AngelaHunter May 7, 2018 Share May 7, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Pool hall car wreck: "They was tooken in the ambulance." I can honestly say that none of my friends and I ever got into an argument over which of us had warrants and which were more recent. Litigants wanted to go the pool hall with some guys who are "sieves"? Was that the word she used? Anyway, these guys are criminals but they wanted to hang out with them anyway. My cousin, not my cousin, her name, not her name... I was getting dizzy. Once again JM is very lenient with these lying cretins, barely reacting to the blabbering over each other and over her. She did say she might inform the police how def. lied to them and gave them a fake name - well, she had to because of that pesky warrant. I really hope she did. Of course plaintiff had no insurance on her car and she couldn't figure out how to get to her new job at Amazon(?) without a car, so lost the job. That's on you, you idiot. During a prolonged transportation strike here, I somehow managed to figure out how to get my job. If I had sat there on my butt and done nothing, I would have expected to get fired. Duh. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: D, yeah I have a license - Let's see it - oh, I don't have it on me - I don't think you have a license - oh, I don't have a VALID license, How stupid/hilarious was that? "Yeah, I HAVE a license. What, you mean a valid license? Oh, no - I don't have that. Is that a problem?" Personally I would never have the nerve to drive around with no license and no insurance, but those little details never trouble our litigants. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: security deposit case: Gee. Female plaintiff takes care of her boyfriend and has to keep track of how much he paid for his room in def's house. Def. is kind of a creep who is trying to take advantage of plaintiff who seems to be somewhat challenged. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: ok, dog attack case: I actually watched this. If plaintiff really did have an invisible fence, it reinforces my opinion that those things are a horrible invention and are worse than useless because they do not stop other dogs or animals from entering your property and attacking your dogs. You want dogs - put up a real fence or do a lot of dog-walking. I know -both those options cost money or require effort. Def sounded like a moron. Oooh, his shoulder operation meant he couldn't get the leash on his dog to stop it from charging across the street and attacking plaintiff's dog. Put the leash on in the house then, you fool. I notice plaintiff's "fiance" who witnessed all this didn't want to show up here. If you have a teeny weeny little dog, take better care of it! I did believe def when he said plaintiff's dogs are always outside loose, but plaintiff takes no responsibility for her dog's suffering. 6 Link to comment
Guest May 7, 2018 Share May 7, 2018 1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said: I actually watched this. If plaintiff really did have an invisible fence, it reinforces my opinion that those things are a horrible invention and are worse than useless because they do not stop other dogs or animals from entering your property and attacking your dogs. You want dogs - put up a real fence or do a lot of dog-walking. I know -both those options cost money or require effort. Def sounded like a moron. Oooh, his shoulder operation meant he couldn't get the leash on his dog to stop it from charging across the street and attacking plaintiff's dog. Put the leash on in the house then, you fool. I notice plaintiff's "fiance" who witnessed all this didn't want to show up here. If you have a teeny weeny little dog, take better care of it! I did believe def when he said plaintiff's dogs are always outside loose, but plaintiff takes no responsibility for her dog's suffering. As I munched on my club crackers and cheese whiz I immediately thought that if doughy defendant started with the dislocated shoulder story with Judge Judy she'd scream rightfully so "WHO CARES"!! He had a preplanned speech just ripe for sympathy. The problem was he was as far from a sympathetic person as one could get. And absolutely true about the electric fence. You also wonder why she would have put up that kind of fence with the moron next door. People are getting more stupid each day and are very proud to show off said stupidity on television. I guess facebook ain't cuttin' it. Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 7, 2018 Share May 7, 2018 25 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: People are getting more stupid each day and are very proud to show off said stupidity on television. So many of people we see here are so stupid they don't even know they're stupid. Both litigants in the dog case are stupid. It's just a matter of degree. 25 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: if doughy defendant started with the dislocated shoulder story with Judge Judy she'd scream rightfully so "WHO CARES"!! I wish JM had screamed that. It was the moron's responsbility to handle his own problems. You expect this from children, but - call me naive - I still don't expect people well past middle age to declare, "Yes, I did that, but it wasn't MY FAULT." I guess this is just the New Reality, and every nitwit tries to get a free ride on it. Link to comment
meowmommy May 8, 2018 Share May 8, 2018 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Of course plaintiff had no insurance on her car and she couldn't figure out how to get to her new job at Amazon(?) without a car, so lost the job. That's on you, you idiot. I didn't understand why MM didn't ream her out for suing for not being able to get to Amazon, given that even if the car hadn't been totaled, she couldn't legally drive owing to having no license and no insurance. And generally, at least in the states I've lived in, they cancel your car registration when the state's computers can't find proof of insurance, so the car wouldn't have been registered, either. With all those cousins floating out there, you'd think someone could give her a ride to work...assuming any of them had cars, licenses, or insurance. 3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: He had a preplanned speech just ripe for sympathy. The problem was he was as far from a sympathetic person as one could get. Agreed. He didn't help his case at all with his attitude. Because the plaintiff was a lying little witch, but she had slightly more law on her side. And then she goes on about how she has emails of his, at which point I wondered how she had hacked his email, until it turned out she hunted him down on FB, so she was a sleaze, too. Only grateful we didn't have blown-up photos of mauled animals this time. 2 Link to comment
aemom May 8, 2018 Share May 8, 2018 (edited) I needed a flowchart to keep track of all the manglers of the English language involved in the pool hall case. I wonder if the defendant will go after the guy for the 20%. The guy in the rent case seemed a little slow. As the case went on, the defendant was behaving more and more like a jackass. I have a feeling that $160 is a lot of money for the plaintiff and I'm glad he won. I agree with all of you that they were both irresponsible dog owners and I don't think that either of them looked so good. I believe that she did threaten to kill his dog and that he got confrontational. However, his dog ate hers on her property, so he loses. I would hope that they both learned a lesson, but probably not. We finally had a beautiful spring day on the weekend so I dragged the kids off their computers to go for a nice walk at a large park nearby with walking paths. There is a dog run there, and I immediately thought of TPC, and realized that if I ever got a dog, I would never go to a dog run unless we were the only ones inside. Edited May 8, 2018 by AEMom Correction 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 8, 2018 Share May 8, 2018 (edited) Headlight install fail: whoa, something going on with these two. According to intro, plaintiff wanted some aftermarket LED headlights put on his car. His good buddy agrees to do the deed, but for whatever ever reason, a year goes by and it hasn't been done.... when P asks for the headlights back, D ships them - to the wrong address. What gets me is the specific amount P says he's out - $1604.11. Surely that isn't the cost of the lights! (Nah, later we find out he wants money for lost work and time spent dealing with the missing lights.) D claims P was just impatient. Says what slowed things down was that one of the lights had been damaged in shipping. Then, of course when P had his hissy fit and wanted shipped them back, D admits he shipped them to the wrong address.... not sure how that would be a defence - unless he's saying the shipment address was correct but package was lost. Guess these guys are really into fixing up their cars. Actual cost of the light kit was $292.99 - then he bought some other kit to customize the installation for $722.72.... oh, but good buddy was going to install them for free. P bought the kits in November, and nothing had been installed when he moved to Arizona from NY in July. Other thing I don't get.... this isn't first time P has had headlights switched - no this is third time D has done his lights (for free) - also not first time it's taken forever to be completed, last time it was over 6 months. Whatever is going on with these guys, D needs to do preliminary work before the actual installation on the car. Soooo, couple days before he makes the move to AZ, he asks for the lights - but D tells him the preliminary work almost finished - he convinces P to let him finish and offers to ship them to AZ - no charge. OK, time to hear from defendant. He starts out with, this was actually supposed to be a barter. Says he was supposed to get an air compressor in exchange for his work on the lights. MM turns back to P, was that the deal, were you supposed to give an air compressor in exchange for D's labor? P, yeah, but it was broken - no, I didn't tell D why I wasn't giving him the compressor as agreed. No, says D, he not only never told me it was broken, I saw where here sold it. Okkkkk, now P is out in AZ, he's sold the compressor - he says new deal is he agreed to pay D $150 and D is to ship the lights to him in AZ. Four more months go by, the preliminary work still not completed, says D, since he considered job LOW priority. Ah, now we start the flapping gum/no evidence routine. D says he shipped the lights - but he didn't keep any records. Ah, that time lights are returned because they were shipped to the wrong address. Instead of immediately shipping them to the correct address, he takes them home where the package is knocked over and the light gets damaged. (Well, maybe he took them home and had to wait until he contacted P to get the correct address.) So, he says he told P about the damage, that he would pay to replace the broken light, redo the preliminary work, and send them out to AZ as soon as they were complete. Come December, work completed and he ships them out again. Shipment gets lost - again... but he says he has the proof of this shipment, and he starts digging through his folder of evidence (for some reason, MM isn't convinced the evidence really exists). Back to P. Ok, more incredible story to add to his damage claim. P says he's fed up at this point, and decides the only way to get his lights is to fly back to NY and confronts D in person - course he wants D to pay for the trip and this is probably the missed work claim. Seems MM isn't buying these jokers' story any more than I am - she asks if P's November trip happened to coincide with Thanksgiving, then waves at D and says, yeah, didn't expect him to find the evidence he says is in his folder... geez, only at 8 minute mark and unless there's a surprise switcheroo I'm ready to call this one. Ah, as we head to commercial we get some preview of D yawning (for second time) - and for second time MM asks if she's boring him.... which reminds me of the pair of jokers we had with the choreographed shoulder brush-off that made a mockery of the proceedings (remember, the one dude went through the whole case - from intro to hallterview - with his pants unzipped - which of course no one noticed until Harvey points it out after case is over). Ah, well maybe D isn't that clever.... MM tells him she just thinks he's a thief who kept the lights - why else, she says, didn't he bring the lights to court if he's really been trying to return them. Ah, seems P even has proof that D told him he was going to keep the lights. Ah well, no surprise waiting.... MM calls this one early at 15 minutes mark - P gets the money for the kits - none of the other nonsense..... ok, D says lights are of no use to him as they don't fit his car - but he isn't going to give them back.... how many think he sold the lights just as soon as he learned P was moving out of state? condo plumbing problem: plaintiff lives downstairs from defendant - says D's plumbing sprung a leak, causing extensive damage in P's condo - wants $1575 for the damage. D says P is inflating the claim - says there was a small leak inside the wall.... as long as he's here, he figures he might as well countersues asking for missed worknow - yeah, cuz that always works. This is one of those cases which will probably come down to the condo association rules to determine who is responsible for plumbing inside the walls... any bets on whether these yahoos brought a copy of the rules? Well, one thing right off the bat. As P starts his testimony he's talking about "his tenant" and how "she" discovered and reacted to the leak - uh, and why is there no "she" as a witness on his side. If intro is correct (yeah, how often does that happen) D claims a small leak, yet P is giving hearsay evidence of water "pouring" through the ceiling. Not to be outdone, turns out D also rents out his condo - and he didn't bring his tenant, either. Both sides agree that plumber found the leak was inside the wall in D's bathroom. Plumber "fixed" the problem - but two days later water dripping down through P's ceiling and bathroom ceiling collapses (and wouldn't you know, bathroom had been recently (well, 4 years ago) redone.) Hmmm, guess I was wrong about the condo rules - seems condo paid the plumber, and the lawsuit is about the damage to ceiling. D isn't arguing he shouldn't pay - his argument is that the repair should cost way too much... oh, and he has message from P asking for $1700+ - not the $1575 P says he can prove was paid. He has a point, as P had the whole ceiling replaced - even admits he's happy to get rid of the old popcorn ceiling texture. Comes down to, does D have to pay to bring the ceiling back to condition it was before the leak, or upgrade it to what P wants? Oh, and not only replacing/retexture the ceiling, but $250 to replace the 35yo exhaust fan - when