, but no way did they take an inventory over the phone. A representative of the company came to my house and I showed him what was already packed and what would be going, and I received a binding written estimate from that. Paid half on moving out day and the other half when they loaded up to bring me my stuff. No hidden or surprise charges. The move went like butter. I feel bad for this plaintiff who got the movers from hell. Oh, and defendant looked like a Pekingese.

Katy M · March 14, 2018

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I couldn't tell if this was local or long distance, although it sounded like local. I just finished a cross-country move, using the same company that did my local move. My local move was strictly hourly, so there was a direct correlation between the number of movers they sent and the amount I paid, but at the same time, the more movers, the faster the move, so it came out the same, I think. All I needed to tell them in advance were the coming and going addresses and whether there'd be stairs and appliances. And even though they were hourly, they worked hard and they worked fast, which is why I booked them for my cross country move. My long distance move was based on weight, but no way did they take an inventory over the phone. A representative of the company came to my house and I showed him what was already packed and what would be going, and I received a binding written estimate from that. Paid half on moving out day and the other half when they loaded up to bring me my stuff. No hidden or surprise charges. The move went like butter. I feel bad for this plaintiff who got the movers from hell. Oh, and defendant looked like a Pekingese.

I remember seeing this story on 20/20 quite a few years back on how a lot of movers will lowball on the estimate and then give all sorts of reasons, like tolls, weight differences, fuel surcharges, etc, for the reason. And, we're talking major price differences. Not like 10 or 15%. And, if you didn't pay them when they got to your new home, they just went and put your stuff into storage until you paid the higher price, plus storage cost. They posed as customers and actually had 5 different companies move them, and I think 4 out of the 5 companies raised the price by a lot. Or maybe it was 3 and 1 of them raised by a little. I don't really remember, it was a long time ago, but I remembered thinking that if I ever hired movers, I was going to have to be very, very careful.

aemom · March 14, 2018

36 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I remember seeing this story on 20/20 quite a few years back on how a lot of movers will lowball on the estimate and then give all sorts of reasons, like tolls, weight differences, fuel surcharges, etc, for the reason. And, we're talking major price differences. Not like 10 or 15%. And, if you didn't pay them when they got to your new home, they just went and put your stuff into storage until you paid the higher price, plus storage cost. They posed as customers and actually had 5 different companies move them, and I think 4 out of the 5 companies raised the price by a lot. Or maybe it was 3 and 1 of them raised by a little. I don't really remember, it was a long time ago, but I remembered thinking that if I ever hired movers, I was going to have to be very, very careful.

That's scary. I did two long distance moves 25 years ago and I paid exactly what was on the contract with one small exception on the 2nd move. When I complained on the customer survey, they reimbursed me.

Either things have changed, or I was very lucky.

seacliffsal · March 14, 2018

When I made my cross-country move, I paid deposit and then the rest at the end of the move. The company called me later and wanted to charge me an additional $6,000 for additional charges. Like that was going to happen. I told them that all charges were included in the contract that I had and if they charged my credit card I would dispute it. They did not charge me the additional amount. I think that they may try this tactic until they find people who do make the additional payment. Horrible.

Let me add-I know that there are reputable and honest movers just like there are honest people in all professions. However, what we get on the court shows are usually the questionable/shady professionals.

Edited March 14, 2018 by seacliffsal
because not all movers are dishonest

Schnickelfritz · March 14, 2018

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 2:39 PM, SRTouch said:

Then, as soon as plaintiff starts talking we learn he not only wants the defendant to pay someone else to do the work, but he wants them to pay the bank fees because he couldn't afford the purchase and wrote rubber checks because they didn't give him the money to make the repair. Huh? How could the dealer possibly be held liable for $400 in fees when dude is writing bad checks?

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 4:32 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't get the part about him expecting someone else to pay because he writes checks but has no money to honour them. Really?

