meowmommy April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, SRTouch said: I was in kitchen getting crock pot honey BBQ chicken ready to cook, and, hey, the trailer smells great! ? So, did you make enough for everyone??? Harumph. I feel a cause of action coming on. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: So, did you make enough for everyone??? Harumph. I feel a cause of action coming on. Drats, Frankie was right! Should have never mentioned the chicken, now there won't be enough for sandwiches tomorrow. (My two oldest cats, Spotty, 17yo, and Frank, 16yo, are the only two that will eat human food - though Silly, 2yo, does like a taste of heavy cream when I make ice cream.) Edited April 20, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 37 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Drats, Frankie was right! Should have never mentioned the chicken, now there won'the be enough for sandwiches tomorrow. What's the problem? I'm sure we'll all chip for the cost of our portions. We'll send you the money later by Western Union, cuz none of us has a bank account. Can you put me on your phone plan while I'm there? I had a little tax problem, oh, and a little bank trouble and now I'm not allowed to use my credit card. My 22-year old feral cat - who is deathly afraid of me (unless I'm sitting in my lazyboy chair)- has never tasted a morsel of human food in the 18 years she's been living here, but I think she's getting senile since now she wants to know what I'm eating, and tries to snatch things like potato chips. 4 Link to comment
Broderbits April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: My 22-year old feral cat - who is deathly afraid of me (unless I'm sitting in my lazyboy chair)- has never tasted a morsel of human food in the 18 years she's been living here, but I think she's getting senile since now she wants to know what I'm eating, and tries to snatch things like potato chips. I've known lots of cats who like potato chips and Doritos - it must be the salt. My in-laws had a cat that loved cantaloupe so much that they couldn't leave one out on the counter because he'd rip right into it. But to bring this back to the show, what was that white thing around the hair stylist defendant's neck? Was it supposed to be a necklace? It looked like a strap to hold a hat on her head and was so tight it made me uncomfortable. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 sticky finger handyman: handyman says he was hired by defendant to do various jobs around defendant's property. Says as he was finishing up defendant accused him of stealing $1200 from her bedroom. Now she refuses to pay him the $1435.84 he's owed for his hard work. Defendant says P had just begun work when she noticed her money was gone. Says nobody else had been in her house. Says she fired him, then had to hire someone else to do the work he barely started. Plaintiff testifies they had two separate contracts - $4000 for exterior work and additional $1400 for interior work. Says he and a couple helpers spent a week doing the exterior work and happy customer paid in full. Then he moves inside, and work begins. Lots of painting, prep work, etc another week of work. All the time he's working inside she's home.... right up until the last day, when she leaves to go babysit her grandkids. As she's leaving he tells her work should be completed when she gets home and asks her if she wants to pay before she leaves. Nah, doesn't have the money right then, drop by later. Ah, if we go by his testimony she was happy with his work and was jyst in a hurry to daughter's house to take care of grandkids.... but then MM reads us her texts. Seems what actually happened is that she wasn't really the happy, has a list of complaints of incomplete or sloppy work, and wants those things done before she pays, and oh BTW, she thinks she's already paid too much. Ok, he agrees to come right on over and go over everything, make sure everything is done, go over the original estimates, etc, and see if he can't make her happy. So, he goes back to her place, and is out back taking care of one of those incomplete jobs on her punch list when she comes out accusing him of stealing cash out of her bedroom. MM finds it highly suspicious that a half hour after lady complains of handyman overcharging her, the woman is accusing him of stealing almost the amount she's supposed to have ready to pay him. Hmmmmm, yeah, kind of fishy.... but now it's defendant's turn, so maybe she can turn this around. Welllll, MM doesn't give a chance to say much before she reads us a couple more texts. Dude certainly doesn't sound like a thief - offering to meet her and the police station to let cops investigate, saying he's willing to take a polygraph. Ah, but her ex bf, a career cop, supposedly tells her going to the cops would be a waste of time - he even came here today as a witness to tell MM that. Ok, with the flimsy "he was only one in the house" evidence he would have never been charged with the theft. But she doesn't complain about his not finishing the interior work. Her text mentions a few items she wants done outside before she pays him for the inside work - which he says was completed and she doesn'd dispute. Yep, gotta side with MM on this - D thinks she was overcharged so instead of paying the $1400 she claims he stole $1200. Oh wow, isn't her ex a sterling example of a law enforcement officer when he gets out to Doug ? he's surprised with the decision. dock fee kerfuffle: plaintiff owns the marina where defendant had his boat stored. Apparently, defendant owed marina money, so he sneaks in and tries to motor away from dock without paying - ah, but he forgot your check the tides and ends up running aground in list tide. Ah, defendant says he should have never been charged those storage fees. Says he was up to date, but when he tried to get his boat out of the marina another boat was in the way. Claims he tried several times to get this other boat moved do he could get his boat, and he shouldn't have to pay for storage for the period marina was blocking his boat from the water. Ah, a different kind of case. Oh, marina dude, plaintiff, suing for $315 in back storage, and defendant suing for 61 days worth of missed fishing, $1610. Once you take out the boats and marina (and the daring midnight attempted rescue of the boat being held for ransom), this is really about the storage contract. According to marina dude, defendant was supposed to pay in advance for winter storage, $600, but actually only paid half. Eventually, D finishes paying for winter storage, but P says he waits until July try to get the boat. So he's suing for storage between the end of winter storage and July. Ah, so dispute is when did D actually attempt to pick up the boat. Plaintiff says July, but D says May... evidence anyone? Texts, phone records, anything? Nope just flapping gums - oh, and D brought along wife, saying she was with him a couple times when they went to marina to see if their boat was still blocked in. Plaintiff says boat was blocked in, for maybe 10 days in mid June, but that Defendant could have picked up his boat if he called ahead. Nope, says defendant, boat blocked in beginning in April and it wasn'the until July that other boat was moved. Ok, defendant has pictures showing boat blocked - but they're prints so we don't know if they're taken early May as she claims or after June 20 like P says. Not to be outdone, plaintiff brought along a witness to back up his story - no evidence of anything, just another set of gums flapping. Ah, no evidence of anything except that defendant had boat stored an extra couple months. So, MM and Douglas talk it over and decide it's time for rough justice.... plaintiff gets half of the storage guesspace because there WAS a time when he denied defendant access to his boat - nothing for fishing.... also, we don't get the story of the midnight raid. rental case..... have to come back to it as I'm off to an appointment. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: sticky finger handyman: Big Pussy Bonpensiero vs. the rode-hard-and-put-away-wet evil witch and her "ain't no" cop boyfriend who sounded and looked as though he came from central casting when they requested "Comical cop who sounds like Archie Bunker." The lengths to which some people will go to avoid paying what they owe is always amazing. Who wants to bet that the 'procedure' she had that kept in the house was an eyelift/facelift? Successful it was not. I liked Big Pussy! I'd hire him and believed everything he said. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: dock fee kerfuffle: Then we had Captain Kangaroo is who is a "pure-blooded Portugeuse" (I thought that was a nationality and not a race? What do I know?) suing the grammatically challenged defs for boat storage. Whatever. Only notable part is that def. wants 1000$ compensation for missing out on his fishing days. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: rental case..... have to come back to it as I'm off to an appointment. Plaintiff suing for his rent back. JM is better than I, since I could barely understand him, but def who is a native English speaker wasn't much better, and she was sporting one of the rattiest, jankiest wigs ever seen. She told plaintiff she was moving out and he could sublease her place. Seems she told him she owned it, which of course she denies. She wants JM to believe that someone would pay 600$ to store two bag of clothes in her place and sleep on the floor, because she has no sofa. North America is probably the only place where someone who is homeless can drag around his 55" Smart TV. Gee, I'd like one of those. Def. is a rough, nasty scammer who had no intention of letting plaintiff rent her place and told him not to bother going to the cops since they wouldn't understand anything he said. If JM could, the cops probably could as well but they told him this was a civil matter. Plaintiff left his 55" Smart TV outside while he dashed over to tell the cops about all this. Someone stole it. Maybe it was def. and/or her boyfriend - no doubt - but who knows? He has no proof. Plaintiff gets his 600$ back. Doug was brave, broaching this vile def in the hall. Douglas is so polite, thanking all the litigants when they give him papers, pictures or whatever. I'm such a meanie that I prefer the way Bryd snatches stuff from them, while rolling his eyes at the ridiculous crap they give him. 4 Link to comment
aemom April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 (edited) On 2018-04-18 at 8:19 PM, meowmommy said: And this is why I watch MM and not JJ. MM rocks righteous indignation, while JJ just seems pissed that she has to deal with anyone, including the winning litigant. I agree. I first started watching JJ many years ago on mat. leave (feeding time was usually when her show was on), but I find that she just seems mean and cranky now to absolutely everybody. I remember back during mat. leave when the father was suing his daughter and his daughter was actually a stand-up kid and JJ took the time to really get him to see that. I don't think we would ever see that effort from her anymore. Back to TPC: For the car sale case, broken-arm woman had no shame but every excuse in the book. Glad MM threw the book at her. The phone case was boring as all hell, but they still appear to be civil to each other. The guy with the security deposit appeared to be one of those litigants who just doesn't get it no matter how many times it's explained to them, but appeared to finally figure it out once he was with Doug for the halterview. Thanks to @AngelaHunter, I learned a new word today - nebbish. I've never heard that word before and the definition I googled made me laugh: "a person, especially a man, who is regarded as pitifully ineffectual, timid, or submissive." It seems fairly accurate for the photographer. Your included lunch is whatever you can steal from the breakfast buffet. That's a new one on me. But MM only giving her $5/day for lunch seemed rather stingy. She was definitely entitled to be paid the $1,000 she was promised. For the hair case, she definitely had an allergic reaction to something, but too bad for you. I'm allergic to penicillin - I didn't sue my doctor and the pharmacy when it happened. When we figured that out, I stayed away from penicillin. You only know that you're allergic to something when you first have a reaction. The dog case. Wow, that was a very gruesome injury, and I was surprised to hear that the dog was doing well. At least the defendant seemed sympathetic and pleased that the dog was better, which is better than many of the defendants we see in these dog cases. I think he didn't pay because the bill was expensive. But considering that injury - not surprising. Glad he had to pay. Edited April 21, 2018 by AEMom Typo 2 Link to comment