he says he replaced the fan in his place for $15. I was leaning towards P right up til time D started talking - oh, and he had an estimate from HIS contractor buddy for $300. Oops, even though D was ready to pay, now he's saying that his insurance company told him the condo association bylaws say repairs should be paid by plaintiff (another problem D has - he let the insurance lapse, so he wasn't covered anyway.) Soooo, bylaws are coming into play.... and both sides actually have copies! MM reads aloud the pertinent clause and sure sounds like the bylaws say repairs are on P... dude can't help himself, just has to chime in and MM tells him she doesn't need his help. Yep, it did come down to the condo bylaws - and they favored D. Sounds like he was willing to pay until he got what he considered an inflated claim, then he started investigating and found he wasn't liable for the repairs. Case dismissed another downstairs flood case: this time the downstairs tenant suing over damage to her personal property after upstairs radiator leaked. She wants landlady to pay her 3 grand (2 grand emotional distress and 1 grand actual damages). D says P was a problem tenant from the get go - failed to disclose fact she was a parolee, moved in a bf without permission, etc... hmmmm not sure any of that has anything to do with the case. Maybe she could go to housing court, but not even sure that would let her evicted P - though of course she could not renew the lease when it's run out. Ah.... also turns out P is 7 months behind on rent.... could be this case is a ploy to delay and confused eviction proceedings. Notice landlady isn't countersuing - maybe she already won in housing court and this case is P's attempt to recoup losses. Ah, but once testimony starts not so sure landlady isn't a slumlord.... I mean she shows video of the radiator in HER room (she's just renting a room for $500 plus a month) - her radiator is doing a good water fountain impression. So, if the radiator above her room is like hers, I get why she says she withheld part of the rent. Wow, she not only has multiple pictures of place bring a wreck, she says she actually went to the ER when part of the ceiling collapsed on her head. Over to landlady, and MM says WTH, landlady very nonchalant, yeah, that's what it looks like. MM, well, that's unacceptable, it needs to be fixed. LL, yeah, oh well, it got fixed after a few months..... but didn't P just testify there's still a hole in her ceiling! This is the case where the show runners are going to use that extra 5 minutes from the first case? I'm ready to slam the landlady right now, but maybe she has enough mud to sling to make tenant look equally disgusting. I know JJ would be screaming to just ah-move. Not only does P not have the money to up and move - she explains both she and bf are on parole - she can't just up and move without going through a process and getting permission and having parole board approve of her new place. Uhhh, does that mean they approved this dump? Anyway, she stopped paying rent way back, still living there but landlady has eviction process going through housing court. Back to this case either being revenge for getting evicted or maybe a stall to deal out actually being ordered to move. Part of her damages are for sheets damaged over a year ago, and despite being asked several different ways if she has any evidence of the damage or what stuff cost she isn't answering. Oh, and what little evidence she does have is the pictures from when the ceiling collapsed a year ago - damaged sheets still have the ceiling sheetrock on the bed, like MM said, when the rest of us get dirty sheets we wash them, we don't sue asking for $150 for sheets with no receipts. Ah, but the sheets got moldy - what moldy with the sheetrock still on the bed? Case started out with me thinking landlady a slumlord - that hadn't changed, but more and more tenant appears to be after a boNANza. I give up when I hear she's suing for damaged sweat pants.... oh, and let's not forget the ruined mail from the parole board and her bf. Nope, zip zip..... case dismissed with MM telling them sounds like they need to settle this nonsense in housing court .... which is where they're due the next day Edited May 8, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 8, 2018 Share May 8, 2018 29 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Headlight install fail: Loved def. yawning in JM's face - not once, but twice. Guess he had a rough night. Both litigants had stories so dumb I'm surprised they can walk and chew gum at the same time. They have no evidence. Did they need some? Who cares about that? Just give me money, so we can split the boe-nanza. Plaintiff sounded ridiculous too, even with no yawning. Sure he promised to trade a compressor for the light thing, but then found out the compressor was broken, so why would he bother telling def this? They had FB confrontations, right down to Unfriending - the whole works. A battle it was! Very impressive for 10-year old girls, not so much for grown men. Boring, stupid case with boring, stupid litigants. 33 minutes ago, SRTouch said: condo plumbing problem: Plaintiff is an odd little duck with interesting wardrobe choices who thinks def is liable for some pipe that was leaking inside the walls in a building that seems to be ancient. Both sides base their cases on a whole bunch of hearsay from Patricia, who is not here and neighbours who are also not here. Even so, it appears def wins. But he just couldn't shut the hell up. He's a wiseguy who had to open his itty-bitty piehole, and had it all planned ahead to say, "If I were Superman I could see through the tub." I bet he told people he was going to say that and was sure JM would be impressed with his wit. She was not, and he sounded like a stupid asshole who was just annoying her. I bet all his buddies were watching this, and vicariously basking in his 5 minutes of fame. 36 minutes ago, SRTouch said: another downstairs flood case: OMG. Love story of the Century! Plaintiff, who is on parole, is heartbroken that the love letters from her incarcerated jailbird baby daddy - oh, I mean her beloved "fiance" got ruined by water leaks. Was his parole revoked? Anyway, I guess Romeo got out of the pen long enough to knock up plaintiff, who is 7 months preggo here. How touching. She can't take care of herself and her fiance can't take care of her and their upcoming blessed event from the slammer, so she needs to go home to Momma, who I imagine is thrilled to take on this huge burdern. So plaintiff wants a whole bunch of money because the room she's living in (and not paying the rent) is a disaster. She had like 50 sweatpants and sweat shirts worth 500$! She had several sets of 150$ sheets! (I need to know more about that because the most I've paid for a set of sheets is 100$ and I'm not even on parole and/or preggers and living in someone's slummy bedroom)Of course she has no proof of one single thing she's claiming, never mind 2,000$ for her emotional distress caused by water damaging some pictures of her friends or whatever. Plaintiff is still living there and not paying rent. If you can't afford to live in a place that's not rotting, leaking, infested with vermin and falling apart, why on earth would you think it's the perfect time to have an unfortunate baby? Oh, I guess she just "found out" she was knocked up, with no knowledge how that happens. 5 Link to comment
aemom May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 (edited) Kind of boring today. The headlight guy was just a thief. He still has the lights, and TPC paid his judgment, so I bet that he'll sell them on eBay now. I was surprised that the condo association papers had the plaintiff on the hook for repairs. I wonder if that's a common thing? That house was disgusting, but the plaintiff milked that situation for all it was worth. I'm still amazed at how many people rent out rooms in their houses. I can see several young people renting an apartment together to make ends meet while going to school or something, but renting rooms in your house? In this case she didn't live there, but in a lot of other cases, people do live in a house and rent out rooms to strangers. I would rather move somewhere smaller that I could afford on my own. Edited May 9, 2018 by AEMom Typos 1 Link to comment
Brattinella May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 MM made a bad mistake today re: semi truck driver vs teenage girl. Having been the wife of a semi driver, I have ridden in one many times. I have interacted with one many times, too. Judge, sometimes a semi MUST take part of the other lane to complete the turn! Sorry, that's just physics. Has she never been close to a truck before? Does she NOT know how long they are, and that the trailer DOESN'T bend in the middle? This accident was absolutely 100% the young driver's fault! She was only looking at the green light, and wanted to make it, so she sped up and didn't pay attention to the monstrous truck to her right. I think from what you all have said, JM is way biased for young people. And besides, the Calif DMV manual DOES explain what a driver's responsibility is, and also goes into semi's limitations. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 (edited) tenant vs landlord over security deposit: ?? tired old story - tenant moves out, says he deserves deposit - landlady/property manager claims he left damages and isn't entitled to anything. Case comes down to D not knowing landlord responsibilities. Only interesting take from intro is assertion that landlady is withholding the deposit claiming he damaged plumbing by flushing dog poo. Testimony has dude in house for 20 months - says when he was told after the first year that rent was jumping from $1350 to $2,000 - says they negotiated and new lease was to be $1500 for another year or until he found new digs. Ok, this guy sure seems iffy on the facts of his case. MM asks him if the early out clause is actually in the new lease - ah, he'd have to check, not sure (doesn't matter, though as landlady agrees she let him out of the lease.) Says he gave the "appropriate" notice he was leaving - uh, what was the "appropriate" notice - again, not sure, thinks it was 90 days. Ok, I imagine he actually knows the answers and his "not sure" may just be pausing while he remembers - still kind of annoying and makes me question his facts. Anyway, his story is that four days before he was to be completely out one of the toilets backed up. Ok, sh*t happens... was it just bad luck that it happened as he was moving out, or did he flush something he shouldn't have? Little history - house built in 1959, and he says this was not first time water backed up - actually, he claims when plumber came out early in the tenancy and advised they needed to update the pipes... but, of course that's hearsay as he has no evidence from plumber. Not sure he needs the evidence, since I figure landlady has the burden of proving he did something to clog the pipes if she wants to hang onto the deposit. Ah, but MM wants to make sure dude notified landlady in a timely manner - yeah, he says he texted her as soon as it backed up - great, let's see the text, uh on the phone not a printed copy - oh, no longer have that phone. Ah well, again landlady, actually property manager, helps P out - she admits there had been earlier plumbing issues where the drain needed to be snaked out - ah but she remembers that as a problem with the kitchen and nothing to do with the bathroom. Heck, just going with that statement maybe bathroom was overdo for a clog. Oh, she also helps him with the text as he was moving out - yes, she remembers him texting that the toilet was backing up. His claim is that this was the first time he noticed a problem. But she's saying when she got in the house she found it had been happening for awhile, and hardwood floors had started buckling. MM sort of gets off on a tangent, asking if he shut off the water supply to the toilet.... way I understand it, it wasn't the water in the toilet leaking so much as a bad seal under the toilet letting water backup from a clog in the drain. Way I heard, he noticed the backup as he was running the washing machine - turning off the toilet water supply wouldn't have helped. Either way, not seeing how tenant could be blamed for not noticing water backing up under the hardwood floor before they were damaged. Ah, I was thinking the dog poo was typical intro BS - but no, D just claimed the plumber claimed drain was clogged with paper and "animal feces." Uh, and how did plumber determine this was animal feces? Geez, first we wasted time on turning off water supply, case is a dud and we need to fill more time, let's talk about whether or not dude flushed dog poo. Heck, only way dog poo would be bad is if he picked it up in a plastic bag and flushed bag and all. Ok, MM already asked if plumber put this nonsense in a report, but she just let's D continue with the hearsay instead. Well, how bout this, D says plumber actually put on the receipt that he found paper and animal feces when he snaked the drain. Not sure if he did or not, because MM shifts gears and says that even if there was dog poo flushed, why would that entitle D to keep the deposit? Ok, all this time wasted, now we get to look at the other damages she's claiming - because the plumber bill is getting flushed. Ok, dog chewed on something.... but, oh, did you comply with the law and send tenant an itemized list of why you were withholding the deposit - uh, no, no she didn't, instead she taped it to the door after he moved out. Come on, says MM, there's only like 10 pages you need to know to manage property according Florida law - not even 10, says the jydge, more like 5. Oh, but this was her very first rental she was managing, she's willing to accept responsibility for her screw up, etc.... well, heck, doesn't that mean dude gets his deposit and she tells the owner she screwed up.... nah, in her mind all she has to do is tell tenant she's sorry, but he doesn't get the deposit. Anyway, instead of sending a certified letter as required she says she taped it to the door the last day of dude's tenancy. Hmmmm, dude doesn't deny his puppy caused some damage, but says he offered to pay after she showed him a repair bill - which she never produced. Ok, decision time - well more like lecture telling new property manager how she is supposed to follow the law - dude gets his money. Big waste of time - but they got a trip out of the deal. car wreck: ? P claims D sideswiped her car while he was driving an 18 wheeler a couple years ago.... haven't heard any testimony yet, but just have to point out how many idiots drive cars like they're just daring a big rig to hit them.... many years ago, I had a motorcycle safety instructor who was fond of saying "right of WAY" means squat when other guy has "right of WEIGHT" and that holds for cars and big rigs. Ok, going out on a limb here seeing as testimony hasn't started, but predict another time wasting case - especially as this incident was two years ago, but then we don't watch court tv to be impressed by the legal arguments so much as snark at the litigants. Ah, time to drag out the old white board - this time with a toy big rig. As expected, even accorfing to P, she was driving in lane next to semi on a curve and not driving defensively. Heck, don't know about you all, but I do my utmost not to drive alongside a 18 wheeler on a curve - and to compound things, even as she's moving the models on the board I'm thinking she's right in his blind spot. Not totally wrong, though - according to her story, a good driver sitting in the big rig would have really been checking his blind spots on the curve, and she claims he drifted into her lane on the curve. Ok, no witnesses, no tickets, insurance claims investigated but sounds like she said/he said... she's after her deductible and car rental. Time for D to move the toys around. He really doesn't add much. Says it's a narrow street, says he didn't see her (actually says she wasn't there) admits rear wheels of his trailer went into her lane..... ok, understandable, I agree if she was a defensive driver accident wouldn't have happened, but he just admitted liability. Case over.... so time to tell a story from long ago.... I was driving my deuce and half, with tow load, through a German town along a narrow road. Stopped at a stop side and checked my rear view - BIG EYED German dude sitting in his totaled little Volkswagen with a death grab on his steering wheel - seems he tried to sneak around me, lug nut on my trailer got under his fender, picked up his car, threw it forward, ripping his fender and bumper off and blowing three of his tires - all that and I never felt a thing and would have kept driving had there not been a stop sign - oh, and it scratched the paint on the lug nut - oh, and according to polezei, my fault... ok, I've heard enough - zip zip he gets to pay - but still argues it's not his fault. Yep, he's one of those guys who, as MM joked, "owes the road." No, dude, just cause you're big doesn't mean you can do whatever you want ... hmmm, wonder if his small stature makes him more aggressive behind the wheel. .. anyway, both these drivers need to learn to drive defensively. dry cleaner case: another ? tired old story with slim chance cleaner will be paying dude $1500 for a new coat - ah, but impressive 'stache, dude. Ok, intro for D makes case sound even worse for dude. Seems this is another ancient history case - says coat dropped out in 2015 and it was noted at time it was very dirty with ground in stain/dirt - says dude didn't come get it for 6 months. Says when he finally came back he accused her of ruining the coat - no surprise, she denies ruining the thing.... sounds like dude after a lottery/bonanza win. Ok, once testimony starts it's looking like a long case... both English apparently is the second language for both sides, so need the CC turned on. Next thing, soon as P starts the timeline doesn't match the intro, says he purchased coat in 2016. Oh, and P says the coat that he wants $1500 to replace costs $900 new - ah, but he bought it on sale..... course no receipt - even though he used a debit card... so, not only can't he prove the normal retail price, he has nothing showing what he paid (or when, since he's saying he bought the coat after the intro says he turned in in to be cleaned.) One of those cases where MM switches to defendant early in hopes the other side will be more understanable, so she has Douglas bring her the coat while she starts tasking to D. Ok, not working, not only am I having trouble deciphering her speech, a couple times CC resorts to [indistinct]. Anyway, she goes back to 2015 timeline - but at least she admits she really doesn't remember the coat when it came in... don't you hate it when litigants claim to remember such and such when you're saying no way they remember this jackets from 3 years ago. Ok, seems part of her defense is resting on a store policy that they are not responsible for items left over 6 months - so MM wants proof of the dates D is using. Oh, and while D is looking for her proof, back to P, who says he dropped off the jacket in March 2016 and picked it up later in March '16... so, MM wants him to prove his dates. Ok, D finds her ticket dated Sept 2015 - but P isn't even looking - nope, he admits he doesn't have any proof... but hey, at least he brought the coat. Ok, another dud where MM has to fill time time - I swear, we could have seen 4 or 5 cases if we trimmed out the time fillers today. Only thing dude brought to court asking evidence is the coat, and only reason we know it went to cleaners is that D admits it. Not sure why, but MM is now looking at the damage he wants $1500 for... she can't find anything, has Douglas carry coat back so P can point it out, then decides to go over to P so he can point it out.... oh, playing up to audience, this whole little charade is so that when she cones down from the bench Douglas can hurry over to make sure she doesn't take another header. Once she makes it over, she really doesn't find the damage. Rather, sounds like she thinks it looks like a manufacturers flaw where the stitching didn't go all the way through and now the down is moving where it shouldn't. 'Nother little time filler, as Douglas escorts her back to the bench - new rules, he says, can't have the judge stumbling around. Just to turn this case into an even bigger waste of time, MM takes the time to look up the jacket's label on her tablet.... says this is not a down jacket, but is filled with polyester... the only jacket with that brand she finds online retails for $19.99... truly a case I wish JJ had - but then she would have never taken the time to look it up on air before booting the dude. Case tossed... P upset and doesn't want hear it, and tries to retry the case in hallterview. Edited May 9, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
SRTouch May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Brattinella said: MM made a bad mistake today re: semi truck driver vs teenage girl. Having been the wife of a semi driver, I have ridden in one many times. I have interacted with one many times, too. Judge, sometimes a semi MUST take part of the other lane to complete the turn! Sorry, that's just physics. Has she never been close to a truck before? Does she NOT know how long they are, and that the trailer DOESN'T bend in the middle? This accident was absolutely 100% the young driver's fault! She was only looking at the green light, and wanted to make it, so she sped up and didn't pay attention to the monstrous truck to her right. I think from what you all have said, JM is way biased for young people. And besides, the Calif DMV manual DOES explain what a driver's responsibility is, and also goes into semi's limitations. Don't disagree - had girl been driving defensively accident wouldn't never have happened. Unfortunately, not sure how you put driving defensively into the vehicle codes.... no matter how many times you reminded people not to cruise along in other drivers' blind spot or not to tailgate, people do it all the time. Actually, when listening to the intro, I expected accident to be caused by yet another common mistake people make. From the intro, I expected to hear girl had cut off the semi and pulled short in front of him. What sunk this driver is his admission that his trailer went over the line.... like I said, perfectly understandable - especially as he had pictures showing signs, telephone/light poles practically on the curb preventing him from staying further to the right... so, if anyone cut off the other, he cut her off (even though, as I said, a good driver would not have been where she was at the time). Edited May 9, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Brattinella said: Judge, sometimes a semi MUST take part of the other lane to complete the turn! Sorry, that's just physics. Has she never been close to a truck before? I agree that the plaintiff should have been held at least partly responsible because she did not take enough precautions. Driving defensively is an obligation I believe and a big truck like that does not magically transform into a giant Slinky when it takes difficult turns, allowing other vehicles to slide by with no contact. But I do not think that the plaintiff had the mental ability to understand the concept of defensive driving and taking precautions while on the road. She was also helped by the fact that the defendant mangled his explanations and defense. In an otherwise silly case, we had a dry cleaner who not only keeps records, but does not throw them away after only a few weeks; evidence, wonder of wonders! MM really indulged foolish plaintiff by consenting to examine the coat up close because once the cleaning ticket was entered into evidence he was sunk. He also kept and wore the coat a long time before filing his case, which means the filling could have moved because of simple wear and tear, especially in such a cheap garment. Edited May 9, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant vs landlord over security deposit: How many times do we see landlords or property managers (as in this case) who have no clue about landlord/tenant laws? Her "Oh, well - I just started this job" is not an excuse to do everything wrong. Blah blah - plaintiff has text proving what he says, but gee - he changed phones so no longer has them. Whatever. I'm always taken aback when I see someone plaintiff's age - someone who seems relatively successful and is well-spoken - talking about a "roommate" as though they're college kids. Anyway, def. needs to go Google "tenant landlord laws" instead of making herself sound ridiculous by using as a defense some hearsay from a plumber. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: car wreck: ? P claims D sideswiped her car while he was driving an 18 wheeler a couple years ago I am super careful when a big rig is in front of me. I had one merge into my lane on the highway, not caring that I was there and scraped the entire side of my car, didn't give a shit and just kept going. I avoid them at all cost. They all have warning signs on the back, so even though there is space left between the truck and edge of the road, I never try to sneak in between them and my right turn, if they have the right blinker on. In this case? I don't know if he had his blinker on and the fact that he claimed that plaintiff "wasn't there" when she clearly was makes me wonder. He didn't see her, and IMO that's on him, because no, she didn't just drop out of the sky or turn off her cloaking device and appear magically. I didn't think def was nearly as cute as everyone else seemed to think. OH, and plaintiff? You are a 23-year old woman. You have a fender-bender, don't call your mommy, unless mommy is a cop. JM seems to think it's normal for a grown woman to act like a baby, but I don't. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Cleaner case: I couldn't understand anything plaintiff was raving about, except that he wants 1500$ for a jacket he says cost him 900$ and that he left at the def's cleaning business for six months. Of course he has zero proof of anything. JM finds it probably cost 20$. Get the fuq out of here, you incoherent scammer. No 1500$ lottery for you. I must add I really like the way Douglas is so protective of JM. Cute! 4 Link to comment
Brattinella May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: She was also helped by the fact that the defendant mangled his explanations and defense. I would agree with this if the judge didn't SPEAK SPANISH, like the defendant did! She could have gotten a perfectly lucid response if she had done that! Does she only speak Spanish when it is to HER benefit?? I'm glad I hardly ever watch this show. 2 Link to comment
babs j. May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 Something I've heard many time - ignorance of the law is no excuse. 1 Link to comment
Zahdii May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Brattinella said: MM made a bad mistake today re: semi truck driver vs teenage girl. Having been the wife of a semi driver, I have ridden in one many times. I have interacted with one many times, too. Judge, sometimes a semi MUST take part of the other lane to complete the turn! Sorry, that's just physics. Has she never been close to a truck before? Does she NOT know how long they are, and that the trailer DOESN'T bend in the middle? This accident was absolutely 100% the young driver's fault! She was only looking at the green light, and wanted to make it, so she sped up and didn't pay attention to the monstrous truck to her right. I think from what you all have said, JM is way biased for young people. And besides, the Calif DMV manual DOES explain what a driver's responsibility is, and also goes into semi's limitations. Truckers are like everyone else. Good ones and bad ones. I have found that when I was routinely traveling between states with small children to visit my folks, I'd look for a couple of trucks traveling together. I'd drive alongside them for a bit, letting them see I was alone with kids and then they'd magically move apart and let me drive between them. Safest place to be! But one time a friend of mine came back from a family reunion and reported her sister showed up in a brand new car. I was surprised, seeing as how she wasn't even 20 yet and had two kids and a husband who job hopped between gas stations and fast food joints. It turned out that as the sister was traveling across five states, alone, with an infant and a two year old she was stopped at a stop light in the center turn lane and a semi came up and tried to turn. His trailor went right over her car, miraculously missing everyone in the car but totalling it on the spot. Suddenly she and the kids were in the hospital and a friendly guy showed up to talk to her. I really don't think she realized he was an attorney for the company the driver worked for. She seemed to think he was just a nice man who was concerned about her and the kids and wanted what was best for them. She told him everything, about traveling to the reunion and being worried that her family would be wondering about her, and how she was afraid her husband would be angry about the car, how much the hospital and ambulance would cost, everything. As soon as the doctors signed off on her and the kids, the nice man hustled them out of there and took them shopping for new car seats, luggage, gave her some cash to buy new clothes, etc. Then he took her to a car lot and told her to pick out a car. She thought he was renting it for her so she chose something that was nice but didn't look like it would cost too much to rent. When she was signing all the paperwork she was surprised at how many papers she had to sign. She didn't realize that someone of her age wouldn't be allowed to rent a car until she was handed the keys, copies of the paperwork and told to enjoy her new car. Before she had time to wonder why this guy was being so nice, he had her and the kids in the car and pointed her on her way. When she arrived at the reunion and told about how she got the car, her father looked at all the paperwork and discovered that she'd signed away any chance to sue and accepted the gifts and cash as compensation. The whole week she was there, she never seemed to understand that she'd given up a very lucrative payout for a $8,000 car, two car seats, a set of luggage, two diaper bags, and $1000 in cash. Her idiot husband arrived by bus a few days later and even he didn't get it. I don't think they ever did. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 9, 2018 Share May 9, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: MM takes the time to look up the jacket's label on her tablet.... says this is not a down jacket, but is filled with polyester... the only jacket with that brand she finds online retails for $19.99... truly a case I wish JJ had Inorite? I was expecting the guy to pull out some expensive, heavy leather thing with big patches, and instead I see an ordinary puffy polyester jacket that you can find at Walmart on clearance. And no record of the purchase even though he used his debit card...ever hear of a bank statement? [On that note, I'm pretty much a Luddite -- I always insist on paper statements and paper receipts -- but I'm coming around to the idea of email receipts. Had one too many times I'm desperately searching the house for the elusive piece of paper and if it had been emailed, I could have pulled it up any time on my phone.] 2 hours ago, Brattinella said: I would agree with this if the judge didn't SPEAK SPANISH, like the defendant did! She could have gotten a perfectly lucid response if she had done that! Does she only speak Spanish when it is to HER benefit?? I thought his English was reasonable and he explained his perspective clearly; it's just that he didn't have a legal leg to stand on. He was basically saying, if you get hit by a big rig fishtailing into a turn, it has to be because you weren't smart, didn't realize how trucks turn, and must have tried to rabbit around, regardless of the actual rules of the road. That said, I kinda wanted MM to break out the Spanish with him, too. Perhaps she feared he'd be insulted and assume she thought poorly of his English skills. Again, though, even though the plaintiff was well spoken and was able to articulate her case, MM has to talk to her like she's a cute little girl that she needs to mother. She really has to shed some of her biases, pro or con, when she puts on the robe. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Oh, but this was her very first rental she was managing, she's willing to accept responsibility for her screw up, etc.... well, heck, doesn't that mean dude gets his deposit and she tells the owner she screwed up.... nah, in her mind all she has to do is tell tenant she's sorry, but he doesn't get the deposit. I kept waiting for MM to ask her what the owner thought of her little screwup. Because it's not the property manager who actually eats the cost, it's the owner. The woman seemed to think incompetence was a defense. Although in all likelihood the tenant should have gotten the deposit back, anyway. Would have been interesting if it was a double or treble damages case. Edited May 9, 2018 by meowmommy 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 10, 2018 Share May 10, 2018 58 minutes ago, meowmommy said: it's just that he didn't have a legal leg to stand on. He was basically saying, if you get hit by a big rig fishtailing into a turn, it has to be because you weren't smart, didn't realize how trucks turn, and must have tried to rabbit around, regardless of the actual rules of the road. He also said she must have seen the green light and hit the gas. How unexpected that anyone would that. But she wasn't even there, according to him, so how does he know what she did in her invisible state? I thought his English was fine too - just as good as many "had came" "we was" native English speakers we see here. I"ve only seen JM speak Spanish to people (usually witnesses) who actually cannot speak English well enough to explain anything, and she doesn't like doing it either. Link to comment
Pepper the Cat May 10, 2018 Share May 10, 2018 Just want to say I like the added ratings of thumbs down. I hope there will be thumbs up for good cases? 3 Link to comment
aemom May 10, 2018 Share May 10, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, SRTouch said: Heck, don't know about you all, but I do my utmost not to drive alongside a 18 wheeler on a curve Yup. Or a bus. Everyday when I drive home, I have to do a somewhat hairpin turn: 2 lanes side by side and they are quite narrow. I know that any long vehicle in the other lane is going to come over on my side. No driver is ever looking to see if the lane is free or not or taking care not to sideswipe me. When my son was learning how to drive, I told him over and over again to be careful. I also taught him to never drive in someone's blind spot. It was pretty obvious that she was going to win that case. 5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: You are a 23-year old woman. You have a fender-bender, don't call your mommy, unless mommy is a cop. I must add I really like the way Douglas is so protective of JM. Cute! I have to say that if my son got into a car accident (he's a fairly new driver), he would probably call me first, in a panic, because he wouldn't be sure what to do because shock would probably take over. I would ask him if someone was hurt, and if everyone was ok, then I would tell him to fill out the government accident form with the other driver, and then I would probably make my way over to him because otherwise I might never get him to drive again. We would only need to call the police if someone didn't have the form, or if someone was hurt. I also like how Douglas is making sure that MM doesn't kill herself by falling down like she did that one time. 4 hours ago, Zahdii said: But one time a friend of mine came back from a family reunion and reported her sister showed up in a brand new car. I was surprised, seeing as how she wasn't even 20 yet and had two kids and a husband who job hopped between gas stations and fast food joints. It turned out that as the sister was traveling across five states, alone, with an infant and a two year old she was stopped at a stop light in the center turn lane and a semi came up and tried to turn. His trailor went right over her car, miraculously missing everyone in the car but totalling it on the spot. Suddenly she and the kids were in the hospital and a friendly guy showed up to talk to her. I really don't think she realized he was an attorney for the company the driver worked for. She seemed to think he was just a nice man who was concerned about her and the kids and wanted what was best for them. She told him everything, about traveling to the reunion and being worried that her family would be wondering about her, and how she was afraid her husband would be angry about the car, how much the hospital and ambulance would cost, everything. As soon as the doctors signed off on her and the kids, the nice man hustled them out of there and took them shopping for new car seats, luggage, gave her some cash to buy new clothes, etc. Then he took her to a car lot and told her to pick out a car. She thought he was renting it for her so she chose something that was nice but didn't look like it would cost too much to rent. When she was signing all the paperwork she was surprised at how many papers she had to sign. She didn't realize that someone of her age wouldn't be allowed to rent a car until she was handed the keys, copies of the paperwork and told to enjoy her new car. Before she had time to wonder why this guy was being so nice, he had her and the kids in the car and pointed her on her way. When she arrived at the reunion and told about how she got the car, her father looked at all the paperwork and discovered that she'd signed away any chance to sue and accepted the gifts and cash as compensation. The whole week she was there, she never seemed to understand that she'd given up a very lucrative payout for a $8,000 car, two car seats, a set of luggage, two diaper bags, and $1000 in cash. Her idiot husband arrived by bus a few days later and even he didn't get it. I don't think they ever did. That sounds like a movie! I think that a lot of people don't understand the concept of signing a release form. We've had a few litigants on the show with that problem. As for the security deposit case, I did enjoy how everyone was nicely dressed, spoke well, and had their ducks in a row evidence-wise. The guy suing the dry cleaner was probably one of the most delusional plaintiffs yet. He brings his jacket to the dry cleaner. Picks it up 6 months later (interestingly, leaves it over the winter months when you'd actually need it). He then waits 2 more years to sue and has no proof of the cost of the jacket or when he dropped off the jacket to be cleaned. Please, just give me $1,500 for no reason. I'll take the free money too please while you're handing it out. *eyeroll* Edited May 10, 2018 by AEMom Typo 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 10, 2018 Share May 10, 2018 56 minutes ago, AEMom said: I have to say that if my son got into a car accident (he's a fairly new driver), he would probably call me first, in a panic, because he wouldn't be sure what to do because shock would probably take over. I guess it's just me then. I was driving at 22 also, first winter driving, went too fast down an icy hill, couldn't stop and slammed into the guy in front of me stopped at a light. It never entered my mind to call my mother. The cops were very nice to me, but not to the guy I hit. He would be a good JJ litigant. I heard the cop ask him for his license and proof of insurance. "I have it, but it's at home," he said. This irritated the cop who wanted to know what good it was doing there. Poor guy had a bad day. 1 hour ago, AEMom said: I did enjoy how everyone was nicely dressed, spoke well Wasn't that a treat? Not a single "I had went" from either of them. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 10, 2018 Share May 10, 2018 (edited) car loan between friends: so-so case - well, case silly but for the most part entertaining ? in a freeloader trashy kind of way - P reminds me of Mr Bean gone to seed, and he brought along his aged, wheelchair bound, auntie to meet Doug, Douglas and the Judge (no doubt thankful you know who is out in California) Seems a couple years ago, he was dating D's mom (supposedly they lived together for 5 years), D needed a car, so he fronted her the money. Well, it's been two years, dating relationship is over and done with, and he's still waiting for his almost 2 grand. Ah, when it comes time for D intro, we hear that he's no good, that mommy has a restraining order against him, and this is all just his latest vindictive ploy - oh yeah, and the no good Mr Bean never loaned any money - it was a gift from the no go so and so. D brought along HER mommy, the ex gf of Mr Bean. He testifies that 30yo homeless D moves in with Mr Bean and her mommy - oh, and they all live in the house Mr Bean lived in with Auntie before they were a couple - One big, not so happy, family. Anyway, according to P, the homeless 30yo waif is just to be there short term... now three years and still counting... yep, despite breakup and restraining order, she still lives in no good Mr Bean's house (but not him -RO keeps him out except when he needs to take auntie somewhere). Says he helped her shop for a car, and after she bought a couple lemons he let her use his '03 Caddy. She needs the car to get to her job at the old folks home. When he sells the old Caddy, she still needs a car, so he loans her the money for a down payment on her own car... oh, and we find out that despite his saying they all live in HIS house and he was letting her use HIS Caddy, he actually owes Auntie money because Auntie loaned him money to buy the old Seville. Yep, he sells the Caddy, and instead of using the money to pay Auntie he gives the money to deadbeat homeless waif to buy a car.... here I thought he was such a good hearted guy, but more and more he's coming off as bum sponging off Auntie - and as he keeps getting in those digs at D's mommy he just lending credence to D's defense that this is all a ploy to get back at mommy for the breakup. Especially when you think about fact that he says he loaned homeless daughter $1950 two and a half years ago and she has, to date, paid zip. Now, family drama time, he tells about the ongoing court case that resulted from an incident where he and mommy get physical and he ended up arrested. His story is mommy slapped him and sent his glasses flying, then he caught her hand to stop her from slapping him again. Says when asked he refused to press charges - but then after interviewing mommy he ended up in handcuffs in the back seat. Now mommy, who has been making faces as he was telling his version, is brought up to tell us the true story (according to her.) Isn't long before it's getting hard to remember what the case is supposed to be about. Now with mommy up testifying it's all about the break up. Soooo, mommy is granted a restraining order, but as the care giver for Auntie (and, yes, now Auntie is up to the mic to tell us it is HER house - not his) as caregiver the RO is modified so that he can go back to the house to care for Auntie. Yep, D and her mommy the ex-gf still in Auntie's happy home - though she has filed eviction papers. MM calls a temporary cease fire in the mud slinging and drags actual defendant back into the case. Well, sort of, because almost immediately D is doing some slinging of her own. Ah, not that she's coming off all that well, but she does make a couple good points as she pushes his story down that slippery slope. Remember how he told about how he was being so gracious about letting her use his Cadillac Seville (another litigant who thinks a fancy nameplate on the grill somehow makes a junker into a good ride)... turns out the Caddy was a heap that leaked transmission fluid almost as fast as she poured it in - which is real reason she was still in market instead of keeping the Caddy. Oh, and she's not really in health care, no she's barely making minimum wage as a receptionist. Oh, oh, and it wasn't just her that moved into his house, that actually belongs to Auntie, she came with a kid. Oh, oh, oh - and finally an answer to the burning question - mommy, daughter and the kid are still living rent free in Auntie's house (no wonder Auntie sounded miffed when she came up and said it was HER HOUSE!) HOBOY, so, with the modification P can come to his Auntie's house to take her to appointments, shopping church, etc... and mommy says she has no problem