Actually, at the very end of the case, it came out that it wasn't fees for rubber checks. It was for what was listed as "bank fees" on his car contract. He decided that was illegal. Guess he decided that he might as well give it a shot as that tactic worked to get the other fee removed from the first contract. And I thought my MIL was good at that game. He could give lessons.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Schnickelfritz

SRTouch · March 14, 2018

doggy disaster: had to use the description from DirecTV - expected usual dog fight/attack with normal irresponsible owner insisting "not my sweety". Nah, this time it's a neighbor dispute - but still have the requisite irresponsible owner. Plaintiff is the grumpy old dude who complains about people/dogs in his yard. Defendant is dog owner who takes her sweety out on long lead and lets it do its business in gumpy's yard. Incident grump is suing about - sweety's long lead got tangled around a water line in grumpy's yard - caused a leak - plumber charged couple hundred bucks - sweety's rude owner refuses to pay. Defendant doesn't dispute fact that her dog's lead may have gotten tangled causing the pipe to break. Her argument is that at the time her dog was playing with grumpy's pup - with his knowledge/ permission. She says real reason for the lawsuit is that grumpy has asked her out several times, and she has no wish to date him. Besides, she claims pipe was old and may have already been cracked. Once testimony begins, dude has totally implausible story. Says when she comes walking her dog down the street she walks by him as he's standing in his driveway heading to his back yard. Says he asks her where she's going, and she says her dog wants to check out his backyard. He follows her and her dog around to the back, then when sweety stops to smell the roses he tells her to get her mutt out of his flowerbeds. At that point MM has to stop him and ask him if he realizes how crazy he sounds. Doesn't take MM long to establish grumpy might also be an irresponsible dog dude. Seems his dog was sniffing around in his front yard, unleashed - but his pup would NEVER leave his yard, he even has letters from neighbors supporting his claim. Over to defendant - she says she often sees him as she takes her dog on her daily walks, and frequently stops to visit. Says as they were talking the dogs start playing - in the front yard. Both agree that as the dogs are running around playing her dog's leash gets wrapped around a PVC pipe in the yard and the pipe breaks. Earlier grumpy argued the leash law with the judge - his dog doesn't need a leash because the law says his dog needs to be leashed or under his control - and of course his dog is so well trained it is always under control. Now he questions why his jurisdiction/code enforcement requires home owners to have this pipe sticking up. He says it's a check valve, and he can't understand why it's required. Anyway, grumpy agrees the two dogs were playing, even says he suggested she unleash her dog so they could run around. Says damage caused by the leash, so defendant liable for full plumber bill. Defendant says dogs were playing together, they should split the repair cost. Oh dear, grumpy is all over the place in his story. First he was telling us how they were in the back yard and he was yelling "get your dog out of my flowerbed" - then we find out incident was in front yard. He just told us he suggested she let her dog off leash, now he's saying he told her she needed to keep her dog on a tight leash. Thing is, I think the opinionated grump probably did, at one time, yell about the dog in the flowers, suggested she let the dog off leash so they could play, AND at some other time suggested she ditch the retractable leash and go with a short leash... he seems to be a know it all willing to tell everybody how he thinks they need to act. Now, as we go to commercial we hear defendant suggest the "man scorned" theory - she turned down his dating requests and lawsuit is retaliation. Hmmm, maybe so... he sure emphasized that, while they communicated when she was walking her dog, they never dated. When we get back from break, we see video she took of his unleashed dog greeting her dog - and BTW, video of his dog leaving his yard and going into the street. Little time for MM to give him grief about his declaration that his dog NEVER goes off his property, and how that's why the leash law is there - dogs will be dogs. Anyway, MM agrees with defendant, they should split the bill. Oh, and when she asks (as you know she would) he admits he DID ask defendant out and was turned down.