iwasish April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 My two theories on the contractor case: 1. The ex BF cop took the money and discouraged the woman from calling the cops because “they won’t do anything” 2. The money never existed. She thought she was overcharged and the ex ( using his experiences of 31 yrs of law enforcement) set up the contractor by having the homeowner conveniently leave (only that one day!) and accuse the contractor of a bogus theft. I think he figured the contractor would be so scared of the accusation (after all, as the ex cop said “he was the only one there!!!) that he (the contractor)would just be so glad the cops weren’t being called that he would walk away with the 4K he’d been paid already and disappear. The homeowner would have saved the amount she felt was “excessive” and the ex bf would be back in her good graces (as I suspect he wanted to be, since he’s still around 4 yrs after being dumped). He never thought the contractor would actually be an honest guy and take HER to court!! 8 Link to comment
meowmommy April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ah, but her ex bf, a career cop, supposedly tells her going to the cops would be a waste of time - he even came here today as a witness to tell MM that. Naturally, the cops would have laughed her out of the station, which means of course MM should believe her. 59 minutes ago, iwasish said: The money never existed. She thought she was overcharged and the ex ( using his experiences of 31 yrs of law enforcement) set up the contractor by having the homeowner conveniently leave (only that one day!) and accuse the contractor of a bogus theft. I think he figured the contractor would be so scared of the accusation (after all, as the ex cop said “he was the only one there!!!) that he (the contractor)would just be so glad the cops weren’t being called that he would walk away with the 4K he’d been paid already and disappear. The homeowner would have saved the amount she felt was “excessive” and the ex bf would be back in her good graces (as I suspect he wanted to be, since he’s still around 4 yrs after being dumped). He never thought the contractor would actually be an honest guy and take HER to court!! I think you're absolutely correct in your assessment. She didn't have the money, and she reached out to ex-BF cop (five years broken up and he's still willing to help her commit a crime, which this really is!) to help her scam up a scam. She thought that MM would automatically take the word of the cop vs the contractor, because of course all contractors are lying thieves. Too bad this contractor absolutely told the truth and refused to be bamboozled...and although MM's a former prosecutor and therefore has a good opinion of law enforcement, as she likes to point out, she's also the daughter of a contractor and the sister of contractors. IMO, this should be a case where punitive damages come into play, as this hosebeast, because she'd rather pay for her fake hair color than her fake wall color, deliberately made false claims that could have gotten this innocent contractor arrested and put in jail. Actually, she's probably lucky she never did file that police report, because then she'd be on the hook for filing a false report. 3 Link to comment
iwasish April 21, 2018 Share April 21, 2018 42 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Naturally, the cops would have laughed her out of the station, which means of course MM should believe her. I think you're absolutely correct in your assessment. She didn't have the money, and she reached out to ex-BF cop (five years broken up and he's still willing to help her commit a crime, which this really is!) to help her scam up a scam. She thought that MM would automatically take the word of the cop vs the contractor, because of course all contractors are lying thieves. Too bad this contractor absolutely told the truth and refused to be bamboozled...and although MM's a former prosecutor and therefore has a good opinion of law enforcement, as she likes to point out, she's also the daughter of a contractor and the sister of contractors. IMO, this should be a case where punitive damages come into play, as this hosebeast, because she'd rather pay for her fake hair color than her fake wall color, deliberately made false claims that could have gotten this innocent contractor arrested and put in jail. Actually, she's probably lucky she never did file that police report, because then she'd be on the hook for filing a false report. When she started saying that “everyone” told her the contractor over charged her and took advantage of her, was the point I started thinking that she was looking for a way to get the job done for less. She wasn’t even unhappy with the work he had done til she felt she’d been over charged. But yeah, they messed with the wrong contractor “lets take a polygraph, both of us” loved that little bit! 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 21, 2018 Share April 21, 2018 15 minutes ago, iwasish said: When she started saying that “everyone” told her the contractor over charged her and took advantage of her After you pay for something or buy something, there are always the people who say, "You got robbed. I got that for___." I hate those people. Bitch would say anything to weasel out of paying this guy for his hard work. She never had any 1200$ in an envelope and only thought of that after she complained to contractor that he'd missed some spots or whatever. He offered to come look and fix whatever she wanted fixing so then she thought, "Oh, that's not working. I better accuse him of being a thief." Horrible, awful people - both the vile witch and her moronic b/f. Yeah, if someone stole 1200$ from me, I wouldn't call the cops and have them question him. What good is that going to do? says the cop. 2 hours ago, AEMom said: Thanks to @AngelaHunter, I learned a new word today - nebbish. Great word, right?:p 6 Link to comment
aemom April 22, 2018 Share April 22, 2018 Wow, the homeowner had buyer's remorse paying what she felt was too much and then accused the contractor of theft. How charming. I'm glad that MM saw through it all and awarded him the money. Good for him! She totally made up that story hoping to get out of paying him more. The boat case - rough justice was probably accurate because I suspect that the true story was somewhere in the middle. The defendant in the horribly cheap wig was such a scammer. MM is right - who pays that kind of money to store a few things? You could get a storage place for many months for $600. I also had no trouble understanding him as well, probably because over the years in college and university I had so many professors with various accents that I can pretty much understand anybody speaking English. She was awful to say that he wouldn't be able to go to court because nobody would understand him. I did have to laugh at the missing TV. How often do we see homeless people with giant TVs and/or gaming consoles with a ton of games on this show? 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 22, 2018 Share April 22, 2018 1 hour ago, AEMom said: How often do we see homeless people with giant TVs and/or gaming consoles with a ton of games on this show? On court shows? We see this all the time - people who are broke/homeless/on public assistance/Sec8 yet have thousands of dollars in the latest electronics. I worked non-stop my whole life - no food stamps, welfare, "student loans" and yet I have no 55" TVs, 1000$ aquariums or 700$ phones. I've done everything wrong I guess. 5 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz April 22, 2018 Share April 22, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I worked non-stop my whole life - no food stamps, welfare, "student loans" and yet I have no 55" TVs, 1000$ aquariums or 700$ phones. I've done everything wrong I guess. You'll never get to the court show of your choosing with that attitude. "scoffs" Working for your playthings and living within your means. How dare you? My shame knows no bounds. I have none of the above either, though Mr Schnick and I do have a pretty impressive DVD and CD collection that my offspring have assured us lands us firmly in the seriously "old fart" category. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 23, 2018 Share April 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Schnickelfritz said: Mr Schnick and I do have a pretty impressive DVD and CD collection that my offspring have assured us lands us firmly in the seriously "old fart" category. Err... I have a huge collection of DVD movies and tv shows, including classics - some of which I actually paid for - and... oh, what was I saying? Oh, yes. I no longer even have a DVD player on which to view them. Don't tell your offspring about my collection of 33rpm vinyl records and VHS tapes, all stashed behind closed doors. I'm sure that takes me out of the old fart category and into the "dinosaur" slot. 1 hour ago, Schnickelfritz said: Working for your playthings and living within your means. How dare you? I know. Ah, the folly of youth. 4 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz April 23, 2018 Share April 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Don't tell your offspring about my collection of 33rpm vinyl records and VHS tapes, all stashed behind closed doors. I won't tell about yours IF you don't tell about mine. Or about the cassette tapes. The youngest actually thinks the LPs are great, but the oldest is just horrified that we still have any of those moldy oldies. 3 Link to comment
aemom April 23, 2018 Share April 23, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Err... I have a huge collection of DVD movies and tv shows, including classics - some of which I actually paid for - and... oh, what was I saying? Oh, yes. I no longer even have a DVD player on which to view them. Don't tell your offspring about my collection of 33rpm vinyl records and VHS tapes, all stashed behind closed doors. I'm sure that takes me out of the old fart category and into the "dinosaur" slot. I know. Ah, the folly of youth. We got rid of the 33 and 45 records, but still have all the CDs though we dumped all the songs on an iPod classic. I still have a VCR and a DVD player and we play our old stuff from time to time. I only have cassettes of the mixed tapes I used to make. LOL. I do remember my mom's 8-track player. Those tapes were huge! 4 Link to comment