with that. Course, that gets a sarcastic, oh, that's big of you, from MM. Good chuckle when mommy is talking about how P can be oh so charming and MM says she doesn't find him that charming. Now mommy is getting louder and goes off into a rant about the cheating done by Mr Bean. Ah, but the rant does bring out a reason a judge granted her a restraining order removing him from the house (except to come and drive Auntie around). Also, gotta say I believe her when she scoffs at his claim to be Auntie's only caregiver - I believe her when she claims to have helped care for Auntie (even though sounded like Auntie in background saying she didn't help.) Mommy is saying he has spent time for previous domestic abuse incidents against both his ex wife and his daughters. Ok, just hearsay, she admits she has no evidence... but when MM asks P if there's any truth to the allegations P dances around an answer. Ok, he's slid down to free loading abuser - while mommy and daughter are setting a great example to the kiddy as they force Auntie to go to court to get their freeloading a$$es out of her house. (Uh, did she just say kid is 2yo? So, glad to hear homeless 30yo, who IIRC has been living there 3 years, still has a social life.) Ah, starting drag, but now good old classic slap down as mommy gets loud insisting this isn't about the auntie - which of course pushes MM's button ? about 94yo Auntie?... running long while they get into shouting match, and again, tough to remember WTH case is supposed to be about. Anyway, stick a fork in her, MM rules it was a loan and orders D to pay the man..... no sure I agree - oh yeah, probably WAS a loan, but, after 2 years, what was his expectation of repayment for this homeless new mommy who doesn't pay any rent - I wonder how much of the ruling is based on the deadbeats mooching off 94yo Auntie? Ah, mommy and daughter both working hard to squeeze out some crocodile tears and they - ok, they're really upset, but I have as much sympathy for them as MM used car lemon case: ah, sounds like same tired story??. P claims dealer sold her an unsafe clunker - D says he bent over backwards for the P - says he gave her multiple cars, she'd keep each one a month or two, then bring it back with a complaint and he'd let her have the next. P wants back the $2500 she paid, while D is countersuing for almost 4 grand he says was wasted staying to make her happy. Uh oh, this one sounds like a real dud.... about to fall asleep waiting for P to get around to actually buying the heap - she's going back to when insurance gave her the book value on her previous car, all about deciding to go car shopping ? geez, she isn'the about to let MM speed things up - so, she bought a car from D - no I looked at a car - ok, but then you bought a car - no he took me to an auction - sooo, THEN you bought a car. When she finally admits to buying a car, MM gets her to admit she had the car for 6 months before she decided it needed a transmission..... ok, unless there's a warranty, dude should have told her to pound sand. But, noooo, some nonsense about when she took it back to the lot somebody else was there looking to buy a junker, and smooth D convinced her to sell this clunker she was having trouble with to these unsuspecting rubes through him (I guess so he'd get a commission.) Ah, if you just mute her as she tells her story she'll give a perfect "shifty-eyed liar" performance. Ok, heard enough and cup is empty... sorry Furball, ? getting up to get another ?. When I come back in zip ahead.... seems over the course of 3 years this dude let her drive several cars - even claims to have rented a car for her when she brought one back and he didn't have one to swap out. Somewhere in the process - I think maybe when she brought back the first car and he sold it - he made $900 off the sale. No way am I going back to figure this one out, but I do hear that the first car she bought and brought back was 17yo and had over 100,000 miles. Case even a bigger dud than I figured at the start.... but then I only watched - maybe - 5 minutes ? rental deposit case: not riveting case - but best one today ? plaintiffs say they abruptly moved out of the room they were renting because landlady was smoking to much Marijuana - say they were justified in not giving 30 day notice because of D's illegal activities. D says they were month to month tenants and required to give 30 day notice - says when they abruptly moved out nothing was said about mj, instead she says the story was they needed to move because of a military deployment. This may come down to laws in their jurisdiction... oh, like legal status of Mary Jane in their locale, rental rules (remember no notice required in NY, and if theirs anything to the deployment story, whether the rental agreement (if they have one) has a military clause. (I actually invoked the military clause twice in my 20 years - when Desert Shield/Storm happened we were the first unit deployed from Ft Sill, and I had to leave power of attorney with an Lt in the rear party who had transportation pack up my apartment for storage.) Oh, and not only does D want to keep the deposit for rent because they didn't give 30 day notice, she also claims they broke a sink and she had to hire a plumber to replace it. If intro holds true, this may be worth a viewing - but wouldn't you know, this is today's short case to make up for time with freeloader family from the first case ?. Ok, P is telling her story - newlyweds in first apartment, didn'the want to complain, but iffy plumbing and no real kitchen (says studio basement, but I'm wondering, with the no kitchen sink, is this a legal apartment.) Ah, MM wonders the same thing, and hits pause button on P's testimony to check with D - is this a legal apartment - oh yes, your honor, but just renting it as a room (not an apartment) - show me that you have the authority to rent it - oh, don't have it on me!.... Anyway, she just admitted she chipped the sink while washing a fork in the bathroom, and this is the sink that was replaced - must be a super cheap sink. Ok, no way does that picture look like she dropped a fork. Anyway, D claims it was a brand new sink - been there since month since it was purchased from home depot, and MM wants proof that she paid for a new sink rather than just exchanging it. (Nope, she's got zilch.) Nothing from intro is being mentioned, but landlady certainly looking shady with possible illegal digs and inflated damage claim. Now we get to the early, no notice move. Ah, actually something mentioned in the intro. P saying they gave notice on 20th November because wife you needed to report to Navy basic training... wait for it... in fricking JUNE. Come on, that is NOT what a military clause is to be used for - first off, reporting for training in 6 months time is NOT a depoyment. Besides, this was a month to month tenancy how do you expect to be excused and get out of the agreement effective December 1st. Nope, if that's what they're hanging their hat on they lose the month of rent (assuming of course we believe it's legal to collect rent for the no-kitchen apartment.) Oh, and, as D points out, rven if wifey actually needed to report for duty in ten days hubby could have lived out the month (not like he could go to basic with het.) Hey, now they're trying the wacky tobacky excuse... but that isn't holding up either. Dude talks about Marijuana smell while they lived there, and finding a "packet" as they were moving. Course, no evidence - just mud slinging and lame desperate attempt to get out of living up to the agreement.... still coming down to whether or not it is legal to rent the studio as living place. Ah, new excuse - basement had noisy pipes (probably haunted, too.) Ahhhhhh, remember wayyyyy back when I mentioned local jurisdiction and NY City saying tenants can move out with no notice..... yep, these folks are in the City. P are going to win even though their defense was lame nonsense.... and we don't even need to get to legality of the basement studio. No hallterview - either ran out of time or Doug left early for lunch. Edited May 11, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 10, 2018 Share May 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: P reminds me of Mr Bean gone to seed, and he brought along his aged, wheelchair bound, auntie to meet Doug Another nebbish! A man in his 50's who has probably always lived with his aged auntie - in HER home - and even so, can't afford a decent car for himself. He's so spineless he lets his squeeze move her enormous squatting 30 year old daughter in too. Neither girlfriend nor beastly daughter ever pay rent, yet get nebbish booted out of the house over an assault? That daughter could take him 2 falls out of 3, I'm pretty sure. Daughter turns on the waterworks. OH boo hoo! She's so hurt, so sensitive she's blubbering, but not sensitive enough to haul her big ass out of a house where she's not wanted. She stands there complaining that all the cars he found for her stopped working! She's his responsiblity! He should feed, house and clothe her, shouldn't he? And HE has constant affairs? Good lord. Yes, it seems there's a long line of women just dying to take a crack at auntie's broke-ass little nebbish. Mama also has the hide of a rhino, since she also continues squatting where she's not wanted. Sorry, didn't buy the shaking hands, judging by the way she was not too distressed or shy to yell over the judge. OTOH, maybe she really was shaking, but at being exposed as a bloodsucking squatter. Oh, they're "working on" getting out. Someday. Just the way litigants here are always "working on" getting car insurance or whatever. Yeah, those two parasites will move out only when they find someone else - either another fool or some government entity - to take care of them. I've had friends ask if I don't think these cases are fabricated. I always answer that not even the best Hollywood scriptwriters could come up with the zany things we see here. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: used car lemon case: ah, sounds like same tired story I could have used an interpreter here, but I guess there's no one who specializes in translating Fractured English. I couldn't understand more than one word in ten plaintiff spoke, prompting me to FF most of it. From the little I could gather, plaintiff thinks she should drive cars for free, and if her 17-year old piece of junk conks out, someone needs to pay for that too. Piss off. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: show me that you have the authority to rent it - oh, don't have it on me!.... Ho hum. Right. She had no proof of anything "on her." Just give her a few days and maybe she can conjure up some evidence. Same old, same old. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: No hallterview - either ran out of time or Doug left early for lunch. Maybe even Doug couldn't take the stupidity any more. Probably the mother-daughter blethering and crying and bullshitting just ruined his day. Edited May 10, 2018 by AngelaHunter Oh, the wine! 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 11, 2018 Share May 11, 2018 (edited) Please don't have me put away...I come here tonight and I'm like, what the hell happened to my post? Did the mods get me? Oops, dawns on me that the reason it's not there is that I didn't actually write anything...please don't have me put away. Speaking of people who should be put away... 9 hours ago, SRTouch said: P reminds me of Mr Bean gone to seed You see Mr. Bean, I see John Turturro as Herb Stempel. Either way, not exactly a studmuffin. Honestly, I was surprised how much MM came down on his side and blew off the squatters. I think it was all about it being auntie's house. And auntie was feisty as hell. If the plaintiff had owned the house, or even if the auntie hadn't shown up in court, I suspect we'd have seen a very different outcome. And you're sobbing over a judgment of less than $2K, seriously, for a junker car that you would have had to buy one way or the other? 8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: From the little I could gather, plaintiff thinks she should drive cars for free, and if her 17-year old piece of junk conks out, someone needs to pay for that too. Piss off. The only twist on this--at first I was seriously peeved that MM automatically assumed there was some type of romantic relationship--was that the defendant is schlepping the plaintiff's daughter, and therefore sucking up to mom for six months. Otherwise it should have been over in 30 seconds. Used car, no warranty, buh-bye. 9 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ahhhhhh, remember wayyyyy back when I mentioned local jurisdiction and NY City saying tenants can move out with no notice..... yep, these folks are in the City. P are going to win even though their defense was lame nonsense.... and we don't even need to get to legality of the basement studio. Am so, so sick of filler, where MM already knows by reading the filings how she has to rule, but instead she pulls out all this drama to fill teevee time. 9 hours ago, SRTouch said: ? Where do you get the emojis? Meow. Edited May 11, 2018 by meowmommy 4 Link to comment
SRTouch May 11, 2018 Share May 11, 2018 13 minutes ago, meowmommy said: The only twist on this--at first I was seriously peeved that MM automatically assumed there was some type of romantic relationship--was that the defendant is schlepping the plaintiff's daughter, and therefore sucking up to mom for six months. Otherwise it should have been over in 30 seconds. Used car, no warranty, buh-bye. I hit FF before this came out (thankfully) 13 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Where do you get the emojis? Meow. Far as I know, they came with the Chrome browser pre-installed on my tablet - something like 5 pages of choices. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 11, 2018 Share May 11, 2018 7 hours ago, meowmommy said: You see Mr. Bean, I see John Turturro as Herb Stempel. Herb Stempel! God, yes. Perfect. 7 hours ago, meowmommy said: Either way, not exactly a studmuffin. Who cares about studmuffins? These days, a pulse seems to be the only quality a man need have to make him incredibly desirable to a whole slew of women. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 11, 2018 Share May 11, 2018 (edited) 21 hours ago, SRTouch said: car loan between friends: I think the defendants would make good material for zoologists in search of a breakthrough research project. Imagine: a savage harpy giving birth to an amorphous slug, both of them living as parasites to that old lady. Something for the annals certainly; there might even be a Nobel prize in the offing! The aunt is the one I really feel sorry for in this case because she has to live with those two repulsive ladies and see them every day; the fake tears and heaps of hysterical made-up accusations from the defendants did not carry any shred of believability. 21 hours ago, SRTouch said: used car lemon case: Usual nonsense of a buyer feeling entitled to brand-new performance from an old car bought at a bargain basement price. The only semi-original variation was the defendant being such a pushover just because he is dating her daughter, so he kept giving her another vehicle every few months. Considering she had the use of several cars free of extra charge for such a long period, I don't think she was even entitled to the money MM gave her. One superficial observation: why is it that some people with sparse hair think it's a good idea to braid it so very tightly in a way that in only makes the problem more visible? This was not at all a good look on her. Edited May 11, 2018 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment
patty1h May 11, 2018 Share May 11, 2018 That was the saddest, worst specimen of a James Brown impersonator that I've ever seen - bad hair, stupid and badly fitting outfit. He says he works with Bootsie Collins, but Bootsie obviously is scraping the bottom of the barrel to accept such a tacky looking act. I love old school R&B but I would be one pissed off patron if I paid money and this guy was on the stage. There was only one reason to show up in court in your performance clothes... because thirsty! Yeesh. The woman started out sympathetic but lost points for continue to deal with that guy for so long. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch May 11, 2018 Share May 11, 2018 (edited) ex suing over loan after breakup: ?? oh, no, one of those cases where some no talent hack is here for some free publicity - and don'cha know MM is going to act like he's the real deal --- I expect FF button to get a workout. I thought P was something as she minced her way into court - but WTH is D wearing! Intro for D claims P destroyed some $2,500 top hat he used in his phoney James Brown act, so the debt was offset. Uh, but if he's claiming his debt was offset when she took a razor to his prop, why would he think he can sue for $2,500 for the same hat... hmmm, seems these two were an item for a while, continuing to date for over a year after she loaned him the money. Well, she at least thought enough to get a promissory note - problem is it left repayment open ended and she let it slide until the breakup. Yep, case looking more like "any publicity is good publicity" as long as it puts the performer out there. Her testimony is that he does a lot of touring and appearances - almost like she's advertising for him. Then he has a turn and we learn she was a performer in his act - sort of an onstage assistart and dancer. His testimony soon makes me question just how good an impression act he puts on. He's talking about how the tour was a bust - she was a groupie who had a house and a little money out aside (saving for a new roof)... geez reminds me of a snake oil salesman - being into old times country music, I'm thinking Tanya Tucker singing "look Lizzy, here comes the rain). In addition to the hat offset defense in the intro, he introduces a new defense. Claims he saved P thousands because he called her insurance and arranged for the new roof.... MM is not impressed - oh, so you made some phone calls and think that let's you off the hook for the $2,000 promissory note? Yeah, well your honor, here's the thing. I have all these emails where she agreed.... ok, show us WTH you're talking about. Now he embarks on a quest through the stacks of texts and emails - just give him a sec, it's right here - oh, and so is the evidence for the $2,500 top hat countersuit. Uh, well your honor, guess I don't really have any proof that she actually AGREED to forgive the loan. Ok, let's talk about this $2,500 top hat countersuit. Seems he considers himself a collector of sorts, and he brought along the hat from his collection - he says from the 1800s - which has a rip that he says she caused. Oh, and he volunteers that he actually owed for a second $1,500 loan - says he still owed a total over $3,000. Yeah, says P, but no promissory note for the other money, so she's only suing for the loan she can prove. Ok, case getting more ludicrous - dude now saying they had a volatile relationship - he had keys to her house and stored his props there, and whenever they had a tiff he'd return her keys and sometimes she held props he needed for a show hostage.... yeah, after she kept and damaged his hat, just a couple months ago they had a tiff and she was holding his fancy coat hostage when he needed it to perform in NC. OK, another email quest - soon as he locates this email everything will be clear, you honor. Anyway - hat has noticeable damage, which she says was not there when she returned the hat to his mother... ok, mom would have noticed if hat was damaged - where's mommy. D, oh she loves P and didn't want to get involved. P, and she wouldn't lie. Ok, case is gigantic waste... now MM is asking for a performance ?... ah, hold on, performance thankfully a short one, and MM has his phone so maybe he found something.... yep, found something, but seems to hurt his case more than help (and P should have sued for both loans, cuz right here he's admitting he owes her over $3,300.) Ok, now he admits he doesn't have prove of the hat - either... time for next defense. Now he wants us to believe that the debt was offset because he helped her "career" - let her perform with him and I guess with his sage advise.... yep, he became her vocal coach, her manager, created a Web presence, etc etc. If I get his timeline, she had already managed an appearance on "America's Got Talent" (or maybe just an audition). Uh, yeah, was there a contract for all this or was this just a bf helping a gf out - hey we know they know about contracts and such, after all SHE has HIM signing IOUs. Uh, now it IS time to zip as we're getting to reason for the breakup - some nonsense about a married Chinese violinist in his band who may or may not be his latest ATM. Case over - D admits to owing more than she's suing for - there's actually a promissory note he admits signing but he says was verbally forgiven - multiple choice lame defenses - no proof for the countersuit (WTH does that dude behind Harvey's shoulder have on his head.) Oh my, we're at 22 minutes and these two are looking to stretch this nonsense out. For first time - at the fricking 22 minute mark - she brings up how he hacked her FB page (actually, is it hacking when your ex has your password?) and he saying she accused him of hitting her - hitting her!?! Says MM, what's this about hitting her? Exactly, says dimwitted JB - WTF does "exactly" mean in this context. Oh, and P got a protective order... zip zip... P gets everything she asked for and D gets a mild scolding for ridiculous weasel attempt to get out of owing. Skipped - but watched too much as I was to slow hitting the button. we have ? on the loose ⚠⚠attacking and killing leashed a chihuahua. That's pretty much it, except to say during intro defense is it was P adult nephew's fault for daring to approach him walking his leashed tiny dog.?? Yep, before the attack gets physical, nephew scooped up the chihuahua and tried to run while the pit bull chased him (understandable, maybe, but if you run 99.99% of dogs will chase - though thankfully most aren't going to jump up and pull a little dog out of your hands) moped rearends car stopped for school bus: ?? has to be more here than plaintiff's intro suggests - and I'm guessing it's P looking for a 5 thousand dollar boNANza. Intro has her stopped because bus has the red lights flashing - D plows into her from the rear after visiting local Marijuana dispensary on his moped - she says causing damage to her car and tearing her labrum (which I thought meant tissue in either hip or shoulder, but he says she claims she has a knee injury - which he feels she's faking - nope, later she says hip). D doesn't deny hitting her from rear - his intro doesn't mention a bus, and has her abruptly stopping halfway in the bike lane. Uh, how fast was he supposed to be going? Something I didn't know until I googled it, while motorcycles are not allowed in bike lanes, in some places, like California, mopeds MUST use them if available. Ok, white board time. She has some trouble getting models positioned, but ends up with a bus (signs out and red lights flashing) on opposite side of the road, a car stopped in front of her, and moped smacking her from rear. From diagram - dude has no defense - except to fight amount of damages. Surely, if her car was damaged as much as she claims, there will be a police report with possibly multiple witness statements. Yep, she says cops came, D had no valid license, no registration and in their jurisdiction (Connecticut) insurance not needed on mopeds. Over to D, who has no defense. First, still no mention of the bus - says he tried to dodge around her and get into bike lane, MM says he's not allowed to drive in bike lane and if he couldn't stop as he claims he was either not paying attention or driving too fast. Hmmmm, I can see why she suspects dude was stoned - I have my suspicions today. Dude should not be trying to talk, as what he's saying isn't helping. Just said he was 10-12 feet behind her when she stopped - he either has no concept of distance or he was tailgating... I think no idea of distance - then he says he hit side of her vehicle not the rear... maybe he figures he's automatically at fault in a rear end collision, but how does he explained a side impact - oh, well, he caves pretty fast and admits he hit her from the rear - just not in middle of the bumper, so yeah, when MM says, so you know it was your fault, he replies, exactly. Okkkkk, so what about license and registration - well, according to goggle, "If your scooter has at least a 50cc engine size, it must be registered and display alicense plate in Connecticut. Scooters with 49cc motors are actually considered mopeds and do not need to be registered, though you still need a driver's license to operate them." Not what he's testifying - he says he doesn't need no stinking license - says he's never had a license and never driven a car.... could be laws have changed since that goggle article - nope, back to google, this time to the Connecticut DMV site: "Both teen and adult drivers need a basic driver’s license (Class D) to operate motor-driven cycles.The CT DMV doesn’t require registration for motor scooters, mopeds, or motorbikes." oh, and maybe not stoned - sister comes up and testifies he has a learning disability. When asked, he says he wasn't on way home from Marijuana dispensary.... no he had been at the methadone clinic - not sure how that helps, but really not part of case. We get into a bit about his concussion from the accident and how he later fell down the stairs because his noodle was scrambled - still not part of case. Ok, now we get to how much it's going to cost. I guess P is saying the impact was enough to jerk her in the seat belt causing a small rear in her hip joint tissue... hmmmm, not something I would expect, but I'm not an expert.... so let's see if she has medical records blaming the impact versus some preexisting condition she now wants dude to pay for. Uh, yeah, accident at 830 and she is at er getting seen at 930-10. Sort of a freak accident, dude is just lucky SHE has insurance and is only after him for her deductibles - MM points out she would have been justified the this case to ask for pain and suffering (course she's already maxed out for small claims and if she sued in regular court, even if she won big bucks, she'd never see a dime). So far it's all flapping gums and no evidence, but when asked she produces evidence along with pictures showing her damage and his trashed moped. - geez, dude was moving along! Sooo, P gets what she asked for, and in hallterview D still figures he shouldn't have to pay, after all, he was hurt, too, and his ride was totaled - and apparently still doesn't think he needs a license. Not exactly a great case - but maybe best this week. Edited May 11, 2018 by SRTouch 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 11, 2018 Share May 11, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: oh, no, one of those cases where some no talent hack is here for some free publicity - and don'cha know MM is going to act like he's the real deal Congratulations, Levin. You've managed to successfully drag this once-prestigious program - Judge Wapner must be rolling in his grave - down into the sewer, on your level of obscene reality garbage. But Levin-the-Scumbag is good at that. You just know Harvey told this cut-rate, dollar store James Brown to come in wearing his sparkly clown outfit, and JM was only too happy to give him a venue to show off his pathetic non-talent. I can just imagine Judge Wapner, JJ or even the cast of Hot Bench being so accomodating to this clown - "Oh, do a turn!" Never happen. So pathetic are his talents that he's broke and he needs to hit the plaintiff up for 3K so he can take his wonderful, unsuccessful show on the road. But why not? Apparently more than one woman finds him irresistable. I think maybe his new, married "Chinese" girlfriend wrote those texts for him. They were literate and he is SO not. But hey - what woman wouldn't risk her marriage for his favours? He was also chewing on something the whole time. Grossed me right out. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Skipped - but watched too much as I was to slow hitting the button. Skipped here too. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: moped rearends car stopped for school bus: It's scary to think that people like def are out there on the roads, with no license, registration or insurance (which def. and his sister claim are not needed in CT for anyone driving a Moped and which SRTouch shows is incorrect) who can smash into you with impunity after the driver has visited a marijuana or methadone clinic. I don't know nothin' about that stuff, but def complains about his concussion and headaches and all that, when the accident was totally his fault, so shut up about that. I guess he never heard about stopping for a school bus that has its "Stop" signs out and anyway, he shouldn't have to stop so suddenly and if he's not driving at a safe speed and crashes into someone who is driving properly, it's still not his fault. His mommy and his sister will tell you about his disabilities! Personally I don't think someone so disabled should be on the roads driving a motorized vehicle, but that's JMO. 5 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 11, 2018 Share May 11, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: ex suing over loan after breakup I feel insulted as a viewer each time the show turns into a low-rent version of The Gong Show, with "performers" that would not even have made it to broadcast on the original. I also despise MM's dumb smile of vacuous enjoyment as she watches such proceedings. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: moped rearends car stopped for school bus I shudder to think how many people are allowed to operate any kind of moving vehicles – car, bicycle or child scooter – who are as ill-qualified as this defendant, whether because of age, mental challenges or overall idiocy. For the protection of the general public, they should all be forbidden to take to the road. Edited May 11, 2018 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 11, 2018 Share May 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: But Levin-the-Scumbag is good at that. You just know Harvey told this cut-rate, dollar store James Brown to come in wearing his sparkly clown outfit, and JM was only too happy to give him a venue to show off his pathetic non-talent. I can just imagine Judge Wapner, JJ or even the cast of Hot Bench being so accomodating to this clown - "Oh, do a turn!" Never happen. 37 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: I feel insulted as a viewer each time the show turns into a low-rent version of The Gong Show, with "performers" that would not even have made it to broadcast on the original. I also despise MM's dumb smile of vacuous enjoyment as she watches such proceedings. And that's what is so damned infuriating. MM has enough of a following that she should not have to dance to the tune of Levin. She could tell him she wants some gravitas in her venue, but no, she's completely complicit. Which is a shame for someone with MM's pedigree. And to have to watch talentless, bespangled hacks auditioning on this show twice in about a week is beyond an insult to us. MM needs to ask herself--if she were a real judge in real small claims court, would she ask these questions and behave the way she does? 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ok, let's talk about this $2,500 top hat countersuit. Seems he considers himself a collector of sorts, and he brought along the hat from his collection - he says from the 1800s - which has a rip that he says she caused. Just because something is from the 19th century does not make it inherently valuable. Get Antiques Roadshow here, stat. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: some nonsense about a married Chinese violinist in his band who may or may not be his latest ATM. And even more insulting to see another loser with women just hanging off them. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: attacking and killing leashed a chihuahua. While I'm on a rant--how long do we have to be subjected to dead and mutilated animals as entertainment? This one's on the producers, including Levin, for choosing to pull these cases out of SCC and onto TPC. Edited May 12, 2018 by meowmommy 5 Link to comment
aemom May 12, 2018 Share May 12, 2018 The case with the car loan and the women squatters was quite the epic drama. "No, he's not that suave or charming," MM replies to the defendant. Ooh snap! Hopefully they'll leave that poor old woman alone now. The woman with the used car seriously just seemed to think that she should be provided with an endless parade of cars for the rest of her life. Doug to plaintiff: "He's says that he's going to marry your daughter." Plaintiff: "No he's not!!!!" Things are not looking too good for you buddy. If you marry her daughter, she will make your life a living hell. The NYC apartment case was a waste of time. They didn't have to give notice, but it would be nice to know if it was a legal apartment or not. 13 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: I feel insulted as a viewer each time the show turns into a low-rent version of The Gong Show, with "performers" that would not even have made it to broadcast on the original. I also despise MM's dumb smile of vacuous enjoyment as she watches such proceedings. Not-James Brown was eye roll worthy, and I agree with the rest of you, this sort of tireless performance seems to be becoming more and more prevalent on this show. I did enjoy the shade MM threw at him: Not-JB: "It's an 18th century hat." MM: "It's from the 1700's?" Not-JB: "No, from the 1800's." MM: "Oh." Me: snicker The dog case was really sad. The young girl who owns the dog clearly has some sort of medical issues which resulted in her caregiver doing all the testifying. The guy blatantly admitted that the dog was off leash and that the nephew should have known better than to come near him with their dog. He seemed unapologetic about the whole thing. MM said to please stop emailing her, that she doesn't hate pitbulls, she hates people who own pitbulls who think they own the world. After MM ripped him a new one several times, she awarded the plaintiff the $1,000 they were seeking. The moped case was also sad. Both of them seem to have resulting health issues, and he seemed somewhat out of it. His sister mentioned a learning disability, which I suspected was a kinder, gentler way of saying "slow." After she testified, it made more sense. I think that they didn't pay because they simply couldn't afford to. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 12, 2018 Share May 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, AEMom said: Not-James Brown was eye roll worthy, and I agree with the rest of you, this sort of tireless performance seems to be becoming more and more prevalent on this show. I did enjoy the shade MM threw at him: Not-JB: "It's an 18th century hat." MM: "It's from the 1700's?" Not-JB: "No, from the 1800's." MM: "Oh." Me: snicker He better stick to his sequined jackets. I wonder if he knows what century he's in now. Maybe I'm just envious. Maybe it's better to be so damned stupid that nothing bothers you. 48 minutes ago, meowmommy said: MM has enough of a following that she should not have to dance to the tune of Levin. She could tell him she wants some gravitas in her venue, but no, she's completely complicit. Which is a shame for someone with MM's pedigree. She IS the show. We watch for her. I know that ugly, bigmouthed, sleazebag slug in the doorway thinks we all adore him, but honestly Levin, we watch in spite of you. Thank god for DVRs and FF which relieves us of hearing a single stupid word that flies from your increasingly flabby grub flap. MM doesn't have to lower herself to dive into Levin's TMZ cesspool trash-TV. That she's willing to do it - yes, with her impeccable pedigree - just makes me sad. Say what you like about JJ. At least she never subjects us to any stupid show-and-tell or agonizing performances/auditions by 5th-rate talents who think they're the Next Big Thing. 5 Link to comment
califred May 12, 2018 Share May 12, 2018 In NC small mopeds required no license (they may not still but I think someone wised up). People with DUIs abc suspended licenses would drive them. Im watching the dog case now... yep the defendant thinks the plaintiff should avoid him bc his pit bull is off leash. I avoid all off leash dogs chihuahua or lab or pit bull but if one is off leash and attacks me or my dog it isn’t my fault. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch May 12, 2018 Share May 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: I shudder to think how many people are allowed to operate any kind of moving vehicles – car, bicycle or child scooter – who are as ill-qualified as this defendant, whether because of age, mental challenges or overall idiocy. For the protection of the general public, they should all be forbidden to take to the road. Guess MM stopped digging into the accident itself when stoner admitted he caused the accident. Thing is - well actually 4 things.... (1) though he finally admits accident was his fault - he's still doesn't admit he should pay damages to lady who is still undergoing treatment (2) still says he hit her car in the side - because impact is on right side... of her REAR BUMPER (3) both he and mouthpiece, sister, still claiming they went online and found he doesn't need a license (4) potentially a biggy, but fortunately never came into play - if he HAD managed to swerve around her, was he going to stop or just ignore that big fricking school bus with flashing red lights - never once did I hear him even acknowledge the bus as the reason two drivers stopped in front of him.... maybe Connecticut ought to rethink not requiring moped riders passing a test and getting a license before allowing them on the road. 6 Link to comment
meowmommy May 12, 2018 Share May 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, SRTouch said: maybe Connecticut ought to rethink not requiring moped riders passing a test and getting a license before allowing them on the road. That factotum surprised the hell out of me, as I lived in CT for many years, and my strongest reason for never going back is that everything is taxed and regulated to the max. I can't believe there's a dollar left on the table they haven't gone for. 1 Link to comment
babs j. May 12, 2018 Share May 12, 2018 Every time they go to Harvey I thank the technical gods for the mute on my remote. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 12, 2018 Share May 12, 2018 5 hours ago, babs j. said: Every time they go to Harvey I thank the technical gods for the mute on my remote. Oh, me too and don't forget the wonder of "FF". Levin thinks we tune in because we have an insatiable thirst to look at this and listen to the stupidity he spews constantly: 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 13, 2018 Share May 13, 2018 On 5/11/2018 at 1:39 PM, Florinaldo said: Imagine: a savage harpy giving birth to an amorphous slug, both of them living as parasites I hear that in the voice of Richard Kiley as he narrates a segment of "National Geographic". Thank god I swallowed my tea before I saw that. I just got a new keyboard but I guess had I ruined it I could sue you: 49$ for the keyboard and 2,000$ for my emotional distress. 2 Link to comment
AZChristian May 13, 2018 Share May 13, 2018 19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I hear that in the voice of Richard Kiley as he narrates a segment of "National Geographic". And the travelogue in Jurassic Park. "They spared no expense." 1 Link to comment
Destiny74 May 13, 2018 Share May 13, 2018 About the car loan to the daughter of the girlfriend. Ugh, these people. You gotta have balls to kick man out of his aunt's house, an aunt he is taking care of. The aunt should've kicked the girlfriend, the daughter, and the kid out when they got a restraining order. She should've called the cops immediately and has them escourted out of HER house the next morning. They weren't paying rent. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch May 14, 2018 Share May 14, 2018 (edited) here, take my Credit Card: ??? so so case / P has the evidence / D is thug with nothing but 'tude... plaintiff hires defendant to do some odd jobs around her place, gives him her Home Depot card to buy supplies, in court saying dude went on shopping spree and put $1126.93 on her card for stuff not used for her job. Defendant denies using the card for anything extra... least that what I think he says - there's so many double and triple negatives being used when he's talking, it's kind of hard to be sure. When testimony starts, P says D was referred to her by her realtor... so he's a stranger - yet she hands over her credit card - yep, what could go wrong? Whoa, first dude comes in all full of attitude and it doesn't take long before MM has to tell D to cool his jets, stop interrupting P when she's answering questions... not sure I'd hire Dude with da 'Tude for any home repairs - never mind giving him my credit card. (Oh, and do we need JJ to yell at dude to stop leaning on the lectern?) P says things started out fine, but then he started showing up to work late and/or leaving early, or just no call/no show. Ah, seems when she asks for her CC back he started with the excuses, and finally he just sent her a text telling her the card was on the deck. Uh oh, if she has that text and statements with bogus charges during the time he was holding her card - well, case over. (Time out for MM to tell Dude with 'Tude to stop using lectern as a drum.) When the statement arrives she doesn't even notice extra stuff being charged... nope, not until he stops showing up at all does she bother to look at the statements. Now MM turns to D and points to a couple items on the statements and asks, WTH? Mr 'Tude acts like he's never heard about these extra charges - he's insulted to be asked, and is still draped over the lectern. Once again MM is WAY more patient than I would be with a mouthy litigant... but her patience isn't endless and when he keeps mouthing off as she tries to ask questions steam is starting to come out her ears. Oops, little hiccup for P when she doesn't have her timeline straight - earlier she hadn't seen Dude since end of Oct, but when MM points out a disputed charge was later, she changes to Nov. Ah, ok, honest mistake, here's the text from Dude in Nov where he says he left the card on the deck - she misspoke, he still had card in Nov. Ok, MM calls this one early.... Guess she just got fed up with Dude and wanted to stop having to listen to him... besides, like I said, the statements and texts did the trick.... ah, wondrous how actual evidence works. friendly suit over rent: ?ridiculous case - either made up or these two are really, REALLY, entitled snowflakes... plaintiff says she and defendant were besties, even got matching tats when they were sharing a pad. But, hey, must be more than just a rent dispute, as she's asking for $5397.16. Defendant comes in and her intro says she was the one paying rent (later admits no one paid) - says P went on a rent strike and landlord started eviction proceeding. Oh dear, even before the previews as we head to commercial, I'm thinking this is might be phoney case - these two should be mad at each other and instead they are having trouble not smiling. Oh, and in preview we hear they didn't pay rent last 4 months they were there, and after being evicted they went on a cruise together. Well, maybe they were still besties up until the time landlord came demanding payment for the back rent after the cruise. Oh well, either these two are making this up or they're really entitled snowflakes (with no evidence). P's story is D and her two fur babies moved in with P in her rented house after D's house was damaged in a fire. Problem was, the neighborhood had very limited parking, and according to P received several parking tickets - to the point where landlord gave 90 days notice. Ah, so special snowflakes mutually agree to stop paying rent... even if that story is true, why the extra month of rent - did they over stay their notice, or were they already delinquent on rent. Then, after 4 months of no rent, as previously mentioned, besties go on a cruise... and, oh my, don't they look proud of their story when MM points out how they stiffed the landlord. Ah, so they didn't pay rent for 4 months, got booted from the place, go on a cruise together, move to a new place together, and are now being evicted from THIS place for not