dudes made singer lousy video: right from the get go I'm half convinced this is a publicity seeking case. Plaintiff all decked out like she's ready to perform, and beaming at defendants during intro while she's being described as impossible to please. Singer is named Ty Blue, and if you google 'ty blue singer' you find her - has youtube video channel, too. Guess she's been trying to break into the music business for awhile. Says video had lots of problems - asked for many editing changes which were not done - suing for $800+ refund. Wow, another fast talker that MM has to rein in and tell to slow it down. I'm not sure what she expected for her thousand dollars, but sounds like she wanted multiple reshoots until she got what she wanted. First shoot her prop wasn't deliver in time - second shoot she was injured and wasn't happy with her dancing. Lots of revisions - she has a document listing what she wanted changed, but defendant says he never received the detailed document, just a phone call with some suggested changes. First take was early May, they're still making revisions and not responding to her in October when she hires a lawyer to get them off their duffs - but you see they're college boys and were busy. They decide she's something of a diva, and dump her as a client. They offer to return all the raw footage, their edits, etc. so that she can get someone else to edit it to her satisfaction. Sounds simple, but she says they kept promising her the raw foorage, but never delivering. Finally, after weeks of broken promises, she got fed up and sues. Ah, still thinking this is publicity seeking case how many times do they need to repeat the name of the song? Not really sure how Dropbox works, but dude says everything is in his Dropbox, but also that he can't give it to her today... huh? If it's in his Dropbox why can't he log on and download it today? More stalling? Anyway, MM agrees defendants are making this way harder than it needs to be, and order they refund $300
concrete dude wants his money: plaintiff says he was hired to seal defendant's driveway/parking lot - he did the job - defendant seemed happy when job was completed - still waiting to be paid. Defendant says dude did a lousy job that needed to be redone. Of course, no written/signed contract between this business owner and the condo association president. Anyway, when contractor did the job he forget the nozzle he uses to spray the sealer, so he squeegeed it on - which he claims is actually better than the spray. Says when he finished defendant asked him to do it a second time. He tries to gloss over that request, but MM stops him and asks if he was so happy with the job, why would he request a second coat. He has no idea, guesses defendant thought it would last longer with two coats but he didn't ask why he wanted a second coat. Says defendant didn't complain until two days later, when he left a voicemail. Over to defendant, who says the major complaint was that contractor didn't repair the 6 potholes as per their agreement (they did have a written proposal/estimate - just nothing signed). Says when he asked about the potholes as dude was doing the squeegee application, contractor said he didn't have the materials with him, and would return to do the potholes later. Ok, now the second coat might make sense. Had it been me, I would have thought the sealant needed to go on after the holes were filled. So, yeah, I'd ask if dude was going to apply a second coat after he filled the holes. And, yes, he did hire someone else to redo the job - cost almost double, too, so cheap getting expensive. We have before and after pictures and video - no question job looks much better after it was done by other company, but was what contractor did worth the $700 he was charging versus the $1300 other guy charged when he put the second coat on top. Ah, another conspiracy nut contractor! Defendant went through the trouble of blocking off the parking lot a second time and paying double what first contractor wanted because he wanted to rip off the first guy - not because he was unhappy with the first guy's work. Next we have defendant go through the proposal and list what WASN'T done... whoa, did contractor just say it's up to the customer to get the weeds out of the cracks in the pavement because he "doesn't do grass". Ok, I was already leaning towards accepting defendant's settlement offer of half price, but that just about seals the deal... but we have 10 minutes remaining - there may be a switcheroo coming. Just before break he tells us he didn't bring the material to fill the potholes because he didn't realise he needed it - yet it's written in his estimate. Says he was going to bring it back later - did he go back later and fill the holes? - no, because he didn't get paid - uh, didn't he tells us the first complaint wasn't until two days after he finished? How long did he expect his customer to wait before he went back to fill those fricking holes? And, did he expect the parking lot to stay blocked off until he made the long 20 minutes drive back, or was he going to work around the parked cars? If he keeps yakking I might go with awarding him the $200 off he says defendant made rather than the $350 defendant says was offered. Sooooo, dude doesn' "do grass" and never got around to painting the stripes because... why? Oh, guess the $200 wasn't a settlement offer, but was what he was going to charge to come back and spray on a second coat . Nah, give him the $350 and send him on his way. Ah, but MM is feeling generous - she figures the work he did do is worth $500.