SRTouch April 23, 2018 Share April 23, 2018 (edited) first case entertaining, not much of a case, but entertaining. Second case dog attack - skipped. Last case terrible grammar and I ended up zipping through more than I watched hired and fired after background check: whoa, this plaintiff is suing for 10 grand - must be in California where the max is higher. Yep, she wants 5 grand because she says defendant violated California law, plus an additional 5 grand in punitive damages. Her story is that she applied for a job, was told she was hired, but then a couple days later told she wasn't going to be hired because she failed a background check. Defendant doesn't deny offering plaintiff the job, but says his offer was contingent on her background check. Plaintiff comes in with nothing, while dude comes in and spreads out thick stacks of documents, all color coded tabs and everything. Should be an easy case... just wonder why plaintiff would come on tv and air her dirty laundry... if I couldn't pass a background check not sure I'd put it on national tv for all to see. Besides, would this even be a small claims case... Plaintiff was applying for an on-site property manager position - hmmmm why would they need a background check for someone who will be collecting rent and managing an apartment complex? She had a couple of interviews, and everything looked great. Ah, but interviews were with different people, and the interviewers were giving conflicting stories about what she would be paid - one saying free apartment, other say she'd have to pay reduced rent. Uh huh, lots of gum flapping, but no evidence.... maybe she has a bunch of texts.... nope just yakity yak. Story is she was hired in late October and supposed to move in November 1st - says she was shown the apartment and maintenance was even going to repaint the kitchen cabinets for her. Great, she says she was told she'd been hired, everything great, no mention of background check. So, she says she's told to come in November 1st to finish the final paperwork, and that she'd get the keys to move into her new apartment. Says she gets a call October 31st saying don't bother coming in tomorrow, you failed the background check. Uh oh, there goes her case. She says in passing that on October 25th she was told they needed her SSN to do the background check, and that it should be completed in 2 days.... uh, to me that would have been a hint that job is contingent on that report. Oops, MM stops her and points out that there would be no reason for a background check if the job was NOT contingent on a good report. Over to defendant, as MM wants to know what was in the report that red flagged her job application. Oh my, now this is why I would NOT have come on tv... Defendant is talking like he doesn't want to just put it out there, even asks if he should go into her bad report.... seems everything on plaintiff's report is bad - including 6 accounts in collections. Heck never mind not being acceptable for an on-site manager position - which entails collecting rent payments - she wouldn't qualify to rent the apartment at the reduced rate. Ok, time for some dancing, as MM gives plaintiff every chance to makes this nonsense into a case. Yeah, defendant's company messed up a couple times in the hiring process - should have run her background check in September instead of waiting to get her SSN in October and running her check - bad form to wait til the day before she's to come in to work before telling her to forget it - but, asks MM, how does that translate to a 10 grand lawsuit. Ok, another armchair lawyer who reads the law to the judge - IIRC that actually worked once with a California car sale on a failed smog test, but usually that's a no no. Oh yeah, and when MM doesn't accept plaintiff's interpretation of the law, plaintiff wants to argue the judge's opinion - while MM is explaining it... yeah, maybe that would work if you go about it respectfully, but not when you interrupt and talk over the judge while she's shooting holes in your case. Ahhhhh more nonsense when she gets to hallterview. She lost her old residence as her old place was rented because she thought she was moving..... uh, wasn't her testimony that she was hired October 25th and was to move in November 1st - when did she tells her old landlord she was moving? dog attack case - saw a picture of the poor dog on FB about today's new cases, hit FF as soon as I heard dog attack. Guess it was mutual combat - MM orders defendant to pay half the bill. shade tree mechanic wants to be paid for work on neighbor's clunker: plaintiff says he replaced engine in neighbor's PT Cruiser... yep, says neighbor, he replaced the engine, then replaced the replacement engine - car still doesn't work, she ends up junking the car, she isn't paying. Ah, one of those cases where folks are going to butcher grammar... not going to rewind, but I think defendant just used a triple negative. Looks like decision will hinge on who was out money on these replacement engines. Apparently, defendant paid for the engine, but acted on plaintiff's recommendation on where to buy it. When engine turned out to be a dud, she got her money back. (Just 1 replacement - intro wrong) She says she gave him a hundred bucks for his time, but doesn't feel obligated to pay him for his failed attempt to fix the clunker with the fried engine. Both litigants into interrupting and talking over MM... I end up just zipping through MM's arm waving as she talks over them. I give up and stop watching. Edited April 23, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 23, 2018 Share April 23, 2018 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: hired and fired after background check: whoa, this plaintiff is suing for 10 grand - must be in California where the max is higher. Yeah, must be CA where people can suing over their feelings. Appearances sure can be deceiving. Plaintiff is put-together and well-spoken. BUT, it seems she was getting evicted from her place, which is not surprising when we find out she's kind of a deadbeat who spends money she doesn't have and doesn't pay her debts. "It wasn't contingent..."x 10, but oh yeah, it was. Of course no one would want her to manage a property and handle other people's money! She can't even handle her own. SIX collections? Omg. I've lived a lot longer than she has and never had anything in collections. Learn to live within your means, dear. Novel concept, I know. With her track record I doubt anyone would hire her to man a candy counter. She wasn't ever officially hired, but thinks she's going to hit the jackpot here today because her dismal background check came up and def. sensibly decided, "Eeek! No thanks." Pain and suffering? Maybe disappointment, but no one can try to rake in 10K for disappointment. Just as well. She would have blown that lottery win in a few days, and more too probably. Only in CA can people think that because they didn't get a job they can sue for huge amounts of money because their feelings are hurt. "Oh, wow," plaintiff says when JM rules against her. That's the standard cry of losers, scammers and idiots. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: dog attack case I actually watched a bit of that. The dog walker went "into shock" and needed to have an ambulance summoned for her over a dogfight. WTF? Doug in the hall suggests maybe if she goes into shock when dogs scuffle maybe she shouldn't be walking dogs. Gee, I love Doug. He asks the right questions and he's totally correct of course. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: shade tree mechanic wants to be paid for work on neighbor's clunker: Loretta says, "The engine wasn't no good." She chose to deal with, as JM said, "an alley mechanic" and thought she'd get her 15 year old PT Cruiser(!) into shape, but sadly, the mechanic told her the engine wasn't no good, but she wanted him to install it anyway. He's supposed to be the expert and should have refused to install the bad engine. He didn't, so Loretta doesn't have to pay him any more money. 6 Link to comment
meowmommy April 24, 2018 Share April 24, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: With her track record I doubt anyone would hire her to man a candy counter. She wasn't ever officially hired, but thinks she's going to hit the jackpot here today because her dismal background check came up and def. sensibly decided, "Eeek! No thanks." Pain and suffering? Maybe disappointment, but no one can try to rake in 10K for disappointment. She didn't have a legal leg to stand on, and she completely misinterpreted the California consumer law, but somehow, I felt bad for her. She has bad credit, which could be for any number of reasons including medical debt (yeah, I know, not likely), and now she is trying for a good paying job that would allow her to pay her bills and maybe start working on fixing her credit. Having bad credit doesn't mean she's going to pilfer the rent receipts. Once you go down the slippery slope of bad credit, it's really hard to climb back up. And in some ways, I hate that employers have so much access to your personal information and your life. Even though I get it; I really do. 5 Link to comment
teebax April 24, 2018 Share April 24, 2018 While I agree with the ruling in the hired not hired case, I hated the way MM would ask the plaintiff a question and then cut her off before she could answer. This would've been an interesting case to me, but MM is getting to be as rude as Judy. Maybe she's over it, and it's time to hang up the robe. MM loses her shit when anyone interrupts her but does it to litigants all the time. Also, without knowing her circumstances I'm not prepared to call the plaintiff a loser. Lots of people have bad credit due to medical expenses, unemployment, and things out of their control. Not everyone with bad credit is a loser. We don't know her background because MM never asked. 7 Link to comment
DoctorK April 24, 2018 Share April 24, 2018 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: I hate that employers have so much access to your personal information and your life. Even though I get it; I really do. I have been in a position to hire or not hire people. Multiple bad credit reports tell me that this person has a pattern of financial irresponsibility. I would not hire them, I don't want to expose my company to the risks of hiring someone with that bad history. Try hiring people for security clearance positions, a whole lot of people will not make the cut, doesn't mean they are bad people, they just can't qualify for the job. 5 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 24, 2018 Share April 24, 2018 (edited) 21 hours ago, SRTouch said: hired and fired after background check: First impressions can be deceiving; at first glance the plaintiff seemed like a nice young professional who presented herself well but she soon devolved into a recurring pattern on those shows, i.e. constantly repeating the same rehearsed sentences, disregarding the facts and common sense (a prospective employer would not conduct a background check just for the fun of it; of course being hired would be contingent upon the results), misreading complex statutes and paying no attention to the questions asked. It's as if she thought that saying the same thing over and over again would suddenly make her story true, a frequent tactic of magical thinking, and rather childish. I fully understand why MM chose to interrupt her after a few iterations. She is exactly the reason why such verifications are necessary because one may like an applicant very much on a personal level, but their personal history can reveal a lot about their character in the context of a job that requires responsibility. Defendant was well prepared, but he should have ditched earlier the technical lingo to describe the check's results. 21 hours ago, SRTouch said: shade tree mechanic wants to be paid for work on neighbor's clunker: I thought that the defendant should have borne more of the costs: she seemed to argue that the engine being defective was the mechanic's fault. She was the one who decided to choose the cheapest option and who told him to go ahead despite his reservations regarding the state of the part. I thought that MM's ruling served to absolve her of her responsibility in bearing the consequences of her own choices, as any adult must do. Edited April 24, 2018 by Florinaldo 8 Link to comment
Bazinga April 24, 2018 Share April 24, 2018 17 hours ago, teebax said: MM loses her shit when anyone interrupts her but does it to litigants all the time. But, sometimes she does allow it and then, like a bear trap, will slam down on an unsuspecting litigant. Like intentionally being overly familiar and loose to lure them in and then coming down hard on someone just to assert her authority. In many cases, she is not even-handed in applying the no interruption rule; some litigants are indulged and others are not. I have pointed this out in the past. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch April 24, 2018 Share April 24, 2018 Dog sitter lost her dog: boo hiss defendant in this case makes me madder than clueless dog owners in a dog fight case... plaintiff hired defendant to care for her beloved dog, but little 5yo Yorkie who went missing while in defendant's (paid for) care - she's suing for $1500. Oh well, not impressed with defendant's entrance. Smug dude stands there with hands in pockets while intro says he thinks plaintiff stole her own dog when they had a dispute over what she was paying him - says she paid previous dog sitter more, and when he wanted to double want she was paying him the dog went missing - claims a witness saw someone fitting plaintiff's description leaving his building with the pooch.... can't help but notice no sign of the eye witness in court - guess he thinks the police report from the break in to his apartment is enough, surely he called the cops to report someone stole the dog. Once testimony starts all kinds of inconsistencies pop up with the intro - and no mention of fight over amount dude was being paid.. Plaintiff didn't want to leave her pup home alone when she was at work, so found someone for doggy daycare. She's been doing this for years, as she talks about doing it back in 2016. What I'm hearing is that the defendant's granny watched the dog before defendant - and she did it for free. When defendant took over, he decided he should be paid, and he watched the dog for 2 years before it went missing. I must be missing something - she talks about his attitude changing when he lost his job (I think she said he worked at a sneaker store?) Uh, did their schedules just work out? Who watched the dog while HE was at work? Ah, she says defendant had roommates, so maybe she pays him and he splits the money with his roomies - or maybe he buys pizza for everybody one night a week. Anyway, when dog disappeared dude had left a "friend" in the apartment with the pooch while he ran down to the market... for some reason he refused to tell plaintiff who this "friend" was. Over to defendant to hear his version of the great Houdini act. Yep, he says he ran out to the market, leaving dog in care of mysterious friend. When he came back, the friend was returning from someplace - doesn't know where - and dog was no longer in the house. Besides fact I'm not sure I believe anything the guy is saying, dude was being paid (not a lot, but $20 a week for 2 years totals a couple grand by my math) to take care of her dog and he just testified he failed to do the job. What gets me, as a pet owner, is dude sure is nonchalant about her lost pet, a dog that she had for 5 years and that had been in his own life for years. Not sure what happened here, didn't believe his story when he told it, but it really falls apart as MM questions him. Geez, right after telling us people just don't lock their doors in his neighborhood, he's testifying he told the mystery guest to stay in the apartment with the dog, with the door locked - uh, yeah, sure. Then he starts insisting "not my fault..." uh yeah, totally your fault, dude, says MM, while dude stands there with arms crossed. Hoboy, now things dissolve into plaintiff crying over her lost dog, MM saying he should apologize, a totally insincere apology, cross aisle yakking and MM yelling about dude not just owning up to not taking care of the animal. Absolutely no defense.... but problem is how can you put a value on the dog. I'm sitting here with my 5 cats, 4 of whom were rescues and 1 given to me. By law, they're property, and some folks would say since they didn't cost anything they're worthless. Ah, but I just received this month's shipment from Chewy, and that costs a good bit every three weeks... and time is fast coming where two of them will be making a trip to the vet for dental checkups, which ain't cheap. Oh, and those two who will be making the trip are both over 16yo - so how much has their value depreciated from when they me cost nothing. Awful hard to place a value - some say they're worthless and just a money pit, while I still tear up over other pets who have been gone for years. Ok, only at the 12 minute mark, but this guy has me ready to start throwing things - may just be time to leave this and take my guys out for a walk on their harness. Ah, guess MM knows how the audience is feeling - she calls him a jerk, and is ready to end this one early... maybe it helps as dude acts like he's about to walk out as audience laughs when MM gives him a hard time. Actually listened to the peanut gallery - well, got up and went for coffee and Harvey was yakking while I was gone.... good thing for the jerk the peanut gallery doesn't get a vote, they go from 25 grand, to priceless to awarding a million bucks. Ah, too bad JJ isn't hearing this one... she's been known to stretch the rules... but no, MM explains she figures a 5 yo Yorkie is worth maybe $500.... oh, and in case anyone thinks the jerk may be feeling bad, he's over there snickering and ready to celebrate and tells Doug point blank he has no sympathy for the crying plaintiff or the lost dog. room rental fail: yet another case which makes me glad I went back to work instead of renting my empty bedroom. Ah, this one is tenant suing a landlord who hasn't figured out this whole renting out a room thing. Plaintiffs' intro tells us they rented the room, moved in and lived there a couple weeks, then landlady decides she wants a background check. Major kerfuffle ensues, they decide to move out, they discover landlady isn't supposed to be renting the room anyway, now they what back all their money. Whoa, really, this people are suing for a thousand bucks? What kind of room is this? Maybe they paid security and something in advance... anyway, past cases have shown they'll have to pay for the time they lived there, but if the place was illegally sublet they have a chance of getting any advance/security depending on how they left the place. Landlady/defendant intro sort of backs up the background story. Little bitty woman, let these two bohemoths move in, either of whom would crush her if they sat on her, before getting a background check... and when she gets the report back she finds a history of domestic abuse and stalking. Might be a good idea if she researches a bit about how to go about renting out rooms. Back when I was considering it, I found all kinds of info, including examples of leases and online background check sites. (Course, some of you may remember that my aborted attempt to rent out a room ended up with my reporting a scammer to the FBI... Btw, nothing ever came of the report.) Ah, what a way to start off your case... when MM walks in, even before she sits down, she jumps on plaintiff hubby, why are you texting in the courtroom? He tries to explain - I think he was saying he was actually just pulling up evidence he wanted to present later - but MM doesn't listen, cuts him off and tells the audience they can sit. Ok, the $1000 damage isn't really for rent. Turns out they paid $500 for the room for a month... they want that back, plus an additional $500 for inconvenience... uh, when pigs fly. If, as intro said, they stayed 2 weeks, they MIGHT get credit for two weeks if landlady locked them out - but if I heard correctly they're not claiming they were kicked to the curb, they decided to leave. Ok, testimony starts and we're hearing the perfect example of how NOT to rent a room... ad online, no lease or rental agreement, no background check mentioned, just hi, what's your name - just call me dummy - pay me and here's the keys (well, she did grab a crayon and give a receipt). So, they hand over the $500, she gives them a key, they move in a bed and a few boxes, but they never actually lived there. Story is they were living at a hotel, which their church had already paid for six weeks, so the plan was to stay there until the church money ran out. Ok, things may be changing here. Turns out they paid the lady, no mention of signing a rental agreement or running a background check, moved in a couple things, then as time comes that they are going to move in suddenly, for the first time they're told rental is contingent on a background report. Sounds more like they made a deposit of the first month rent, expecting landlady to hold the room and moving sone things in with Ok from landlady, but telling her they wouldn't be moving in until the hotel stay expired. Have to wait and see, but I'm inclined to give them back a deposit to hold the room unless landlady can show they actually moved in. Ok, time for silly defendant/failed landlady to talk. Lady pretty much agrees accepting the money before asking for a background check. Says when dude came to give her the money, she got a bad vibe from the attention he gave her toddler - got to thinking and a background check seemed like a good idea.... uh, yeah, good idea before you accept the money, not as an afterthought - heck if she has any hint of a bad vibe she should have just apologized and said room no longer available. Oh, and this wasn't a real background check - no, she went to one of those sites which show who got arrested and found him - current wife quick to jump in that this was an old ex gf of his who he caught cheating and kicked out of his place, says false charges of abuse which ended up being tossed. Ok, already said, if she got a bad vibe should have just returned the money - assuming she hadn't already spent it. I understand her changing her mind and deciding not to let them move in, but I'm not hearing anything that makes me think she wasn't the one to breach the agreement - not eeven thinking about possible illegal subletting of the room. Now MM asks for the aforementioned receipt - nope, more than a receipt, says the judge, this is a legal 30 day lease with a start date of November 6th. Doesn't matter that they never spend a night there, they paid rent through December 6th. Soooo, defendant perfectly within her rights not to extend their tenancy - oh except the fact she only gave them a two week notice. Ah, 'nother twist... when she gave them the two week notice dude heads off to see if she can, and finds out she not only can't, but that her lease prohibited her from subletting the room - and dude raises enough of a stink that HER landlady evicted the defendant for violating HER lease. Ah, says defendant, when he first came to look at the room she showed him HER lease, so he knew it was an illegal sublease without any trip downtown... yeah, kind of believe her story - dude ratted her out and got her evicted for vengeance when she gave him the 2 week notice..... doesn't change this case, except to reinforce that not renting to the dude was probably the right choice. Yep, as I expected, MM prorates the rent. Defendant has to return the rent from the date she gives the illegal 2 week notice... $216.66 to plaintiff. Whoa, for second time today Doug has troublesome litigants - both plaintiff's want to retry the case and sling mud on defendant.... really think she dodged a bullet when she booted them to the curb - even though it cost her a couple hundred bucks and she ended up having to move back to her mom after being evicted herself. car repair shop kerfuffle: ah, two days in a row with alley mechanic (hey, also two days with background check kerfuffle.) plaintiff says he left his car with defendant to have a door fixed, and when he got the car back it had a broken window. Defendant says he fixed the door, delivered car to defendant at a club, and defendant told him to just leave the keys in the car. Says window was fine when he left the car, and anything could have happened to it before plaintiff finally came out of the club to get the car. Ah, in no time at all MM is asking plaintiff why? Oh why? You make no sense! His story is he was going to pay defendant to diagnose the problem then was going elsewhere to get it fixed. Why not just let dude fix it? Ah, he's had problems with defendant's repairs in the past. I agree with MM - huh? Well, you see, defendant was going to do the diagnosis for free, plaintiff was going to pay someone else to do the repair, then defendant was going to sell the car and they would split the profit... oh my, I figure there was a lawsuit waiting in the wings anyway this went if that's true. No, not true, says defendant. Actually, he was to be paid $75. His story is he started taking apart the door, decided the Mercedes was too complicated, and put it back together. Ok, but is he like me and maybe there were some extra parts left when he got it back together - maybe window broke because he didn't get it together correctly. Oh dear, this is a junker of a Mercedes... he say plaintiff wanted car back even though repair was incomplete, so when he returned the car door was only partially put back together... to get out of the car you had to roll down the window and open it from outside... uh, sounding like his half-assed repair probably was reason window broke. Ah, but now we get some of the worst picture evidence ever... really, dude is supposed to be showing cracks in the window, and all I see are reflections of another car and the dude taking the picture, oh and, yeah, a couple lines that could be anything. Ok, defendant is going to have to pay for the window.... but plaintiff may have inflated things a bit. Defendant tried to save a little time by not putting door back together completely, and it's going to cost him. Not only does he have to pay for the glass, but to get the new glass tinted to match the old. Oh, and the plaintiff doesn't have to let defendant complete the botched repair.... gets $1668, the amount of the estimate he presented. 7 Link to comment
TresGatos April 24, 2018 Share April 24, 2018 2 hours ago, Bazinga said: MM loses her shit when anyone interrupts her but does it to litigants all the time. But it's nothing compared to when someone rolls their eyes at Judge Mathis! 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 24, 2018 Share April 24, 2018 27 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Dog sitter lost her dog: boo hiss defendant in this case makes me madder than clueless dog owners in a dog fight case What I was waiting for was JM to do as JJ would have done here, and barked at def, "What's your friend's name?" Cuz you just know he would have either hemmed and hawed or claimed not to know the name of the person he left alone in his place. You just know the dog was sold and def probably got a share of the profits. JM did not question him nearly enough and seemed to accept what he said - which I'm sure was 100% lies - as fact. "Jerk?" I can think of a lot of other words for him, but not suitable for daytime television. 31 minutes ago, SRTouch said: room rental fail: yet another case which makes me glad I went back to work instead of renting my empty bedroom. The murdered English in this case nearly had me turning it off. How many people here who have an infant (or even if you don't) would rent a room in your apartment to those gross, malignant, ignorant hilllbilles who seem to subsist on McDonald's and the generosity of some "preacher" who apparently thought they - two able-bodied adults - deserved a 6-week, expenses paid hotel stay after they got thrown out of their last lair? Def didn't even bother checking them out until she let them move in! The mind, it boggles. I wouldn't let those two set foot on my property for any amount of money. Def wants a baby with some absentee baby daddy, then get a better job and pay your own rent. get a cheaper place or hit up the baby daddy. Woman has such horribly poor judgement she really shouldn't be in charge of a helpless baby. Ugh. 9 minutes ago, TresGatos said: But it's nothing compared to when someone rolls their eyes at Judge Mathis! Ooh, JM flips out too when someone rolls their eyes at her, and quite understandably. 3 Link to comment
meowmommy April 24, 2018 Share April 24, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: Awful hard to place a value - some say they're worthless and just a money pit, while I still tear up over other pets who have been gone for years. Ok, only at the 12 minute mark, but this guy has me ready to start throwing things As someone who cried her eyes out last Friday at the one year mark for my Tommy, thank you for the heads up so I can skip this case. Judge Wapner had an Animal Court for a while. That's where all these pet cases should go. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: The murdered English in this case nearly had me turning it off. They had me at the intro, with the plaintiff fluffing her beautiful foot long black roots to the dried out frizzed blonde ends. Gorgeous, I tell you. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: when MM walks in, even before she sits down, she jumps on plaintiff hubby, why are you texting in the courtroom? I swear, someone has forgotten to tell MM, more than once, that she's not a real judge and she's not in a real courtroom. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 25, 2018 Share April 25, 2018 28 minutes ago, meowmommy said: As someone who cried her eyes out last Friday at the one year mark for my Tommy, thank you for the heads up so I can skip this case. I lost MY 17-year old Tommy last July. I didn't even glance at this case, just FF with eyes averted. 29 minutes ago, meowmommy said: plaintiff fluffing her beautiful foot long black roots to the dried out frizzed blonde ends. Gorgeous, I tell you. Haha. I forgot that part. Yes, so glamorous was she as she flung her burned straw-like locks this way and that. 30 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I swear, someone has forgotten to tell MM, more than once, that she's not a real judge and she's not in a real courtroom. Litigants agree to abide by the rules here and still need to show some respect. I know, that's axxin' a lot from most of the cretins we see here. That reminds me - they were homeless and living it up in a hotel on charity, but can still afford cell phones with monthly plans, as can all litigants who can't pay any bills of any kind. How nice for them they can still have the vital necessities of life. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy April 25, 2018 Share April 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Litigants agree to abide by the rules here and still need to show some respect. Oh, I agree with that. But as MM was reaming out the plaintiff for his faux pas in texting, all I could think of was the scene in Blazing Saddles where Harvey Korman yells at Slim Pickens for chewing gum. 24 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: they were homeless and living it up in a hotel on charity, but can still afford cell phones with monthly plans, as can all litigants who can't pay any bills of any kind. How nice for them they can still have the vital necessities of life. It's possible that they have an Obamaphone. My DD had (has) one, and of course all she did was bitch about its limitations. To which of course the response is that there's a magical way to get your own phone and your own plan. 27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I lost MY 17-year old Tommy last July. I didn't even glance at this case, just FF with eyes averted. I remember us talking about that. We had great Tommies, didn't we? I really, really wish they'd scale back the pet cases here. 3 Link to comment
aemom April 25, 2018 Share April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: They had me at the intro, with the plaintiff fluffing her beautiful foot long black roots to the dried out frizzed blonde ends. Gorgeous, I tell you. They were the textbook definition of redneck hillbillies, but we often see homeless people living on government handouts with fancy clothes, TVs, cell phones, wigs, etc. At least she clearly looked like she hadn't had the money to do her hair in a long time and was spending what little money she had on other things. Her husband was yet another clueless litigant who wouldn't understand the law if you beat him over the head with it and was still arguing with Doug in the halterview. The ass who lost the woman's dog was a unrepentant lowlife and I hope that karma bites him in the ass big time one day. Perhaps one of the charming pitbulls we see on this show all the time can do the honors. I did feel a bit bad for the woman trying to get that job who lost it at the last minute because of bad credit. Maybe she was trying to put her life back together. She appeared to be well spoken and presented and perhaps was trying to turn her life around from whatever had gotten her into that mess. Or maybe not, it was hard to say for sure. But either way, it was totally unprofessional for them to tell her the night before she was supposed to move in and should have started the background check much sooner. She had applied back in September. She probably had to scramble to find another place to live. 3 Link to comment
teebax April 25, 2018 Share April 25, 2018 The defendant in the missing dog case? Now, that's a loser. What a despicable waste of space. 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 25, 2018 Share April 25, 2018 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: Dog sitter lost her dog I am wondering if the defendant was in part playing up his assholic side to give a good show; since he does not have to pay for the judgment out of his own pocket, he does not have to care and it gives him a good clip to show around to friends and family. Of course, it increases the chances of the plaintiff's award being bigger, thus reducing his share of the awards kitty. 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: room rental fail: The plaintiffs were living proof that slugs can live well and get fat by leeching off society and unsuspecting people. That landlord was totally unprepared and uninformed for trying to lease space in her home, so she was a perfect prey for those two parasites who most probably know all the relevant rules and regulations and how to use them to their advantage. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch April 25, 2018 Share April 25, 2018 (edited) oh dear, router not routing - so using the phone today - let's see how long I can type before low battery --- started to go back and correct my usual multitude of typing errors - nope to much work on the phone handyman kerfuffle: plaintiff complains handyman walked off the job, leaving her in the lurch with a mess. She figures she deserves the max of 5 grand. Defendant certainly has different story in his intro. Says he was doing the work as a favor - not exactly out of the goodness of his heart, though, as she was letting him store some junk in her garage. Says things fell apart when nasty rude plaintiff disrepected his wifey. After that, he says, he stopped work. Soon as testimony starts we hear that plaintiff maintains she paid defendant actually cash for the work- this wasn't a barter or friendly favor type thing. Ah, says she actually paid more than the 5 grand she's asking for - so surely she has a contract. Once she starts talking her math doesn't add up. Maybe she paid more than 5 grand for her used above ground pool, but sounds like only a portion went to defendant. What she is saying is that she bought the pool, and dude wanted $1600 to install it. Says other installers asked way too much for her, $ 1600 still to uhh, so they negotiated down to $1200 and he could keep junk in the garage and in her driveway. Turns out they met when she advertised renting out her driveway and garage to store people's crap - wow, I imagine her neighbors love living next to her junky yard. Defendant's "as a favor" defense is taking some hits if they met when he responded to her as - course it could still be a barter... they strike the deal, he gets to put stuff in the garage and $1200 while she gets her pool installed. Thing is - she isn't happy with his work progress - says he comes whenever mood strikes him works a little then is gone for the day. Not sure how she thinks he ends up owing 5 grand - oh, wait, maybe he gets no credit for the little work she admits he did, is now supposed to return $1200 (assuming she paid upfront) pay for the use of the garage pay for the pool, pay what she ended up paying someone else to install the pool (which she refused to pay herself because it was too much)... oh and lets add punitive and pain and suffering. Actually, so far she tells a convincing story for getting some of the money back - she actually paid him $900 with $100 of that for materials - biggest problem is that she's asking for a boNANza. Finally over to defendant - within two sentences I'm thinking no way would I hire this guy. Right out of the gate he tells us how plaintiff was going to overcharge him for garage space - well, just don't rent her space says MM. Maybe I'm just spoiled - we have lots of storage units here (when 75% of soldiers here (including your truley) deployed for Desert Shield/Storm lots of storage units were built) but doesn't it sound like he's paying premium rates for her driveway and a little section of her garage. Ok, first he's saying she wanted too much for storage, now she lied about condition of pool. Says he took on the install only after being told pool was new - he's an experienced pool installer, he claims, but as everyone knows, above ground pools are aren't meant to be mobile. Geez, anybody else think this joker is a conman who thinks he's lecturing to a classroom. Oh, and this professional installer say plaintiff assured him the ground was professionally leveled - but instead ground level slopes 7 inches. Come on dude, don't need a good eye expensive survey equipment, a two dollar string level, some string and two stakes would tell you whether the spot was level... Dude may have a case for walking off the job if plaintiff was really nasty to his wife - but so far he's not helping his case any with this nonsense. Ah, and now he gets into how this was all just a favor... And MM responds he can call this a favor til the cows come home, he made out a contract (calling his work a favor) and was being paid $1200, this was a job he contracted for and was partially paid to complete. Turns out the contract does end up helping his case, despite fact MM has to admonish him to stop talking, take a breathe and let her read the contract. It comes out that he Actually is a pool installer and in the contract he says work on plaintiff's pool will be done around three other bigger, better paying, jobs. Oh and that he'll get paid in full if plaintiff gets mad and fires his ass because he's not getting it done fast enough. Sooooo, what's plaintiff have to say to that - which is apparently written right into her signed contract. Who thinks she didn't bother to read her contract? Actually, I'm pretty much on his side (even though he's something of a pompous ass). If, as the preview clip indicated, he really has texts where plaintiff berates and insults his wife, sounds like contract says he gets to keep her advance. Ah, not exactly. Sounds like it was wifey who initiated the text war - first saying plaintiff could contact hubby through the wifey, then ignoring plaintiff texts then getting upset when plaintiff texts the next day and complains her previous day's text went unanswered - wifey responds with snark - plaintiff blows a fuse and unloads on wife. Huh? When MM starts questioning wifey hubby butts in with she's currently in a high risk pregancy and he doesn't want mean judge to upset her... Dude, you brought her as a witness - and MM hasn't really pressed wifey yet. MM asks if wifey needs to be excused, or can she act as a witness - which is what hubby brought her here for. Oops, pendulum swinging as he just keeps offering conclusions when MM asks for examples of plaintiff's rudeness. No wonder JJ snaps and cuts people off after her years on the bench... I've only listened to dude a few minutes and he's getting on my nerves. Ok, as we head to commercial dude is about to start crying - wifey doesn't talk like that - she on the church board - plaintiff was mean to her, etc... Hey, dude, if you and wifey are really so fragile why didn't you just offer your unsatisfied customer her money back for the job you failed to complete. I mean, yeah, you sometimes run across foul mouthed rude people and it's better to walk away before things escalated - but walking away sometimes it costs you - makes you wonder if that's why he put that clause in his contract about getting paid even if customer becomes unhappy. Same comment to plaintiff who says it will now cost her 6 grand and change to complete the job... Yeah, says MM, after you left the job site sit for months and winter destroyed work he did and was willing to complete if she had just apologised to wifey. It's your right not to apologize but your refusal might just cost you. Anyway, time up - rough justice time... Plaintiff does get a partial refund - $615. failed roommate attempt: these two rent a place together (platonic no sweeties, but find their life styles don't work - he wants to party she doesn't. He moved out - but when lease is over he gets the deposit and won't give her her portioIn. These two sure are friendly considering where they at. Ok, here I thought these two moved in, found out styles conflicted and he soon moved out - but nooooooo, they lived together for a year, renewed the lease, decided not to renew at end of second lease. Which is where things get dicey. Lease ends at end of October, they've agreed not to renew, he moved out not long after second lease began - but lights and Wi-Fi are in his name - dirty dog cuts them off when he leaves. Nope, despite what she's saying I think there's more to the story. Timeline kind of wonky. She said they lived together two years - is she counting second year of lease when he wasn't around. Sounds like dude continued to pay some of the bills - is it that she just didn't see him or was he actually out of the apartment bit still paying his share. Oh, so confusing, and she isn't helping much as MM questions her... Let's see what he has to stay... Nope, he doesn't make any sense, either. One of those times when I wish MM would cut out the relationship woes and get these two to state their case. Cutting through the nonsense, he agrees they both it in half the deposit, which was paid way back in the first year... Say when she didn't respond to him bout when she was moving her paying we of the final bills, he was pissed, cut the lights and got back the deposit (apparently everything was in his name - she have him whatever he said was her share and he paid the bills). Anyway, part of is reasoning is at he's entitled keep the deposit because she never paid the last of her are of the bills - well maybe if the amounts work out, but not is decision to unilaterally make. Nope, amounts don't jive. Simple, MM subtracts amount of bills she owes from amount her share of deposit wrongfully kept... Plaintiff gets the ifferemvr - $300 odd Mechanic fail: Mechanic fixed plaintiff's 17yo old caddy, car engine blows, plaintiff figures mechanic just bought the thing - wants max. Mechanic says plaintiff still owes 300 odd for the repairs - he figures now that he's getting sued his discounted work ought I paid for. Ah, well, battery dying, and case isn't exactly promising. When plaintiff starts with on pristine this 17 yo driver is, only 54,000 miles, I call b.s.. So, takes car in for water pump, told timing belt worn, pump and belt replaced - drives car for 5 months engine goes out --- yeah, mechanic must be installed one thing wrong. Since plaintiff has no expert witness, he has no case. Ah, can't believe some folks. 10 more minutes, it one or me to zip ahead... Case dismissed... Wonder if mechanic got I say more than maybe odometer turned back Edited April 25, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 25, 2018 Share April 25, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: handyman kerfuffle: Well, more major kerfuffles indeed over 'disrespect." Histrionic, weepy, motor-mouthed, overly-emotional little handyman shrieks and wails about his wife - his WIFE!!- being disrespected (Excuse me? If anyone was disrespectful and rude first, it was preggo wife) and starts trying to squeeze out crocodile tears as he wildly speechifies. Shouldn't someone in construction have a little thicker skin? Wife appeared to be way rougher and tougher and have more cojones than her wee, crying hubby. JM tells preggo that she can see what wife saw in this guy. Was she trying to be funny, sarcastic, or did she really mean it? I have no idea. The most amazing part of this, to me, is that def managed to sire three kids? Wow. Another one who whines he was only doing the work out of the kindness of his heart, "I was just trying to help her out." Yes, you should, after she agrees to pay you 1200$, you tiny little nitwit. Plaintiff didn't do what she should have - get someone else to do the job properly and present the bill here. People, if you want something done right, don't hire some little shit who shows up on your doorstep or who you meet at the gas station, just because you think it's a bargain. As JM says (and with which I totally agree): "The cheap comes out expensive." Oh, and if you hire pros, you likely won't come home and find their abandoned kids in your back yard. 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: failed roommate attempt: Case was boring, but worth it just to listen to people who can speak English properly even if what they were saying was silly. "I overpaid by 2.50$ every month and want it back." 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Mechanic fail: Same old, same old. "My 17-year old POS Caddy (with 54K miles? Sure. Damn thing is so old parts were actually disintegrating.) stopped working 5 months after I got it back from the def. It was in pristine condition so he must have ruined it. How else could anything go wrong with it? Pay me 10 times what the shitbox is worth." Of course he has no proof def did anything wrong, but when an ancient car conks out, it has to be someone's fault for sure. Whatever. Best part was mechanic trying to be eloquent and stating that plaintiff had an "epiphamy." JM couldn't take that and corrected him, for all the good it did. What's with these old Caddies? Do people think it gives them prestige to tool around in these old, decrepit dinosaurs? What would that get, like 8 mpg? I don't get the attraction. Edited April 25, 2018 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
NYGirl April 25, 2018 Share April 25, 2018 OMG that pool installer was so whiney. I hated the roommate woman. I think it was the way she spoke....very condescending tone. Ok she reminded me of my co-worker..that's why. LOL 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 25, 2018 Share April 25, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: handyman kerfuffle: Another entitled plaintiff who expects a Ritz-Carlton level of service at Holiday Inn rates. And then apparently decides to lord over the project according to her whims and unrealistic expectations. On the other side, we have a defendant who needs to up his meds (or just get some) because he really takes things much too emotionally and personaly, especially for someone in business. Plaintiff contributed to the mess by her negligence in letting things lie around exposed to the elements. Because of shared liability, the verdict was reasonable in my view. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: failed roommate attempt: I wondered at first why she was not suing the landlord because he is the one who would have made the mistake in refunding her roommate all of the deposit, but when it came out that everything was in his name, she turned out to be correct in her choice of defendant despite appearing to be part of the usual garden variety of clueless idiots we see on these shows. She probably got back just about what she was entitled to. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: Mechanic fail: Why can't the show's staff find car repairs cases where plaintiffs do not believe that their old vehicle should run as well as a pristine one just out of the factory? Perhaps people who understand that old cars are prone to all sorts of problems, with many possible causes not necessarily attributable to a single mechanic's work are too intelligent to appear on these TV court spectacles. Edited April 26, 2018 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment
Brattinella April 26, 2018 Share April 26, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: What's with these old Caddies? Do people think it gives them prestige to tool around in these old, decrepit dinosaurs? What would that get, like 8 mpg? I don't get the attraction. I have driven a couple of old Caddies, big ol' boats. I love the hell out of them! It kind of feels like a shark in the water. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy April 26, 2018 Share April 26, 2018 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Histrionic, weepy, motor-mouthed, overly-emotional little handyman shrieks and wails about his wife - his WIFE!!- being disrespected (Excuse me? If anyone was disrespectful and rude first, it was preggo wife) and starts trying to squeeze out crocodile tears as he wildly speechifies. Shouldn't someone in construction have a little thicker skin? Wife appeared to be way rougher and tougher and have more cojones than her wee, crying hubby. It felt like true Sarah Heartburn and a candidate for a Razzie. Designed to distract MM, and it almost worked. She was way gentler than I would have been. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch April 26, 2018 Share April 26, 2018 (edited) family court day - first daughter sued daddy -- second case battling twin sisters - which TPC show runners thinks deserves to run long and take up 2/3 of today's time - yep just two cases today... Hmm maybe #2 should have aired first if it takes 40 minutes - when it came on I was over Dr Phil-like tv bad daddy: I'm guessing family oriented MM will ask "how could you?" a few times during this one. According to preview and intro, there was $4200 in daughter/daddy joint account. Money is for her college from a grant. Unfortunately, daddy opens a second account and, without telling her, transfers her college grant money into account she can't access (after all, says Pops, it was really my money). When we get to daddy's intro we hear a couple possible defenses. First - when she received the government grant money she wanted to go party so he took control. Second - he paid for her college, so when grant money came he was entitled keep it to pay back what he had already paid out. Hope he has something better when testimony starts because both those defenses are non starters for me. Girl is a college senior, so maybe a baby in his eyes, but not hers and the law. Her checks from the government aid - sent to her - in her name, but to daddy's house (she was a minor when they were first sent) Parents not together, and when she's not at college she lives with mommy - not daddy. Ah, but daddy is handling her finances - he deposits the funds in their joint account and then doles out money as needed for school. Hmmm, if I'm hearing right, her grant money is sitting in the bank and he's supporting her from his own separate account. Sounds kind of stupid to me - but not that unusual... Way I was raised (which maybe is why I think it works - after all my folks raised 5 productive kids) is the kid gets a part time job when old enough to get a work permit. Kid starts paying some of his/her expenses with mom and dad there for big stuff and the occasional interest free loan - hmmm, just thought of an odd thing - far as I know all those interest free loans were actually repaid. In our family mom was the financial boss - on payday we told her what we received and what we wanted to spend the money on - you known budgeted our money. Over time she backed off and let us make more decisions - by college age we had some money in the bank, and knew how to budget. Course I threw a curve in there and joined the Army ?Anyway, not what we see here... Daddy still writing the checks, girl has a debit card with a $700 limit for books... Months apparently went by before she even realized HER account is empty... Ah, soon as daddy starts I see trouble coming - and not just because I need CC to understand him. Even though the money was in the joint account, from the get go he's saying it was understood to be HIS money... Uhh no, not if the grant check was issued in HER name. Dude needs better accounting of the money than to just repeat sometimes he gave her cash - yeah treated minor daughter as a daughter and supported her - grant was NOT back child support! OTOH if he's been supporting her throughout her college experience, $4290 is just a drop in the bucket. Oh yeah, now we're getting into his "I took the money because she wanted to party" defense. Says she was taking of going to Indonesia with her bf - she acts like that's news to her - says daddy has never even met her current bf... Heck, that defense is just an afterthought. Besides, later he complains current bf is #3 - uhh really, #3? She seems to be failing the whole wild college girl party scene. Her trip - yes there was a planned trip with tickets and lodging already paid for - then canceled because of vulcano - wasn't even being thought of until months after she discovered the missing money. Ah, more irrelevant family drama stuff... First 16 years of her life he treated her as his biological daughter even though he knew all along he wasn't... Ok, he's not a bad guy, not trying to get rich taking her Money, and 4200 bucks is just a fraction of what he's spent on her education... But, says MM, the legal issue is that the government issued checks in her name and he can't show where it went. Ok, more family drama - dude is upset and apparently letting family skeletons out on national tv about things plaintiff does NOT know or what aired. He's announcing to world that mommy cheated with her drug dealer and the result was plaintiff. Not sure if that story is news to plaintiff, but as he's talking looks like only reason she doesn't break down and bolt from room is that big sis is holding her arm. After commercial turns out the story is not new - but she still thinks of him as her father. Ok, as far as the case... MM explains in the eyes of the law daughter is an adult and that was HER FRICKIN' money - he has to give it back. And, of Course case ends with family counseling session... Don't think it took - sounds like daddy still can't believe she actually sued him, while she says he's a big time liar, and has hit her and sisters in the past... Hmmm, could his slip the tongue about we paternity be pay back getting sued - more I think about it the worse he seems. twin sister case: ah - first case burned me out on family counseling cases. This one has defendant sis sitting at lectern looking everywhere but at plaintiff sis as P intro is going on and P is steadily looking at D side .... Oh, and feud has to do with family phone plan fail (and fisticuffs between these 59yo twins? Emulating Mike Tyson biting move...) May turn out entertaining - but I zip to decision. Whoa - turns out P was suing for 2 grand, D wanted 5 grand --- P actually gets $44 - not interested enough to figure out why - and this is second court appearance since they've already sued each other before this case. Oh, and still 1 fingering on phone - so whole different set of typos lol Edited April 27, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 26, 2018 Share April 26, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: bad daddy: I wish JM would stop the family counselling and stop attributing good intentions to those who don't deserve it. Yeah, daddy just stole plaintiff's 4200$ "out of love and concern" for her (says JM). Really? Was the girl doing drugs? Engaging in criminal activities? Gee, no. She's a student who seems to do well, is pretty and well-spoken. He certainly never did it out of 'love.' I heard something different. I heard him drag her mother through the mud, "drugs" and blah blah and he took the money because "it's my money" because he supported her while she was a minor. He wants to the be the daddy and make the rules, (and never wanted the girl to know he wasn't the bio dad - something that is her right to know) well, that's what daddies do - they support their kids and don't expect repayment for every cent they laid out. He didn't think she should go on vacation with her boyfriend ("She's had THREE boyfriends" - oh, no - what a slut!)so he just took her money. I didn't understand everything he said, but I think I got enough of it. I guess his ginormous wife agrees he deserves every penny he stole. JM may say that her 21-year old, grown woman daughter shouldn't be trusted with money. I beg to differ. She's an adult. Gee, some of us were on our own, working and paying our bills at that age. She's entitled to her opinion but I just wish she'd realize everyone is not like her. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: twin sister case: ah - first case burned me out on family counseling case. No kidding. My brother and I have had disagreements. Never have they resulted in biting, scratching, battling like wild animals and assault charges. I mean, he gets a little sarcastic sometimes, but I never had cause to scratch his face or slug him since he never thought about putting me in a headlock. AND had I slugged it out with him, I don't think I'd find it so funny I'd be bent over in hysterical laughter. Disgusting beasts and they're 59 years old, not 6! JM thinks it's worthwhile to give them the big, "Love your sisters" speech. I agree with her, in principle. I know my brother is now the only person on the planet who shares my memories, which all the more reason why I wouldn't physically attack him, especially over these stupid, ridiculous "put my phone on your plan and I'll send you money orders every month" BS. The love of money used to be the "root of all evil." Now it's the love of cell phones. Edited April 26, 2018 by AngelaHunter 6 Link to comment
meowmommy April 27, 2018 Share April 27, 2018 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I heard him drag her mother through the mud, "drugs" and blah blah and he took the money because "it's my money" because he supported her while she was a minor. I don't understand why the money belongs to either one of them. Aren't government education grants supposed to be used for educational expenses? So if she didn't spend it on school, it's not supposed to be a windfall for her. 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: JM thinks it's worthwhile to give them the big, "Love your sisters" speech. The only way I'd ever want to be in court because of my sister is because they found me standing over her dead body with a knife in my hand. Nothing is ever going to change that. MM needs to turn off the amateur family counseling shit. She doesn't know any of these people and she doesn't know them any better after a twenty minute case. Judge the case on the damn merits. 7 Link to comment
aemom April 27, 2018 Share April 27, 2018 (edited) On 2018-04-25 at 5:30 PM, AngelaHunter said: Shouldn't someone in construction have a little thicker skin? Wife appeared to be way rougher and tougher and have more cojones than her wee, crying hubby. JM tells preggo that she can see what wife saw in this guy. Was she trying to be funny, sarcastic, or did she really mean it? I have no idea. I think she meant it. We often see men on this show who have taken advantage of women in a variety of ways with no sense of guilt or conscience. In this case, the husband seems to really care about and dote on his wife. To some women, that kind of man is refreshing, even if he may be too emotional and somewhat whiny. On 2018-04-25 at 7:03 PM, Florinaldo said: Another entitled plaintiff who expects a Ritz-Carlton level of service at Holiday Inn rates. And then apparently decides to lord over the project according to her whims and unrealistic expectations. On the other side, we have a defendant who needs to up his meds (or just get some) because he really takes things much too emotionally and personaly, especially for someone in business. Plaintiff contributed to the mess by her negligence in letting things lie around exposed to the elements. Because of shared liability, the verdict was reasonable in my view. I agree 100% with your assessment. Edited April 27, 2018 by AEMom Typos 1 Link to comment
SRTouch April 27, 2018 Share April 27, 2018 (edited) Drats! Got my coffee and sat down to watch... And my provider hiccuped and yesterday's father/daughter case comes on ? Sooooooo... No recap... Not sure if I would have enjoyed the advertized Musical Rabi clown that MM will treat as the latest and greatest while I hunt the FF button Edited April 27, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
Brattinella April 27, 2018 Share April 27, 2018 18 hours ago, meowmommy said: Aren't government education grants supposed to be used for educational expenses? So if she didn't spend it on school, it's not supposed to be a windfall for her. To my chagrin, a "grant" is a "gift", unlike a student loan, which is a "loan". You can spend a grant on a Saint Paddy's Day Parade if you want. A loan, I think has to be used for school, but I may be wrong. I've seen some boobs get a student loan and then have a "gap year" with the money. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 27, 2018 Share April 27, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Not sure if I would have enjoyed the advertized Musical Rabi clown that MM will treat as the latest and greatest while I hunt the FF button I don't know. "It's the case of "The Rock 'n Roll Rabbi Ripped Me Off!" The Rabbi, looking like a ringmaster from some hellish, pseudo-tropical circus with fake bananas and stuff around his neck and sporting a sparkly Michael Jackson glove doesn't want to pay plaintiff, who claims to be music producer to the stars, for his "Holy Man" song. Of course, neither of them know what the fee was, how many hours plaintiff worked or what was being charged per hour. Was it 30 hours? 80 hours?Who knows? Shrugs all around. This is how these people do business. How I wanted JM to tell the Rabbi to stop playing with his hair! He twirled and twirled it! Anyway, JM tells Rabbi to cut loose with his great song. He does so, and it took me about 4 seconds to start the FF. "I'm a holy man, laladeedah!" I'm sure someone, somewhere thinks this annoying, amateurish crap is wonderful. I guess I just don't know greatness when I see it. We needed interpreters today. Next case of tenant suing landlord for his security deposit. Landlord says tenant wrecked his shower - a janky-ass cheap thing he got installed by some under-the-table handyman and that leaked all over, creating mold. Landlord says his tenants (these are strangers living in bedrooms in his place and sharing a bathroom) should know they have to wash out the shower with vinegar and then dry it after every use. He learned that on Wikepedia, you see, so it must be accurate! Gee, I've never done that and - no mold in my bathroom! Very bestest part? Plaintiff whips out a sign he made. It says "LIAR" on it, so JM will know exactly what def. is. He even folded it at the bottom so it can stand up on its own on his podium. "This isn't a game show," JM tells plaintiff. Def. claims the plaintiff also destroyed his carpet, but of course he has not a shred of evidence or - duhhh - any pics. take his word for it. Oh, and plaintiff also wrecked his "executive desk" by ironing on it. "I don't have an iron," says plaintiff. Def. checked Google for a price to replace it with a brand new one. Yeah, sure, you idiot. JM orders security returned. Google and Wikipedia do not a case make. Last, but not least, we move on to yet more clowns. Plaintiff wanted to go to some Halloween festival. Just standing in line for some haunted house or whatever got her so terrified and filled with dread anticipation she needed to go puke in the parking lot. Ew. Anyway, her excitement and adrenaline kept her feeling wonky, so she asks def. to drive her car home. JM admires def's outfit, which is a black chiffon number, with flowers painted on it and her bra straps showing. Very appropriate for an afternoon court case. But that's nothing. Def. crashed plaintiff's car she was driving because, even though traffic in front of her was stopped, she just took her foot off the brake because her shoe was hurting and she had to remove it that very minute. No biggie, right? Who knew the car would keep moving and crash into the one in front of it? She very generously offered to pay half for the parts needed to repair plaintiff's 2016 Infinity, but not the labour charges. Why should she? Her shoe was hurting her really bad! Not her fault! Yes, it is, 100% her fault. Pay up, Ms. Chiffon. Edited April 27, 2018 by AngelaHunter 1 5 Link to comment
aemom April 27, 2018 Share April 27, 2018 Thursday was sue-your-family day on TPC. I didn't get the impression either that the dad was trying to save the daughter from spending money poorly, but that he felt that he was entitled to it. It was sad to see it the situation degrade into a court case. As for the twin sisters, the truth about the cat fight is probably somewhere in the middle. I also find it sad that twin sisters get to the point that they are suing each other and worse, having a trial where one could get imprisoned. I'm an only child but I have two teenage sons and I remind them that family is important and we should always help and be kind to each other. It really is sad to see these situations where families wind up in court. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: "I'm a holy man, laladeedah!" I'm sure someone, somewhere thinks this annoying, amateurish crap is wonderful. I guess I just don't know greatness when I see it. God, that was pretty bad. He DEFINITELY came on TPC for the publicity. He also seemed to be a few pancakes short of a stack. His young friend did a lot of the talking and he almost seemed high or something? 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Landlord says his tenants (these are strangers living in bedrooms in his place and sharing a bathroom) should know they have to wash out the shower with vinegar and then dry it after every use. He learned that on Wikepedia, you see, so it must be accurate! Gee, I've never done that and - no mold in my bathroom! Very bestest part? Plaintiff whips out a sign he made. It says "LIAR" on it, so JM will know exactly what def. is. He even folded it at the bottom so it can stand up on its own on his podium. "This isn't a game show," JM tells plaintiff. That shower was disgusting. The door probably didn't close properly for the same reason that the shower cracked. It was a piece of crap that was probably improperly installed to boot. The LIAR sign cracked me up. "This isn't a game show!" Possibly my favourite line of the week from MM. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: JM admires def's outfit, which is a black chiffon number, with flowers painted on it and her bra straps showing. Very appropriate for an afternoon court case. I actually thought that the embroidery was quite pretty, but the right way to wear it would be with a black, strapless camisole underneath. But it would be appropriate for an evening event - not for court. And I can't believe that I am actually going to say something nice about Levin, but the blazer he was wearing today was kind of snazzy. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 27, 2018 Share April 27, 2018 22 minutes ago, AEMom said: I actually thought that the embroidery was quite pretty, but the right way to wear it would be with a black, strapless camisole underneath. It was very pretty, for a night out in Vegas or a club date or even a rainy night in Georgia (minus the visible underwear straps). Not for an afternoon of fighting on TV court when you make yourself sound like a moron. 24 minutes ago, AEMom said: He DEFINITELY came on TPC for the publicity. I couldn't believe how long JM let him carry on and dance around, with his long ringmaster red coat swirling. Even with FFing, it seemed to go on forever. JM does seem enthralled with anyone claiming to be in the music biz, no matter how marginally they may be involved in said business. 25 minutes ago, AEMom said: And I can't believe that I am actually going to say something nice about Levin, but the blazer he was wearing today was kind of snazzy. I'll have to take your word for it. I not only FF him and his peanut gallery, but avert my eyes as well. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy April 27, 2018 Share April 27, 2018 Thanks to AngelaHunter for pinch-hitting the recaps today. Catch ya next time, SRTouch! 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Anyway, JM tells Rabbi to cut loose with his great song. He does so, and it took me about 4 seconds to start the FF. Hah, I zoomed out in three seconds. I needed an eye mask, ear plugs, and brain bleach. The plaintiff drove me crazy with his Donald Trump speech patterns and mannerisms, and the defendant--well, what is there to say? Yecch that he was smiling and giggling as he minced into the courtroom, and somehow thought he was so precious. I wanted to know if the plaintiff maybe punched out the defendant to account for the split lip. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: How I wanted JM to tell the Rabbi to stop playing with his hair! He twirled and twirled it! I have a hair-twirling habit, but that was gross. Maybe he was checking for fleas. 22 minutes ago, AEMom said: That shower was disgusting. The door probably didn't close properly for the same reason that the shower cracked. It was a piece of crap that was probably improperly installed to boot. How would the landlord think that mold would not occur when there are cracks for the water to get through? Maybe the tenants should have yanked out the shower and cleaned behind it each time? And even, even, even, if any of this was the tenants' fault, there were two tenants. How did the landlord decide which tenant should be responsible? Let me guess, he withheld security on both of them. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: JM admires def's outfit, which is a black chiffon number, with flowers painted on it and her bra straps showing. She looked like a shower curtain. Perhaps we could offer it to defendant #2. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 28, 2018 Share April 28, 2018 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: I wanted to know if the plaintiff maybe punched out the defendant to account for the split lip. I figured that was maybe a nasty coldsore, but didn't want to think about it. Maybe someone else punched him. Gotta be a lot of people vying for the chance. I couldn't believe JM didn't order him to take off the stupid, sparkling MJ glove, and allowed him to use this show as an audition platform. 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: Maybe the tenants should have yanked out the shower and cleaned behind it each time? Maybe that should be suggested on Wikipedia too. What an asshole. And a "LIAR". And greasy-looking too. 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: She looked like a shower curtain. Perhaps we could offer it to defendant #2 Bwahaha! You're on fire. On fire, I tell you! 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.