paying the rent. Oh, and reason P decided to sue, yep, she was only one on lease at first place, so that landlord is chasing her for $4800. She blames that eviction on D since reason for eviction was not enough parking after D moved in. Oh, and she claims in the present eviction it's D who owes back rent. Ok, over to D... her story is she paid ALL of the rent the first couple months in the new place, then drew the line and stopped to let P catch up... nope, P says, they were both paying their share, then after a couple months P says, she paid all the rent.... ok, totally opposite stories, just flapping gums, anybody have any evidence? ?Hoboy, back to thinking this HAS TO BE a made up case, as MM tells P she really needs P's brain cells to start shaking hands. This case is fading fast. Over to D, flapping gums, no evidence.... really, she says she paid one of those disputed months with her debit card - good, says MM, show me your debit card statement - oh, she doesn't have that with her, and evidently she can't pull it up online, as she doesn't even try - at least P pretended to look for evidence on her phone, didn't find anything, but she went through the motions - ok, nobody is getting rent as nobody has ANY EVIDENCE. Now claim for damages to first house. Remember, P had already lived there for awhile before D showed up with her two doggys. Course, she's claiming the dogs caused all the damages - nah, she doesn't have any evidence. Then P claims she bought tires for D - D counters with claim she turned around and wrote a check for tires for for P - course too much to expect evidence of the check. Well, how bout this, P finally remember they had a text exchange about money D owes her. Evidently that strikes D as funny, as MM tells her not to laugh, it's better evidence than she's been able to offer. Ok, texts lean toward P - but I'm wondering if they didn't just flip side coin to decide who gets to win and are planning to split the pot outside. ? Geez, I was ready for this to end 5 minutes ago, and looking like this case is going to use up the time from short first case. I did some FF button work, and missed why MM gave P anything (since I didn't hear any evidence) from the decision ($1747.16) I guess MM split some of the rent - oh, and there was a cell phone bill D admits she owes. Aborted car purchase: ??plaintiff says he put down a deposit on a car, but backed out when he realized the note was going to have 24.9% interest - wants his $1100 deposit back (oh, and a few hundred for inconvenience). D says the purchase started out as a cash deal, P put down the deposit, and a week later decided to ask for financing. Well, with his lousy/no credit, best financing deal had the high interest. P was still going to do the deal, but backed out after D did all the paperwork - sorry, no refund. Ok, ?this looks to be today's best - not for any legal precedence, but for the comedy value. Ah, P starts out with standard suck up - he's a fan, don'cha know - thought P was doing so well, then he talks about the car he "seen" online. Car they're fussing over is a hoopty salvage junker ('12 Volkswagen Passat). Anyway, when he goes to the lot, he negotiates a deal, going to pay cash, and puts down $100. 2nd thought, decides to finance the car. Fills out the online application and applies for credit. While waiting for approval, he decides to do his research and discovers it's a salvage vehicle. Why, the dirty dog! P getting all upset because he says D tried to slip that fact by him - until MM points out that P actually put down the other grand deposit after learning it was a salvage vehicle. Dude is heading into the ditch, here... and I think he realises it because he's upping the volume and getting a bit animated as he waves his hands around. Soooo, now time has gone by, he has learned car has been wrecked, still planning to buy the heap, changed from cash deal to payments - but still no idea what the interest will be, makes an appointment to finalize the deal....sales guy stands him up... now dude really getting worked up and MM has to caution him to take it down a few notches. So, sales guy a no show, and mechanic employee trying to bring up the finance papers.... don't you know that if P is this excited in court he was over the top as mechanic dude was trying to help him.... like MM is saying, why didn't he take a hike right then and there instead of persisting in buying this old VW salvage car. Still haven't figured out when he puts down the other thousand - or why - he says he put that down to cover tax, tags and registration BEFORE he even saw the contract. Finally over to D - maybe he'll make more sense. Well, not really. What he says is P paid the other $1000 deposit to speed up the process... ok, if you didn't actually ask for it, and only the first $100 was what you needed for the deposit, why not keep the hundred and return the thousand. Oh, and the downpayment, with the finance deal, was going to be $2600 (uh, anybody catch how much the purchase price of the 6 year salvaged VW was going to be?) Ok, and dude is saying he has already given P a partial refund.... says total of $1100 was deposited, and he returned $600 cash. ? hoboy, so, both sides agree P gave the 1000, now both sides agree 600 was returned - but only receipt is for the first $100.... time for MM to rant about no receipts... oh, and if P agrees $600 was returned, why is he asking for the full $1100. Ok, kind of convoluted, but back to what I said earlier... MM's reasoning is a little different, but D to keep that first $100, as that was the deposit from the original cash deal.... the additional thousand was put down for the financed deal - and there was never a meeting of the minds on the financing. So, she says D should get back the thousand, he's already received $600, so is still owed $400... ok, works the same as what I would have given him. Ok, couple of switches, both sides agreeing to money paid/received when there wasn't evidence... oh, and D tells Doug in hallterview car was never a salvage vehicle, though it had been in a wreck and sold at auction. Edited May 14, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 14, 2018 Share May 14, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: here, take my Credit Card: Today we had a veritable Parade of Fools. No wonder JM was so irritable. I had a lot of people working in my house last year. Not one of them asked for my Home Depot card. Even if they had and I had given it to them, I highly doubt that after they walked off the job would I sit on my butt for two months and not once wonder if the card was being used, or that I would never think of checking. That never occured to plaintiff. Duh! The def - the Rabid Hobbit - says that sure, he had the card during the time that purchases were made, but those charges aren't his. He didn't buy no fence or no gift card! Someone must have crept into his house at night, taken the card, used it then returned it before he awoke. Two idiots facing off and it was a toss-up over who is dumber. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Friendly suit over rent: ?ridiculous case - either made up or these two are really, REALLY, entitled snowflakes. Entitled snowflakes AND dumb as boxes of rocks, both of them. These two middleaged, squatting dumbos think they can stop paying rent after being given a 90-day notice. Well, why not? They wanted to go on a cruise together, and needed that money. Even though def. was broke and homeless, she deserved that cruise! The landlord should understand that. Plaintiff has zero evidence of a single thing she's claiming, other than a receipt for some tires she bought def. The audience could barely contain their laughter at these nitwitted fools and their nonsense. But, aww! They got matching tats on each other, just like little high school girls. BFFS!! Rent, they can't pay. Cruises and tats, they can. Priorities, folks! It would have been pretty funny, except that Dumbo #1 has a kid. I hope it didn't inherit her lame brain, that kept her standing there and grinning like a major idiot even as JM is insulting her. Maybe she didn't understand the insult. Oh, and I'm pretty sure plaintiff didn't get the boot over parking spaces. The landlord no doubt had good reason to get her squatting ass out of there. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Aborted car purchase: And it just kept getting worse. Plaintiff is a 50-year old man who has zero credit. It was nice that he started this case by ass-kissing, but it did him no good, well - except that for some unfathomable reason, JM just gently admonished him for his constant yelling. He doesn't want the car! It's a salvaged vehicle! Well, maybe not. Who knows? But he decided to give the idiot def. another 1000$ anyway. No, no one has any proof of anything. Car dealer didn't feel the need to bother with pesky receipts. He's a nice guy who likes cash. Of course that's not to cheat on taxes. He was wearing a purple sweater and green pants that hurt my eyes. A whole bunch of "It is what it is" - translation: "I'm a scammer, but so dumb I got caught." 4 Link to comment
Guest May 14, 2018 Share May 14, 2018 On 5/12/2018 at 7:46 PM, AngelaHunter said: Oh, me too and don't forget the wonder of "FF". Levin thinks we tune in because we have an insatiable thirst to look at this and listen to the stupidity he spews constantly: A few comments about this Levin person. Speaking of thirst he looks so dehydrated. He has that burnt chicken skin texture to his face and the tipoff to me believing it to be so is his dry lips. I'm not so sure his weight loss plan is healthy. Remember when he was a puffy sugarball? And I thought the first case - The Home Depot Deception was boring. "Dude" was annoying, plaintiff was not too bright and I got very antsy waiting for JM to put a stop to it all. And of no interest to anyone but me... I would never share a credit card with anyone. Never. You're asking for trouble but then again a lot of these people who parade in the courtroom love the drama. It's apparently their oxygen. Done. Link to comment
meowmommy May 14, 2018 Share May 14, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: I did some FF button work, and missed why MM gave P anything (since I didn't hear any evidence) from the decision ($1747.16) I guess MM split some of the rent - oh, and there was a cell phone bill D admits she owes. Carpet replacement, painting, tires, and she said anything else should be paid directly to the landlord who was stiffed. I love how the plaintiff complained that defendant smoked, and MM asked, smoked what? Because these bimbos were stoned Valley girls, fer shur. 24 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: And I thought the first case - The Home Depot Deception was boring. "Dude" was annoying, plaintiff was not too bright and I got very antsy waiting for JM to put a stop to it all. MM ought to be able to impose a stupidity tax. If you're stupid enough to hand over your CC to a perfect stranger, there ought to be some permanent consequences. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: going to pay cash, and puts down $100. 2nd thought, decides to finance the car. Fills out the online application and applies for credit. Why did he let them talk him into financing if he had cash on hand? [I was talked into financing my current car when I literally brought a box full of cash, but only because they offered zero percent financing. Then I paid off the five year loan in 16 months.] Defendant is laughing out loud while plaintiff gives his story, and MM doesn't call him on it. And this guy has cash for the sale, but is going for a 24.9% interest rate and has no credit anyway. But afterward, he decides he doesn't want to go cash--this makes no sense--and goes elsewhere for 15%. 34 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: A few comments about this Levin person. AngelaHunter, for posting the picture originally, and Psychoklown, for reposting it--I'm suing you both for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 7 Link to comment
teebax May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 That picture! Gah! We need to get to another page stat! Why didn't the plaintiff in the first case just dispute the charges with Home Depot? Yes, she gave him her card, but couldn't she still dispute the unauthorized charges? The cynic in me says she did since she mentioned the account being closed and her having a new card. I wondered why MM didn't at least ask about it. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: Why did he let them talk him into financing if he had cash on hand? Probably for the same reason he has zero credit. He's clueless and thinks some sleazy, shady little car salesman is a financial authority. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: Because these bimbos were stoned Valley girls, fer shur. Shouldn't there be a mandatory cut-off age for Valley Gurl-ism? Not cute at any age, but these dizzy, middleaged broads playing dumb and thinking it's adorable is a disgrace. On second thought, I doubt they were playing dumb. 27 minutes ago, teebax said: Why didn't the plaintiff in the first case just dispute the charges with Home Depot? Can you dispute the charges months after they were made when you don't bother checking at the time? I've never given my credit cards to total strangers (or anyone), sent them merrily off on shopping trips and let them keep the card so I don't know how this stuff works. I apologize to meowmommy and teebax for the unfortunate and ghastly Levin pic. Please don't sue me. The emotional distress (and eyebleach costs) I inflicted on you were not intentional. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, teebax said: Why didn't the plaintiff in the first case just dispute the charges with Home Depot? Yes, she gave him her card, but couldn't she still dispute the unauthorized charges? Because if the charges get reversed, then it would be on Home Depot to eat the charges, and it wasn't their fault the idiot gave her card to the defendant. If you give your card to someone, can you really claim the purchases are unauthorized? Edited May 15, 2018 by meowmommy 8 Link to comment
ElleMo May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Can you dispute the charges months after they were made when you don't bother checking at the time? I've never given my credit cards to total strangers (or anyone), sent them merrily off on shopping trips and let them keep the card so I don't know how this stuff works You have a certain amount of time to dispute a charge. I think it's 60 days. 52 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Because if the charges get reversed, then it would be on Home Depot to eat the charges, and it wasn't their fault the idiot gave her card to the defendant. If you give your card to someone, can you really claim the purchases are unauthorized? That's a good point. 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.