Edited March 14, 2018 by SRTouch
Finished other cases

AngelaHunter · March 14, 2018

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

doggy disaster:

Ugh. Couldn't stand the hard-headed, belligerent, self-righteous old coot. "My dog is under my control at all times, Well, except when it's running into the middle of the street but that's def's fault." Leashes? We don't need no stinkin' leashes. The only victim here is the coot's dog, who he is setting up to get really hurt by a car or another dog but even then, it will be someone else's fault - never his. Whoever said, "With age comes wisdom" never watched this show. Anyway, plaintiff is just ticked off that def - quite sensibly - has no interest in a personal relationship with nasty coot.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

dudes made singer lousy video: right from the get go I'm half convinced this is a publicity seeking case. Plaintiff all decked out like she's ready to perform,

I kind of agree, although we often see women on this show decked out like they are heading directly to perform in Vegas after the show. That was one elaborate wig plaintiff was sporting.

The boy defs were annoying. "I'm a full-time student" and blah blah. I believe there is still no special dispensation for students or sainted single mothers. That's your choice and your problem and should have no impact on anyone who pays for what you agree to do.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

concrete dude wants his money:

Plaintiff was kind of sympathetic until he started with the, "Well, I forgot the tool I needed for the job for which I expected 700$ in payment, oh, and I also forget the material I needed to fill the holes. I'll get around to it. Pay me." I would have lost confidence too, but still he needed to paid something for the work he did. Def is the head of the condo association, yet seems to act independantly of any board decisions and never bothers with contracts.

Edited March 14, 2018 by AngelaHunter

meowmommy · March 15, 2018

If MM's going to describe a dog "trollop[ing] on a flower bed," or say that a proposed solution is "imminently fair" instead of eminently, she has no business ever correcting anyone else's choice of words. Doggie defendant needs to lay off the Botox. Of course, so does MM.

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I kind of agree, although we often see women on this show decked out like they are heading directly to perform in Vegas after the show. That was one elaborate wig plaintiff was sporting.

Ya think, with Ty Blue pumped into her electric blue dress? What the hell was hanging from her ears? Dog collars?

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ah, still thinking this is publicity seeking case how many times do they need to repeat the name of the song?

Not only that, but then MM played the video, ostensibly to look at the flaws in the visuals, but the sound somehow needed to be on full blast the whole time MM was talking, drowning out MM, and when MM was finished, plaintiff smirked and allowed the video to continue rather than stopping it. Def #2 looked so much like Potsie that I couldn't take anything he said seriously anyway.

AngelaHunter · March 15, 2018

24 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

the sound somehow needed to be on full blast the whole time MM was talking, drowning out MM, and when MM was finished, plaintiff smirked and allowed the video to continue rather than stopping it.

I wonder how many people agree to appear here in hopes of getting offered some kind of sleazy reality show. They can't dress and act in such outlandish fashion ordinarily, can they? Music had me scrabbling for the remote to turn it down. I have noticed that JM seems entranced with anyone who claims to be in the music business, no matter how unknown or unsuccessful they are.

teebax · March 15, 2018

I thought the song was catchy. It sounded better than all that crappy auto tune stuff my students seem to love.

Edited March 15, 2018 by teebax

DoctorK · March 15, 2018

58 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

What the hell was hanging from her ears? Dog collars?

Looked to me like the straps on a straight-jacket, appropriately in my opinion.

26 minutes ago, teebax said:

I thought the song was catchy.

Catchy OK, but nothing out of the ordinary and not leading to million dollar contracts. Like many high school and college athletes who are told that they will be millionaires in NFL/NBA and end up with no fall back position when that doesn't happen.

teebax · March 15, 2018

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Catchy OK, but nothing out of the ordinary and not leading to million dollar contracts. Like many high school and college athletes who are told that they will be millionaires in NFL/NBA and end up with no fall back position when that doesn't happen.

Why do you think she has no fallback plan? She seems fine. She's doing what she loves and deserved to win her case, for which she was prepared.

There are enough litigants deserving of scorn. I just don't get what she did wrong.

AngelaHunter · March 15, 2018

12 hours ago, teebax said:

I thought the song was catchy. It sounded better than all that crappy auto tune stuff my students seem to love.

I think it was that horrible laptop-quality sound, a sound which had me running out to buy real speakers when I got my first laptop. And get off my lawn with that auto tune stuff.

SRTouch · March 15, 2018

play station kerfuffle: whoa, when I read saw case described as "PlayStation Problems" I wasn't expecting plaintiff to be this age - and defendant isn't a kid, either. Case is about plaintiff loaning defendant his PlayStation, and the defendant not returning it despite several demands made over months. Plaintiff is in court suing for replacement cost - not the return. Defendant.... well, I just don't understand people who think like this guy. His defense is that when he learned plaintiff had the PlayStation and has only used it once then stuck it in the closet, he asked if he could buy it. Says plaintiff gave it to him and told him not to worry about paying for it. 6 months later they get into an argument, and suddenly plaintiff demanded it back. No way! It was a gift, and is now his - besides, he's no doubt bought a bunch of games to play on it. To my way of thinking, when I found out someone is suing me over what I thought was a gift, I'd box up the "gift" and return it - depending on how mad I was over being sued, I might include a note telling the gifter to just lose my contact information. Another bit of drama here is that the intro hints that plaintiff may have been trying to buy the younger defendant's affection. Anyway, when plaintiff begins he tells us that he, the defendant, defendant's mom, and a friend all went out to celebrate defendant's birthday. Says during the course of the celebration, he learned defendant was in rehab for heroin addiction. Says he offered to loan defendant his PS4 because he thought it might be therapeutic getting defendant through the craving for drugs. Ok, that sort of makes sense - also would make sense to give him an unused PS system away as a BD gift. Anyway, his testimony is that after 6 months he asked for it to be returned and defendant ignored him. 3 months later plaintiff threatens to take him to court, and defendant tells him the game system is actually with his mommy in a different city (as long as he's slinging mud, plaintiff splashes a little on defendant's sister, saying he was told that mommy had it to keep sis from pawning it) - defendant will need $50 gas money to go get it. Plaintiff loans him the 50 bucks, but defendant takes the money and still no PS. MM asks if any of this correspondence was in text - nah, plaintiff says none of their texts are courtworthy... ah dude, if defendant's defense includes you having the hots for him those texts might end up on national tv shortly. Wow, not sure how much of this sordid mess I want to watch - especially listening to plaintiff drone on. Over to defendant - yeah, I can believe this dude has addiction problems. Geez, I'm no expect on rehab, but as dude is testifying that he was drinking and celebrating his BD I remember plaintiff say he was the designated sober guy... really not sure where defendant, mommy, and friend getting hammered fits into the rehab plan. Really not liking dude - especially when MM suggests that maybe plaintiff was being a nice guy by loaning the system to help the rehab effort, and dude says, no he wasn't being nice and making a loan, he was giving me a gift... uh, to me, a loan would have been nice, a $400 gift much nicer. Later, when talking about the $50 gas money, he says guy frequently gave him money - but, no, he wasn't being nice (actually, he was being foolish, says MM). Also, I don't have much hope for him staying clean - not just the drinking, but he asks, why would plaintiff be so foolish as to give a heroin addict a PS4 - MM asks if he was in rehab - he says sure, but he's clean now... and I'm thinking, for how long? Ahhhhh, now defendant says that the argument was about a Marijuana deal - seems plaintiff shorted him on a MJ deal. Ah, plaintiff dude, say it ain't so! Here you're telling us how you were trying to help the drug addict get/stay sober (well, not sober, exactly, but off H) and you're dealing him Mary Jane. Definitely not, says plaintiff, defendant is habitual, compulsive liar. MM questions defendant on how defendant's defense keeps changing - in his answer to the complaint he asserts argument over an unwanted pass plaintiff made, then it was a gift (plaintiff says today was first time he heard about the "pass" or the "gift"), now, whole new defense - drug deal gone bad. Gotta say, defendant sure has that addict/compulsive liar vibe going. Hoboy, dude has fried to many brain cells - and way he's shifting around (not just in testimony, but physically dancing back and forth) I figure he's using now - not H or booze, but something has him amped up. Really, only 11 minutes gone by... how much longer is this case going to last? Ah, thankfully MM has heard enough and is calling this one early. Ah, but not so fast... first she has to give plaintiff a hard time for being an enabler. And of course he doesn't get replacement cost for a three year old PS... ends 5 minutes early
dummy puts gf's car in his name: ok, yet another idiot registers a car in his name for a gf, only to have her rack up big bucks in parking tickets. When he tries to take away the car he's told gf "donated" it... really, can you donate/sell a car registered in someone else's name? At least this wasn't a case where he was putting his name on the line for a short time acquaintance.... but then how much better is it to know the person for 20 years - and date them for 8 -AND have a kid together. Defendant... again, not sure what her defense is. Agrees it was legally his car - but it was really hers. Admits she got a bunch of tickets. But then he borrowed "her" car, wrecked it, and now she doesn't have a car - so she's the real victim. She has a counterclaim for almost $1900 because of money she spent on maintaining "her" car that he wrecked (actually fried the motor of the 17yo vehicle). Oh, dear, just look at smug smirk on her face during the intro.... and looks like she brought little daughter to watch mommy and daddy duke it out. Little girl sticks around to hear MM explain how mommy and daddy committed insurance fraud. Ok, same ole thing, with the added distraction of the little girl watching parents air their dirty laundry on tv. Mommy and daddy both knowingly lied to the insurance and DMV people to get cheaper rates because of mommy's poor driving record. Mommy is above such mundane things as rules/laws when she parks, so why should she pay her 15 parking tickets? Apparently parking is at a premium at her place, but the spot by the fire hydrate is often free - wonder why? Whole case is sort of disgusting, yet litigants aren't the least bit ashamed and both are smiling and smirking as they explain away the fraud and law breaking - yep, sure daughter is learning a lot. Geez, not interested - need more coffee to watch "parenting 101 class - how not to set an example!" Ok, zip zip through commercial - and I just keep zipping - I do watch a little more when I see little 9yo girl start to testify - seems she went on a ride along with daddy - learned first hand about smoking engines (just keep on driving) driving on bad tires (two flats on multi-state road trip so just call ex-wife asking for money) and driving without having your wallet on toll roads - who needs a license of needs to pay tolls, anyway (actually, unclear if he didn't pay the toll, they DID stop for snacks, so he had some money). Oh, and when daddy keeps driving the car with a smoking engine mommy gives away the old car and gets a new one - wonder who registered the new car? Oh, oh, when the car starts smoking, just check youtube for possible causes, turn around and keep on driving back to NY from NC. Ok, kid is cute, but doesn't belong in court.... zip some more.... mommy loses, has to pay the parking tickets and daddy doesn't have pay for the repairs for the smoking, 17yo engine. Ah, but apparently mommy has decided to kick daddy to curb - tells Doug he will no longer be in daughter's life - another life lesson will be whether or not daddy fights to maintain a relationship with the little girl. Daddy tells Doug he's finished with mommy, but still sees little girl.... then repeats several times "I need mines, I need mines" indicating he'll pay the traffic tickets with the award money so that he'll keep his own jalopy on the road.
tenant sues landlord: ah, a twist on the normal fight over deposit. This time tenant rents and moves in to a place only to find out landlord knew it was about to be foreclosed on and the tenant was asked to leave. Whoa, say landlord. Yes, place was being foreclosed, but the lease was legal and was grandfathered. Tenant did not have to leave, he could stay til end of lease - no harm no foul. Ah, but tenant expects a bo-NAN-za since the impending foreclosure was not disclosed - he wants 5 grand. Oh, and when he learned about the pending foreclosure he stopped paying rent. He tells us that he's been told his lease is being canceled... uh, no, MM explains - repeatedly but dude isn'the getting it - his lease had expired and was not renewed - so when he was told he needed to move, he had reverted to a month to month tenant and was given a 30 say notice (he's still there). Soooo, dude doesn't think he should pay rent, and wants the security deposit even though he hasn't moved out.... huh? On what planet? - or as JJ would say - not in her America! Ah, we get a chuckle when MM gives him some free advice. She tells him that the new owner should return his security deposit - and he asks her to put that in writing... uh, no, she's not about to rule on some hypothetical case that isn't before her - left unsaid is that there could be more in damage than the security deposit. Did they ever say how many months he withheld rent? Could be the new owner wants him out because he stopped paying rent - he may owe more in rent than the security. Heck, he might not get a chance to sue new owner for rents - he might find himself in housing court being evicted.

Edited March 15, 2018 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · March 15, 2018

48 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

play station kerfuffle:

Okay, first of all: Teebax Alert! for one of the most revolting dental situations we've ever seen here. I was trying to eat dinner and had to keep closing my eyes, which was very inconvenient.

Def. is a freaky inbred mutant, who appeared to be an Alfred E. Neuman double (If Alfred had been a drug addict) jonesing for a fix here. The only words out of his wrecked mouth that I believed is that plaintiff hit on him. Oh, yes he did. No one else on the planet would spend 3 seconds with that freak, unless he thought he might get a little something he couldn't get anywhere else on the planet. Plaintiff just has a big heart and thought def. needed a playstation as therapy, to give him something to do? Wouldn't a job do that? Alfred could have bought his own computer toys. Too bad def's sister and Momma didn't show up here to make the family freak show complete. I really felt sorry for JM here: Unlike the rest of us, she couldn't look away from that mouthful of broken, rotted stumps. Ewww. Even Doug in the Hall didn't want to talk to him.

56 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

dummy puts gf's car in his name:

Honestly! A woman claims that she has no idea what to do with parking tickets! How would she know? She's only 38 years old. She also had no idea that putting the old heap in someone else's name to scam the insurance company is a no-no. "Ohh," she says, all surprised when JM informed her of that. But then, she's the person who wanted to reproduce with the plaintiff, (who begins with a "How ya doin'?" to JM) who had "busted" tires on the 17-year old jalopy, but didn't have no money to fix 'em. The child seemed WAY brighter than either of her parental units, but very sadly it seems Mom coached her to lie. Of course Mom thought it a good idea to have the child there to hear her parents duking it out and being chastised by JM. Licenses to breed are really needed.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tenant sues landlord:

Once again, someone who parked his butt in someone else's property and when he finds out the dwelling is illegal or in foreclosure, suddenly feels that he not only no longer needs to pay his rent but should get back all the rent he paid for entire time he lived there. He should live for free, unlike all the rest of us. And he's still there! Sorry, no lottery win for you today. He wants JM to give him something in writing (he feels he should also get his security deposit although he's living there) but JM was not inclined to do so. I can't believe the bank let the def. live in the house when he hadn't paid the mortgage in two years. Is that usual? Or maybe the place was such a dump the bank felt it would be more of a liability to claim it and felt it was better to hope def. would start ponying up what he owed?

meowmommy · March 16, 2018

Well, this is annoying--couldn't figure out why I wasn't seeing what you're recapping. I finally get back onto TPC, after one day they go back into reruns, finally a couple of days of eps, and today it's being preempted locally by basketball, then next week it's back in reruns again.

Megan · March 16, 2018

Playstation Junkie was definitely fucking the old guy for money. He was relatively clean cut for that Meth mouth.

Katy M · March 16, 2018

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Honestly! A woman claims that she has no idea what to do with parking tickets! How would she know? She's only 38 years old.

Plus the remit information is usually right on the ticket.

DoctorK · March 16, 2018

On 3/15/2018 at 12:14 AM, teebax said:

deserved to win her case

Absolutely, she had her evidence and the defendants were pathetic.

On 3/15/2018 at 12:14 AM, teebax said:

There are enough litigants deserving of scorn. I just don't get what she did wrong.

No scorn, just concern. I have seen quite a few young people (mostly athletes but a few musicians/vocalists) who pursue their dreams but assume that the magic must happen sooner or later, and end up forty years old, still hoping and living hand to mouth, and miserable. I wish this young lady the best, I just hope she has her eyes wide open.

AKA...CJ86 · March 16, 2018

The PlayStation case, we're all in agreement they were doing the dance with no pants. Even though it didn't come up until later, when MM asked about texts and the Plaintiff said something along the lines of they can't be used... I was thinking can't be used because of... dirty pics or dirty language, that confirmed for me, something was going on between the two. I actually believed Defendant, minus the drug deal gone bad, over the Plaintiff.

Ladies, Gentleman, please remember, when a mature gentleman "gifts" you a Playstation, chances are, it isn't out of the goodness of his heart, or for your well being...

Edited March 16, 2018 by CyberJawa1986

Sign In

The People's Court - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

teebax

arejay

zillabreeze

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment