The People's Court - General Discussion

[Katy M]

22 hours ago, SRTouch said:

#1 lost dog - P headed to Caribbean/Puerto Rico for a trip and entrusts her beloved pup to D. Turns out that was a BIG mistake, as D loses (or sells the dog) - oh, but she/he has A JOB he/she had to get to, so couldn't be expected to actually look for the missing dog. Dog missing very suspicious - turns out D comes from a long line of back yard breeders - P knows she/he needed rent money - and thinks her dog was sold. Oh, and if knowing D needs money and is known to sell puppies from her family's back yard breeding operation isn't enough to dissuade P from leaving her beloved dog in D's care, you'd think the knowledge that D has dogs which he/she never walks might - but no, P leaves her little Romeo after D promises to walk P's dog even though his own stay locked in a room. Whole case very iffy on both sides - including P claiming to have proof she paid almost twice what her proof proves she paid.

All I have to say on this is that if you don't care enough about your pet to make sure he/she is in capable hands while you're on vacation, you don't deserve any payment if something happens.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, NYCFree said:

In New York City, internal locks on bedrooms inside apartments or houses are illegal because they are against fire code.

THIS blows my mind!  What about a place to hide if someone breaks in?  Safe room?

[Katy M]

17 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

THIS blows my mind!  What about a place to hide if someone breaks in?  Safe room?

Bathroom?

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

Bathroom?

Are the bathrooms allowed to have locks?

[Katy M]

25 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Are the bathrooms allowed to have locks?

Actually, as far as I can tell, it's only illegal to put a lock on doors that require you to use a key from the inside to get out.  So, as long as you can get out without a key, you're good to go locking it so that you can't get in from the outer room.  Unless there's a fire escape from that room.  Then everyone needs to be able to access it.

[AngelaHunter]

Were today's cases new only to me?

Lying boy who was texting while riding his bike and crashed into plaintiff (although in his complaint he said he was doing that but stood and lied to JM's face and insisted he wasn't. He was absolutely sure on that point):  Ooops. She gave him a lecture and informed him that someone on the staff lost a baby because some moron wanted to text while driving. Didn't seem to make much of an impression on the kid. You have to wonder where a kid is headed when he has no qualms about looking a judge in the face and calmly lying.  But  I can't help wondering if JM ripped Levin a new one when he was caught by the cops texting while driving his car. I actually listened to the little troll after this case. The slimy little hypocrite didn't have much to say about it, not surprisingly. He didn't even add his "Don't text and drive." Gee, I guess not.

Very big guy dressed in a fetching draped blouse and rocking a great smoky eye, suing his landlord for his deposit, I guess. All those fist-sized holes in the walls were made because he's clumsy and tripped, sending his fists through the wall! The ceiling panels were ripped out because he's really big and if he walks around with arm pointing straight up, it will damage the ceiling! Makes sense I guess, in some universe. Landlord was very shifty, claiming in his complaint the cleanup cost him 75$ which magically inflated to 150$ here. Plaintiff liked to leave his door unlocked, so anyone of his acquaintance and their buddies can come and go as they please, like a walk-in center. For some reason the landlord objected to this. Plaintiff's witness was frightening.

Another skeevy litigant:  Plaintiff who owned the furniture company and sent used, battered, messed-up furniture to the def: He called JM "Miss" not once, but twice, after he was warned not only about that but about his annoying bobble-heading. I guess he's a slow learner. No, he never told the def. the dining set was pre-abused, but his card says "New and Pre-Owned furniture." Good enough and def should have known he was getting trashed stuff.

[aemom]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Were today's cases new only to me?

No.  Perhaps this was one of those episodes that was preempted for us for one of those "Special Reports" on its initial airing.

 

Boy on the bike: "No I wasn't lying about texting, I wasn't paying attention, I was distracted.  Nobody coached me."  You're a lying liar that lies - just admit it since you don't seem overly ashamed about it.  The dad didn't want to pay because the police didn't notify him about the accident - and that is the plaintiff's fault because......?  You're just a weasel dad teaching your son to follow in your footsteps.  Plaintiff rightly won.

 

Those men for the return of the security deposit.  I was trying to figure out if they were men or women because they kept saying "he" but they had quite nice makeup jobs.  But, they seemed quite well prepared for their case and they seemed to shine some sketchiness on the defendant.  The judgement seemed fair.

 

For the furniture case, all I could initially think was how do you get that much furniture for $4K?  Then when we saw the photos, it made a lot more sense.  You can get that much furniture, but it's going to be pretty banged up stuff.  Judgement was probably fair here too.

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Were today's cases new only to me?

Nope, pretty sure they were retreads - have the DVR set to only record new episodes, so didn't watch, but all three sound familiar. Ah, but new cases are coming next week.

[Guest]

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 7:34 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Very big guy dressed in a fetching draped blouse and rocking a great smoky eye, suing his landlord for his deposit, I guess. All those fist-sized holes in the walls were made because he's clumsy and tripped, sending his fists through the wall! The ceiling panels were ripped out because he's really big and if he walks around with arm pointing straight up, it will damage the ceiling! Makes sense I guess, in some universe. Landlord was very shifty, claiming in his complaint the cleanup cost him 75$ which magically inflated to 150$ here. Plaintiff liked to leave his door unlocked, so anyone of his acquaintance and their buddies can come and go as they please, like a walk-in center. For some reason the landlord objected to this. Plaintiff's witness was frightening.

 

You didn't mention the part where the landlord (apparently under the impression that he can come and go in his tenants apartment willy-nilly) walked in on the plaintiff's significant other applying makeup to another individual.  Suffice it to say the landlord was a bit peevish about the goings on under his roof.

Very big guy dressed in a fetching draped blouse....who may or may not have punched holes in doors.

[DoctorK]

Oh Jeez, first case was a mess. I hated that JM thought the plaintiff was cute and amusing. Not really, he was arrogant, obnoxious, entitled and just a complete all around jerk. How many times did he have to repeat "50,000 pound truck"? To say to the judge that she would be on his side if only she had been rear ended byt a 50,000 pound truck like he was was just offensive. Get a clue, your 50,000 pound accident has absolutely nothing to do with your case here, it is about you not taking responsibility for tickets you ran up. I was annoyed that JM told the defendant to just forget about the additional money that was owed to him above and beyond what the plaintiff had paid. Plaintiff left without learning anything, and will continue being a complete jerk.

[Bazinga]

First case: Plaintiff was allowed to interrupt, go on a rant, reprimand the defendant's business practices, tell the defendant off, have a conversation with the judge, go off on tangents, be a scammer, while the defendant, who was in the right, was assumed to be wrong until the amounts proved him right, had to have the judge comment that his billing was poor, told to ignore additional amounts owed, told not to smirk at the plaintiff's foolishness because he was his elder.  Just utter nonsense, and unfair treatment.  Again, some are catered to based on personality while others are treated poorly, usually for little reason.  Recall the case from a few weeks back where the physical trainer plaintiff just STARTED to speak and was told he was being a big baby who could not stand anything not going his way.  Same way this plaintiff was treated, right?  In this case, because the plaintiff was old and ornery, he was indulged.  Just because someone is old does not mean they automatically deserve respect if they don't give any respect.  Too bad the defendant turned out to also be a jerk based on his actions with Doug.  

Edited June 4, 2018 by Bazinga

[SRTouch]

new cases - not a great day, but good laugh at the end... ?? obnoxious old dude gets off light when he deserved smack down - while defendant was in the right with the case, but also proved to be major jerk.... ? clueless P waits 18 months to ask for refund on prescription glasses, claiming they were made wrong but has no evidence besides a new prescription proving her eyes had changed in the year between doctor visits...? giving this one a tentative thumb up because phoney evidence at the end was good for a laugh - oh, will need CC to understand P regarding the verbal contract 

1. car rental over charge: uh oh, this one looks like a "character" case - one of those where MM plays to a litigant's act and loses focus on the case - saying that as plaintiff comes hobbling in with his cane and satchel and makes a complete circle of the courtroom - eventually Douglas comes over and helps him find his seat.... never mind JJ's water pitcher/glass trap - this guy brought his own bottle of water. (Ok, saying that partly because of earlier post by @DOCTORK.) Spent more time looking at gallery than usual - pausing to type and catching first row behind plaintiff - two matching tops sitting next to bearded dude with cross - seems kind of cold behind defendant with front row wearing sweaters and the one woman wrapped in a blanket. Oh, and defendant - camera swings over to him and he's wearing a BIG smile,  oh so happy to be on TV, then remembers his part and smile disappears. Having hard time believing this case is real. Backstory for P makes no sense.... he got creamed by 50,000lb truck years ago, that accident is his lottery ticket that he hopes will net him BIG BUCKS, so, since the 50,000 lb truck hit him he's spent $25-30,000 renting cars from defendant... see, your honor, he doesn't want the big truck insurance company to know he can still drive so he rents instead of buying a car which he'd have to register.... then comes on national TV and explains his scam. Seems for past 2 years he's been renting a car from D, racking up tickets, and the tickets were sent back to rental company. Rental guy turned around and passed on the tickets to scamming P, who is now saying some of the laundry list of fines were not his - heck, he says, here's one in Alabama and he's never even been in Alabama... ok, easy case - all D needs to prove is tickets were on car he rented to scamming P. Oh, of course, your honor, ma'am, he has copies of the tickets, and he fumbles around, but he does have the evidence. Oh, dear, as we go to commercial we hear MM hammering P,  this is tag from your rental on this ticket - and idiot scammer comes up with, "I think you're cute, that's why I'm staring at you." MM just laughs and says "I'll take it!" Hmmmm anyone else think that "cute" statement deserved a smack down? Like @DOCTORK said, MM acting like P is cute and funny, while I'm thinking obnoxious scammer throwing out flattery to distract from his scam. Then she let's P interrupt her as he shouts out, then rants and raves at defendant in a cross aisle exchange which deserved another smack down - instead she admonishes defendant to take the smirk off his face and respect his elder (ok, defendant deserved a smack down, too). Sorry, besides his attitude, seems to me defendant is 100% in the right - he has evidence, admits P made a $300 payment even though P has no evidence and D could have denied receiving it, even has evidence P owes more money over and above amount in dispute in this case. Uh oh, even Doug let scammer P off easy in hallterview. Then, defendant comes out and reinforces my thoughts that whole case was put up job - as he leaving after talking to Doug he gives us "how do you like me, now?" a couple times and Doug comments he got his 5 minutes on TV.
2. Can't see through her prescription glasses: P picked up her prescription glasses from Defendant's shop, but can't see through them. Hey, as someone who has been wearing glasses for decades, I can relate.... I usually buy a couple pairs when I get a new prescription - I remember trying on a one pair in the shop, then getting to the car, putting on the other pair, and having to go back inside because the second pair was wrong - since then I make sure to try both inside. Ah, but this lady, at least according to defendant, picked up her glasses, then waited a year before deciding there was something wrong, and now wants a full refund. Ah, then she supposedly gives him her prescription to show that glasses don't match her script - well yeah, script is from a couple weeks ago, and is different from last year... again, I can totally relate - eyes change over time and so do prescription Eyewear needs. Course, MM wears glasses herself, so she also can relate. When testimony begins, the thing I'm having trouble with is P's timeline. If I heard her correctly, she says she us extremely nearsighted, was given the prescription in April or May, waited a couple months before taking the prescription to have glasses made, then waited a couple more months before going to pick up the glasses - months between seeing the doctor and getting the new glasses? And, WTH, if she's extremely nearsighted, where are her glasses today? Ah, she telks us later that she wears contacts, so wears glasses on the rare occasion. Oh, and this all happened 2 years ago? Anyway, her story is that she went back a couple times, months apart, complaining glasses weren't right, and defendant would fiddle with the frame (but lens stayed the same) and was told D he would need to wear them and get used to them. Well, heck, did she ever wear them enough to get used to them as she was being told she needed to do? Glasses I know, never had contacts - seems reasonable that there would be an adjustment period when you go from one to the other. Ok, several attempts to make adjustments, she's never really happy... fast forward... a year later she gives up on getting these glasses to fit and goes back to doctor, who gives her a new script - and she is presenting this new script as evidence that glasses were made wrong a year ago. Sorry, lady, what you need is to show last year's script doesn't match the glasses... oh, and you'll need more than the prescription - even as a retired pharmacy NCO, I can't read eyeglass prescriptions. Soooo, MM can't read the script, and ends up crosses the aisle and asking defendant what it means. As a litigant, he blows P case out of the water. Poor P was iffy about pretty much everything, wasn't sure of dates, only evidence she had was the new prescription. Once defendant starts he has all the evidence, along with the original script and the new one. To a lay person, sure sounds like there's quite a difference that took place over the year with her eyes. In fact, I would think if she only wears the glasses every couple months, gradual changes that may not have been all that noticeable if she wore them all the time were very noticeable. Ah, show and tell time filler with defendant-made glasses versus the glasses made with new script in different style frame .... sorry, lady, what you need to show us the original glasses weren't made to fit original presription... besides, new glasses are obviously a different style - apples and oranges comparison means nada.  Slam dunk win for defendant.
3. Commercial space rental confusion: (need CC for plaintiff) plaintiff says he rented a garage to set up a fruit stand, but when he went to put in shelves defendant told him he had only rented half the space. Defendant has whole other story - says he did extensive build out in the space for the P, then when time came for P to move in he decided to forget the fruit stand and move with son to Texas. Says P doesn't deserve refund of deposit because of the time and expense D went through getting place to meet P's needs. In fact, he not only wants to keep the $2,400 deposit, but has filed a $4,763 countersuit. Listening to plaintiff, trying to decipher his accent, have to wonder how they thought a verbal agreement would ever work - within the first few minutes of old dude's testimony MM has had to ask for clarification several times. Not saying a written lease isn't the way to go, just that it's REALLY the way to go when one side is speaking English as a 2nd language. This time, really looks like Def was taking advantage.... I mean when MM asks him to explain why stuff is in the rented space he starts yapping before even looking at the pictures - when he does he tries to argue the pictures were taken after the deal fell through.... hold on, that would mean the pictures should show $4700 worth of shelving and stuff D put in for the fruit stand - I must have missed those shelves. His position makes no sense to me... he was going to leave his personal property and tools from his construction business in the garage while P had customers wander through looking at produce? Uhhh, not making sense, and if it doesn't make sense.... not saying he may not have tried renting a portion of the space - but I sure wouldn't have. Anyway, looking at the portion of the garage D says he was renting out, I see zero evidence of any $4,700 build out in his countersuit. Not to mention, a reason to let him keep the $2400 deposit/rent when he can't show a single picture of the space ready for P to move in or any evidence def is trying to, or ever has, rented the space to anyone else. ah, but his evidence  hoboy, just about the worst, self serving made up evidence EVER ?... best laugh of the day - THIS MM cut short - when 75% of plaintiff's testimony in 1st case was irrelevant. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Oh Jeez, first case was a mess. I hated that JM thought the plaintiff was cute and amusing. Not really, he was arrogant, obnoxious, entitled and just a complete all around jerk.

You forgot "ignorant." He's the kind of person I always imagine showing up when a movie producer requests a "don't mean nuttin'" New York 'type'. I could not believe the way JM let him rant, yell, rave and berate the def. Maybe he reminded her of her father or uncle? I totally understood def in the hall when he explained to Doug that trying to talk to this meathead was futile. I would have preferred this case on JJ, where his grammatically incorrect, obtuse, bellowing verbal diarrhea would have been shut down pronto. You'd need a hammer and chisel to get anything into his thick skull.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Commercial space rental confusion:

What a sleazebag def was. As if someone could open a fruit and veggie stand with def's nasty Bobcat, motorcycles, trash cans and other smelly crap stuck in there. I guess he didn't mind being shown up for the lying con artist he is. He probably figured, "These old guys? What do they know? Easy marks. I'll take them for a ride." Wrong, but he had the unmitigated gall to countersue them for even more money. I just wish JM had shamed him more for the evidence he fabricated and brought.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

uh oh, this one looks like a "character" case - one of those where MM plays to a litigant's act and loses focus on the case

Another one of those loudmouth bullies who believe that talking loudly over other people proves their point. And as you predicted MM took a shine to him, just because of some clumsy compliment he made. Doug even called him cute! When MM told the defendant he had to show respect to his elders, I wanted to shout out to her that the guy did not deserve respect at any age of his life, even when his father had (allegedly) a million-dollar business which he presented as a personal credential. She may have been sarcastic, but the camera was not on her so I cannot tell. Defendant was a bit of a tool with his exit routine, but he was in the right legally and he now will not have to deal with such an aggravating customer anymore (unless he is a glutton for punishment).

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Can't see through her prescription glasses:

Difficult to see how this even made it to the show, considering how flimsy it was; I guess there was a shortage of interesting cases. As was clearly explained, eyesight can change over time, even a few months, plus the choice of frame can also be a factor. Considering how thick her lenses were, they would not fit snugly in every model and size of frame, especially the very thin ones.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Commercial space rental confusion:

I initially concluded this was a case of confused renters' remose, but defendant's story was so badly entangled with him not even knowing the difference between "before" and "after the fact", that the conclusion quickly became unavoidable, the fabricated evidence simply being the clincher.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

When MM told the defendant he had to show respect to his elders, I wanted to shout out to her that the guy did not deserve respect at any age of his life

I never got that - just because someone manages by luck to reach a certain age they automatically deserve respect? No, they do not. Charlie Manson reached 83, so should people have respected him? Just because this guy is an old asshole he should get more respect than a young asshole? He's a hateful, belligerent, stupid pedantic old creep.

[babs j.]

I know from experience the older you get the faster your eyes change.  The best thing about today's show - no dog cases.

[meowmommy]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

idiot scammer comes up with, "I think you're cute, that's why I'm staring at you." MM just laughs and says "I'll take it!" Hmmmm anyone else think that "cute" statement deserved a smack down?

More than a smackdown--a beat down, a thrashing, a whipping, you name it.  How fucking insulting, and MM thinks it's adorable, instead of the sexist insult it is.  WTF is wrong with her lately?  Has she been abducted by aliens?  And then the dirtbag plaintiff goes on a manufactured rant against the defendant, which MM always shuts down, and instead of telling him to sit the fuck down (all of a sudden he can stand up!) and shut up, she attacks the defendant.  I need a bath.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

P picked up her prescription glasses from Defendant's shop, but can't see through them.

I got prescription glasses in 2015 and couldn't see through them from day one.  Brought them back three times, each time waited a few weeks and each time got them back, couldn't see through them.  It was their damn prescription and their damn measurements.  They sure are pretty, though.  So I'm stuck using my old glasses from around 2010, or more often than not, just do without.  Maybe I should sue the vision place.  They had the nerve to call me a year later to tell me it was time to come in for another exam and prescription.  At least I can read a few lines on the eye chart on the defendant's tie.  Those were some serious coke-bottle lenses.  I am surprised she could wear contacts.

[AngelaHunter]

54 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

How fucking insulting, and MM thinks it's adorable, instead of the sexist insult it is.

Seriously, telling a judge she's "cute"? I've always adored JM but for awhile now she's gone off the rails, thinking that old people - no matter how vile and vicious they are - deserve patience, tolerance and respect. I'm thinking of the pious woman who deliberately illegally parked (breaking the law so she could be on time for church) had the nerve to sue the tow company and got rewarded for it. I'm sure there are more examples that escape me. Awful people are awful, no matter if they're 18 or 80. JM is showing some bad bias lately.

 

3 hours ago, babs j. said:

The best thing about today's show - no dog cases.

YES! I'll take hateful geezers and boring glasses cases any day.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

How fucking insulting, and MM thinks it's adorable, instead of the sexist insult it is.  WTF is wrong with her lately?  Has she been abducted by aliens?  And then the dirtbag plaintiff goes on a manufactured rant against the defendant, which MM always shuts down, and instead of telling him to sit the fuck down (all of a sudden he can stand up!) and shut up, she attacks the defendant.  I need a bath.

True.  And remember the defendant not too long ago who referred to her as "Miss" and she was so angry she nearly stroked out?

I was only able to catch a few minutes of this but I believe there was something else going on entirely with this guy.   Instead of feeding the bear I would have pulled a JJ and asked him if he was on medication.  Clearly he is not playing with a full deck.

I did get back when Doug was fawning over him.   Totally uncharacteristic of him.

Saw two minutes of the prescription dispute.  Right after JM was extolling her woe in changing the glass on all her "sassy frames" I had to leave.

And not that anyone asked me but I could not agree with AngelaHunter more....respect has nothing to do with age and everything to do with how you treat people.  From my calculations that obnoxious plaintiff deserves less than a thimble full of respect.  But I still stick with my theory that there's a whole lot else going on with him.

[WhitneyWhit]

Normally I worship the ground MM walks on but she really annoyed me yesterday, There was nothing charming or cute about the first plaintiff. He's a scammer and appears to be nuttier than a fruit cake. I couldn't believe that she allowed him to berate the defendant the way he did, and yeah, why do I need to respect someone just because they lucked out and made it to 70? I'll respect you if you're worthy of my respect, and the plaintiff was not. The plaintiff seemed to be one of those people (and we've had a few of them on this show) who believes their age is protection against people calling them on their bullshit. *

 

*I promise I'm not a heartless bitch to my elders, but I saw this case after having a car accident where a woman rear ended me at a stop sign and the first thing out of her mouth was "I'm a 63 year old woman" with my response being "So?"

Edited June 5, 2018 by WhitneyWhit

[bref]

Doug's inappropriate laughter during his segments is getting up into Dr. Hibbert territory.

[SRTouch]

1st case ??? so so, had a few twists on old story of exes fighting , dragged in the middle, but then D had a meltdown and got the boot... 2nd case ?? liked this one. Started out weak, then P promised evidence which would have won for her, but her evidence didn't materialize, and her expert witness was her undoing... 3rd case ??? best of day - domineering mommy running around cleaning up 18yo sonnyboy's mess

1. almost married exes fighting: old old story about a couple buying a bunch of crap on credit to set up house, then breaking up before the stuff is paid for, then fighting over the bill and who keeps the stuff. Plaintiff wants almost two grand, saying she paid for furniture. Defendant says when they broke up she rented a uhaul and had every opportunity to take the furniture with her if she wanted it. Oh, and also claims she stabbed him and punctured his lungs while he was sitting holding the baby.... and just have to mention his witness - little bald dude with facial hair that looks about 2 feet shorter than D. Once testimony starts we learn the loving couple moved in together November 8th and split up before rent was due in December - apparently fight started over something she said, or at least he thought she said, to one of his other baby mommas - did anybody else cringe a bit seeing how close her talons were to her eye when she scratched her nose? Anyway, despite what his intro says, her story is that he made it much harder to collect her things than he claims. Her story is they had a text war about the baby momma which ended with him saying he was putting her stuff outside - says she went to retrieve her stuff, and he locked the doors and called cops, saying she was trying to stab him. Next day he agrees she can come get her stuff, but he's putting it on the porch and not letting her inside. Somewhere in here, she admits she pulled a knife and stabbed her air mattress - not sure what the mattress did to deserve that, but MM confirms she's the one who stabbed poor mattress. So, ok, picture I'm getting is loud screaming, destruction, chaos and mayhem.... sure hope neighbors enjoyed the show - BTW, did she move into his place or was she on the lease? Ah, yep, she was on the lease, as cops educated dude he couldn't just put her out. So, then they both try to get protection orders - hers is denied but he gets one against her, maybe because he reported she pulled a knife - which resulted in her being banned from the apartment. It's not until February that she can get back inside, with a police escort, to collect the rest of her stuff - ah, but the furniture she put on her credit card in November has vanished. Have to say, MM doesn't seem to be buying her story - sitting there with arms folded and just asking the occasional question - so, you are the one who damaged the mattress - any police report (nah) backing up what you claim happened... and, of course, most of this would have already been heard when a judge heard the dueling protective order requests, and that judge ruled against her. Finally, over to defendant for his version - first impression, dude spends way to much time in front of the mirror - also, when he starts talking I suspect he's no stranger to appearing before a judge. Thing is, I'm not believing much of what he's saying - lots of fidgeting around, very little eye contact, and lots of pauses while he appears to be searching for a way to spin his story. Time to laugh when he talks about her stabbing him and MM asks who P's witness is - oh, new bf, pay attention dude and hide the knives. Ah, but at the time, according to what D is saying now, he told all the witnesses to lie about the stabbing as he didn't want her to lose custody of her 3yo (losing custody is bad - but if psycho momma is prone to pulling out her knife... and she admits to killing the poor mattress... well, toddler maybe should be separated from momma if she needs some anger/impulse control counseling). Ok, MM wants to ask P about the incident (yeah, I know, really has nothing to do with the furniture that's MIA and the subject of the lawsuit). According to P, dude stabbed himself. She certainly doesn't gain any points when she testifies she was on the phone to her mom while dude was "bleeding half to death" and dude was yelling for cousin to call the cops. Hopefully, mom told her to hang up, call EMS, put down the freeking phone and control the bleeding - but if so we don't hear about it. Oh, and this incident happened back in September - so why, asks MM, did either of them decide it would be a good idea to move in together 2 months later. Ah, says dude, because they were in LUV ? MM is ready to get back to the case about furniture, but I was ready for a rant about how the two fools were not operating in a vacuum here - both have children from prior relationships? - and IIRC, his story was that his baby was on the couch with him when he was stabbed. Anyway, now we get nonsense where D is trying to say he never put her stuff out on the porch, which becomes I have a selfie of her stuff out on the porch, but I didn't put it out - so WHO PUT IT OUT, says MM - Oh, his cousin put it out... ok, I'm about done with this dude, never a good sign when I check how much longer a case is going to last when I pause to type. Ah, now we have D's little cousin up there, and both he and D Are giving MM attitude - several times now D has told MM to "listen" and tried to talk over her, and now when MM asks little witness who he is to take it upon himself to put P's stuff out on the porch while she's at work (and on the lease), little dude answers with his name. Oh, this one is getting good ? both D and witness keep mouthing off, interrupting and talking over the judge, she's getting louder and talking over them, and now D starts clapping his hands trying to get her to stop so he can tell it like he thinks it is - yeah, like that works in a courtroom - dude has trouble keeping story straight from one line to the next. He gets the big boot... ah, but as he's packing to leave he says something along the line that he doesn't care, go ahead and pay plaintiff, it's not his money. Dude and mini dude don't even slow down for hallterview. P gets the money she spent furnishing the place for dude (oh, and mini dude, cuz little cousin lives there, too. Oh my, and when P gets out Doug questions new bf about the alleged stabbing, and actually says to P, "you have love affairs quite often, don't you?" Whoa watch it Doug, she may have her knife with her ? ah, but all good, insult doesn't even register with her
2. bad plumber: P says she hired D, a plumber, to install a water heater in her hair salon business. Ah, but he botched the install, both her business and the neighboring shop filled up with carbon monoxide, and the fire department shut her down. She wants 5 grand for lost business and the botched installation. D says he's been in business for 18 years, knows what he's doing, did the job right, and water heater worked fine for two years before the incident. (There was a 1 year warranty on the install - which was obviously expired.) Hmmm, depending on where these folks are, I wonder if a permit had to be pulled? Here abouts, no - but some places  (thinking of stories about NY) pretty much everything needs a permit - which usually means an inspection after completion. Other question - is dude an actual licensed plumber or a handyman who dabbles with pipes? Ah, but, if install was two years ago, P will have a tough sale proving it was bad - and is spinning her wheels without an expert witness. Ah, may be more to this, though. When testimony starts, we learn P had been using D since '05 for all her plumbing needs. Water heater was installed two years ago, and worked fine until recently, when strange odor was noticed. She called plumber Rick, and he came to check it out - ah, somebody must have bumped it, he says, then he resets the thermostat and leaves. Next day, fire department shows up - seems neighbor's carbon monoxide detectors were going crazy - inspects her salon and shuts it down - ah, disaster, her salon was full, half dozen people end up at hospital for hours on O2. She immediately calls her long time plumber, Ricky, but he's leaving for a vacation, can't come... huh? Long time customer calls to said her business has been shut down due to water heater he installed and just inspected/serviced. Dude, unless her story is total BS - heck, even if it is - I can't imagine why you're here on TV. Ah, seems she made insurance claims, and says she has reports from the insurance investigation and the plumber she finally hired when Ricky didn't come. Whoa, here I thought her case was nonsense, now looking like she'll bury poor Ricky. Douglas delivers those reports to MM while she turns to ask plumber Rick, WTH, dude? Rick says he replaced old heater with exact same model, using same water and gas supply lines - straight swap. Ok, this might be interedting... turns out insurance investigation consisted of looking at pictures and sending a new plumber, who she ended up hiring to put in a new water heater. New plumber not here to answer questions - she's already feuding with new guy because the new heater isn't working out and appears MM suspects P may be suing the new guy over THAT install. Hmmm, I was thinking her witness might be new plumber - guess not. And, where's the investigation reports which blame Rick for a poor installation - sounds like installation was fine, just that it was installed in room where it shouldn't have been.... and I'm thinking the room was fine, but that all her chemicals should have been stored somewhere else. Ok, back to original thought - unless Rick steps in something she has no case - and now MM is going back to give D a chance to lose the case. Ah, but not long before MM turns back asking P what her theory is because doesn't look like Rick did anything wrong. Unless MM has something she hasn't shown us, everything P is saying is hearsay - new plumber said he would have never put a gas heater in the room... and the heater he put in can't do the job - insurance company told her the chemicals reacting with the heater caused the problem... yet same model heater was there working fine (well, CO could have been a problem all along since it's a silent killer) but my question would be why are her chemicals being stored in the mechanical room. Not saying Rick is blameless, couple things he should have done and didn't. First - whole bit about "can't come, I'm on vacation" is pretty lame. Then, if I heard right, when he first installed the water heater two years ago there was a problem with an odor, then the recent problem began with an odor complaint and he tells us maybe a worker bumped the thermostat or a wet towell might have been thrown and was blocking the intake.... to me, that's screaming for a $20 smoke alarm/carbon monoxide detector (just checked - $19.93 at WalMart) to be installed in the storeroom. Case dismissed.
3. asleep at the wheel: P awakened at 530am when D lost control of car, rammed into her stone pillar, careened into her new car, then came to rest after running into a telephone pole. Liability pretty much established, his insurance had already paid for some of the damage, but she's still out of pocket money and wants it from D. Hmmm, unless she signed a settlement agreement, I figure she'll win - ah, but she may have signed it away. She says she's still out $2,095. Ah, D could be one of my coworkers - he's a pizza delivery driver who brought his mommy to court. We actually have drivers like this guy, driving around in parents cars delivering pizza (at least one of our better (female) drivers is driving daddy's car - and has 2 toddlers at home)... always wonder what their insurance agent would think if they knew - but, at least they're working and not sitting at home with a video game. Ok, as thought, no question of fault - intro has him admitting to falling asleep on way home after work. Hmmm, assuming P didn't sign away full reimbursement, this looks like a case where driver is under insured, can't pay, and we're here with no case - plaintiff wins. Ah, but maybe P has padded her damages as D claims, so her suit will get trimmed down. Whoa, when testimony starts in have to wonder how fast this dude was going. Ok, and forget the intro where hard working kid falls asleep on way home after work - real story is he was hanging with friends, partying because a friend was home from college, and he decides to drive home when he should have stayed the night on the couch (and dear mommy is right there defending sonny's right to be out visiting friends and smashing into people's property because he fell asleep after the party)... I wonder if there was some pot being smoked - which would not be at all uncommon with some of my delivery coworkers,  and looking at kid he looks like a pothead. P mentioned to cops at scene that she thought drugs/alcohol might have been involved, but says cops didn't think so - but she also says cops are friends with D's family. She says she asked for a sobriety test, but they said no. Hmmm, not going to second guess the on scene cops (well, yeah, guess I am, too) - they may have been told by the responding EMS that kid was just shook up by the accident. Ah, maybe just me, but sounds like P was making noises about alcohol at the scene - if dude (and his mommy who is now up defending sonny boy) were so sure he was sober why not ask for blood to be drawn. Course, don't know where this happened - some places have ambulances who are strictly scoop and run, while others have highly trained paramedics... still, dude says he was dazed after smacking his head, so a trip to ER sounds needed. Anyway, no test - even tickets that were issued at site somehow get tossed without a court appearance.... hmmm, maybe Martha Stewart P has a point. Ah, and to date P and her insurance company have received nada from D and his insurance.  What P has received has been from her company. And dude has a $10,000 cap, which barely covered her damaged new car, not to mention damage to stone mailbox pillar, car rental, etc and she had to pay her deductibles. Ok, time to trim down any padding. P rightfully pissed at what she sees as D getting slap on wrist - but is here with single estimate that MM thinks sounds high for the pillar, landscaping, and driveway damage. Ah, now mommy is ranting about how P padded her damages - says she's been working for a construction business for years and her people could fix everything for a fraction of what P wants. Doesn't matter, says MM, P under no obligation to use D's people - press the off button mommy, says MM. AH, and here's another reason for the lawsuit.... when asked, 18YO defendant admits he never apologized - or talked to - P after causing havoc in P's life. Ok, rough justice - $2095 claim trimmed to $1500. When they get outside Doug hints strongly kid should apologize. I was half expecting them to wait and apologize right there in the hallway, but then mommy says it was her decision to offer an apology for the kid. Nope, overbearing mommy says her baby if only 18yo, so seems her apology should be good enough and guess P will have to be happy with the money, but her hallterview indicates she'dshe'd appreciate a personal apology from the 18yo adult sonny. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

almost married exes fighting:

I hate these cases, where we listen to the not-quite-Romeo-and-Juliet acting like fucking savages. I really wouldn't mind it all that much, even including the stabbing, brawling, kicking in doors, etc, if it weren't for the fact that these fertile lowlifes always have unfortunate children who have to witness the disgusting violence and outrageous behavior of their sperm donors/incubators. Def could barely put together a coherent sentence, but he has a baby momma and plaintiff girlfriend who of course has a toddler. I was waiting for JM to tell def, who can't speak but took the time and money to get fancy cornrows in his hair, to stop telling her to "listen!" She finally threw him out, with his tiny cousin trailing behind him, not a moment too soon. I don't know if plaintiff stabbed her ex-paramour (probably did) but he wanted to live with her even after the collapsed lung he got. Nothing says true love like a chest stabbing! The only thing these brain dead cretins seem able to do with any proficiency is screw and breed.

The plumber/boiler case was a relief. No violence and no mangled English, at least. Very relaxing. I wonder if the clients who got poisoned are suing plaintiff.

18 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

asleep at the wheel: 

Gotta love Big Momma, who knows exactly where her darling boy - Baby Huey - was and everything he did before he fell asleep and smashed up plaintiff's property, even though she wasn't there. Not his fault he dozed off while driving. No, he didn't go and apologize to plaintff. Mommy will take care of that for him. Can't have her infantile, man-bunned snowflake getting all stressed out and traumatized, you know. I've had rock/stone work done, and to me 1300$ to repair the damage Sleepy did doesn't seem unreasonable. I guess having cop buddies is a good thing when you screw up and cause innocent strangers a whole bunch of trouble. Of course he wasn't drinking or smoking up. Her baby would never ever do that! Lucky plaintiff wasn't outside getting something from the trunk of her car. She'd be legless now and it still wouldn't be Huey's fault. He was tired!

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Gotta love Big Momma, who knows exactly where her darling boy - Baby Huey - was and everything he did before he fell asleep and smashed up plaintiff's property, even though she wasn't there.

That was some neckline, huh?  She really needed two bras to hold those puppies up but seemed quite pleased that her breasts were laying on her stomach.  She also had that 'thumb head' look...no defined neck. 

Based on my experience Baby Huey is going to be in a lot more jams before the age of 25.  A lot more.   And she'll be right there to help him get through it.  

I do have to say that when moms-like-her want to sit in on the session we always make them stay in the waiting room unless there's a sound reason for their presence.  As a courtesy we go out to the waiting room and escort the client into our office.  I cannot tell you how many moms jump up even before their child just to make it known that they're joining us.  I then have to smile sweetly (aka gritting my teeth) and make it known they are not welcomed.  Some of the looks I get are pure evil but I cannot do my job with "mom" answering, interrupting or just taking up oxygen in the room.

Big Momma sure played her role...she even shook her head to answer a question posed to Baby Huey.   I can only imagine the notes a therapist would write down after talking to him. 

[babs j.]

My DVR is set up to record only the new People's Court episodes but I could almost swear that I have seen case #3 perhaps last year.  And could we please eliminate hot water heater - if the water is hot it doesn't need to be heated.  It's a WATER heater - hot is redundant.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

That was some neckline, huh? 

I guess I'll never understand the reasoning of these women who carefully choose their ensemble to appear here and really want to showcase their enormous/sagging/tatted breasts. Had they ever watched this show they would know that JM (who told one exhibitionist "I'm not interested in your breasts!") will get them nowhere at all. Do they think some producer is watching and will say, 'Oh, hot mama! Sign her up!" or something along those lines? Okay, I admit that these days of Mama June, such a thing is quite possible, but the odds are against it. I'd be willing to bet that this is a single momma and her one, precious overfed chick who she will defend to the death. She probably still tucks him in at night, with a "Momma loves you!"

 

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Big Momma sure played her role...she even shook her head to answer a question posed to Baby Huey. 

I didn't have a car at 18. I had to wait to get a job and buy my own, but had I destroyed someone's property and went crying to my Mama, she would have told me that was my problem. That was in the dinosaur days when people had to take responsiblity for their messes. How nice that is no longer a worry.

[meowmommy]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Then, if I heard right, when he first installed the water heater two years ago there was a problem with an odor, then the recent problem began with an odor complaint and he tells us maybe a worker bumped the thermostat or a wet towell might have been thrown and was blocking the intake.... to me, that's screaming for a $20 smoke alarm/carbon monoxide detector (just checked - $19.93 at WalMart) to be installed in the storeroom.

What the woman should have known a long time ago is that carbon monoxide is completely odorless, so whatever caused the odor was something else, maybe natural gas that has a smell deliberately added to it.  You won't know it's there until it kills you, and that's why you need a CO detector.  She may have gotten lucky in this case that gas and CO leaked together and her customers only got sick and not dead.

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I do have to say that when moms-like-her want to sit in on the session we always make them stay in the waiting room unless there's a sound reason for their presence.

I have no idea why MM let her carry all the testimony.  Kid's not a minor; mommy doesn't have to speak for him. 

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I guess having cop buddies is a good thing when you screw up and cause innocent strangers a whole bunch of trouble.

It sure seemed like mommy's got some pull with the local constabulary since kid didn't get breathalyzed, drug tested, and got his tickets dismissed without any legal process.  Can't be the ski jumping chest; must be the purple hair.  Plaintiff was going to blow a gasket, for sure, and I don't blame her.  What was mommy's excuse for baby not at least paying the plaintiff's deductibles?  Did the plaintiff's parked car and landscaping jump out in the road and get in the way of drunk/drugged/dullwitted dummy baby?

Edited June 6, 2018 by meowmommy

[AngelaHunter]

10 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

It sure seemed like mommy's got some pull with the local constabulary since kid didn't get breathalyzed, drug tested, and got his tickets dismissed without any legal process. 

I liked Momma Bear's response when JM asked her if she had friends on the police force. "I'm 51 (even though I look 65) and he's in his twenties!" as thought JM had been insinuating some sexual affair with the cop.

 

12 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Plaintiff was going to blow a gasket, for sure, and I don't blame her.

Yes, and I kind of disliked JM acting as though she were looking for a boe-nanza. When you have to go through all kinds of crap and aggravation - putting in the ins. claim, renting a car, getting your own car fixed, contacting contractors to repair the damage that some stupid boy did and whose mommy offered to pay not a cent, plaintiff deserved everything she was out. JM again goes easy on stupid boy, asking his mamma for explanations when SB is standing right there and is legally - if not mentally - an adult.

[aemom]

Only had time to watch yesterday's cases.

I agree with all of you who complained about the plaintiff in the car rental case. Respect is earned, not given, I don't care how old you are. I couldn't believe all the bullshit MM let him get away with.

The glasses case was boring.

The fruit stand garage guy was trying to take them for a ride. But all I could wonder is who opens a fruit stand in a small garage in some random building?  That made no sense to me at all.

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, SRTouch said:

when P gets out Doug questions new bf about the alleged stabbing, and actually says to P, "you have love affairs quite often, don't you?"

How awesome was that? Doug has gone totally savage in his old age. From the look she gave him, I kind of DID expect her to pull out a shiv and stick it in him.

[momtoall]

Maybe I'm getting sensitive but I have to say am uncomfortable with calling the litigants "savages" and "animals".  There should be better descriptors to use without sounding so offensive.

[Katy M]

18 hours ago, babs j. said:

My DVR is set up to record only the new People's Court episodes but I could almost swear that I have seen case #3 perhaps last year.  And could we please eliminate hot water heater - if the water is hot it doesn't need to be heated.  It's a WATER heater - hot is redundant.

Maybe that's the point.  Hot water heaters only heat water that is already hot, so you can't complain if the water is cold.

[SRTouch]

???? abuse/neglect cases make me ?? but hair/makeup/dress cases just bore me to tears - this one had me reaching for the remote from the beginning.... 2nd case ☺?? ? ah, a good old traffic smash up where litigant, whose own evidence shows him in the wrong, just can't admit it - this one is good for a laugh.... 3rd case ???? first minute of rehearsed opening kind of good,  next couple minutes of histrionic P entertaining, but downhill from there

1. bad wig, bad! Waynetta Seymour (aka Tokyo Juko) is a social media diva, who, of course, I've never heard of. She considers herself a rapper and actress and apparently spends a lot of time posting pictures of herself in various colored wigs. Defendant is her "hair ambassador".... who knew that is actually a thing? I googled hair ambassador and got more returns than when I googled our social media diva. Anyway, case stems from a wig D glued to P's noggin - apparently P had a reaction to the glue, and tragedy of tragedies, poor P missed her BD bash. Hair/dress cases - I just never get... if MM spends anytime pandering to this pretend rapper/actress/social media princess I'll zip right through this one. Ok, guess I got it wrong from intro... from beginning of the testimony it turns out that D, Mary Olatunji, hired P as a hair ambassador.... which from what I'm hearing means D will do P's hair and makeup while videoing and use it to promote her stylist business - oh, and when P makes a post after D does her hair, P is supposed to tag D... ?? 'bout to fall asleep here, and never liked Valley Girl nonsense anyway... sounds like a contract case (actual contract - but MM has trouble making sense of the lingo used by these two). Guessing P wanted out of contract and invented this skin reaction, but I've heard enough and zipping through..... plaintiff wins - but only gets $350 of the grand she asked for. 2 grand counterclaim dismissed. 
2. car crash case: remember the case of old dude with his own dash cam showing accident was his fault? This dude isn't quite that bad - but close. P in this case suing for his damages after a crash. His story is D backed into him. His problem is that D had run out of gas, and her passenger had gone to get a can of gas while she waited in the parked car. Uh, even police report says she was parked and out of gas, and her passenger arrives back while cop is there to back up her out of gas story. Oh, and his insurance had already paid her damages... but as long as she is getting sued she has a half ass countersuit which MM tries to talk her out of - see she has just enough evidence to show she was injured, but not enough to win, and more medical bills pending, so MM strongly hints it would be better to wait, get all the bills and sue later. Anyway, P is a laugh a minute as he forcefully tells us an incredible tale of how the lady in the stalled, out of gas, car backed up a foot and managed to break his axle. I mean, says dude, obviously I didn't rear end her! Just look at my picture proof! My front bumper isn't damaged, so she had to have backed into me! MM tries to explain how he's wrong, and isn't sure if he's just trying to make a Hail Mary to get his damage covered or really believes what he's saying.... me, I think he's one of those mule ? headed people who can convince himself 2+2=5 and no amount of logic is going to change his mind. Anyway, there is no case - but watching was ?, especially after first case ?... ah, and hallterview with P is also a hoot.... 
3. Rental case: P rented from D, and figures it must have been an illegal rental because place was being foreclosed on... ok, if he collected rent for any period after it was foreclosed, yeah, but he can collect right up til the place is foreclosed... she also wants back her deposit, and unless this is a really fancy place she's after a boNANza as she wants the court max of 5 grand. D doesn't deny keeping the deposit - says it was used making needed repairs (real defense revealed in switcheroo at the end.) Also says P was well aware of his problems which led to his losing the place, says he owes her nada. Ok, testimony starts with well rehearsed speech by P, and hey, she sounds intelligent and is one of the rare courtroom litigants using "your honor" and actually greets MM as "Judge Milian." Ah, but after the initial good impression, she keeps talking and her soft spoken intro becomes a head shaking and strident speech (not my head shaking, her histrionics) - oh and we learn this is a section 8 case. Ok, we quickly learn case is about $1,500 deposit, and the rest of the 5 grand is interest and aggravation. Something tells me this is another of those section 8 house/apartments I would never be able to afford. Lots of irrelevant background which paints landlord D in a pretty bad light, but question will be whether he had reason to keep deposit (forget aggravation, this is a $1500 case - plus interest/court cost). Ok, dude was 10s of thousands behind in payments for "commons fees" (maybe townhouse or HOA type stuff)... never good when dude owing the money has to guess how much he owes, and other side is ready, "I have it right here," and adds a couple more grand to dude's high end guesstimate of his debt.... oh, and she testifies he has been behind forEVER, well since 2011. Ah well, P's histrionics might be entertaining for a few minutes, but she's already beginning to get on my nerves - and dude is BORING! Really, his explanation of why the HOA/bank  booted him! In what world would he expect any institution holding his mortgage, to just accept Rose's sec 8 rent check in lieu of his mortgage and fees? Seems to me, if he's really been in arrears for 7 years it was past time to foreclose. Apparently dude not only can't keep track of his bills, he also tries to question whether P can prove she paid a $1,500 deposit - that gets squashed pretty quick, MM asks D if Rose paid $1,500 and he folds and admits she did. MM is enjoying Rose a lot more than I am, laughing and smiling as Rose gives her performance - but with 10 minutes left I'm hoping for extra commercial time. Ah, whole case is premature. It comes out that she's still living there, so she can't expect her deposit back until she freekin' moves out. Granted, he shouldn't be keeping it - it should be held by whoever owns the place - but the new owner has a case against him, not a tenant who still lives there. Case dismissed. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad wig, bad!

This makes me really appreciate judges who have to sit, listen, and seriously consider all the ramifications, consequences and issues surrounding these increasingly frequent wig emergencies and disputes. Was the glue used on her head appropriate? A yellow wig vs. a pink wig? Instagram vs. FB follows? Will a yellow wig dyed pink turn orange?  Is is true that oil and glue don't mix when put on someone's dome? What are the obligations and official duties of being a "Hair embassador"? Is it possible to translate that contract into something intelligible? I could never have the legal acumen or fortitude to figure it all out. Go, JM!

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

car crash case:

Amazing. Plaintiff was sharply dressed but mentally very, very dull. His story and pics made no sense at all, but his righteous indignation shone brightly. He wanted to try the case all over again with Doug in the Hall, because JM got everything wrong and didn't even understand his pictures. He's an expert in accident reconstruction. Oh, he's not. The impact from the def. backing into him was so great it broke his axle, even though she was stopped and out of gas. Whatever.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Rental case: 

Def., also well-dressed and well-spoken, didn't seem to understand that just buying a residence wasn't the end of his financial obligations. Hey, he couldn't afford all those HOA fees and stuff, so... he just didn't pay them. Ever. 32K later (he's not sure on what he owes, but why should he know? He's never going to pay a dime) he gets foreclosed on. The only surprising part is that he was allowed to get away with not paying for so long. I'm pretty sure that if let my unpaid property taxes add up into the tens of thousands, I'd get the boot too and long before it reached that amount.

Plaintiff's (rehearsed) fawning opening and her (rehearsed) hysterical oratory was kind of dreary and really boring, especially since she still lives there and probably will til her lease expires and she has to move. The taxpayers are footing the bill for the majority of her rent, so not sure why she's so outraged. Security depost is returned when someone moves out, not while they still live there. I was stressed too when I was renting, the landlord sold the building and I had to move (and I was paying my own rent) but never thought of suing him because I was disturbed or inconvenienced. Oh, well. Times have changed and I need to catch up.

[Guest]

I was actually intrigued by the defendant in the Righteous Auto Accident case. 

Was it my imagination or did the Kim Kardashian wannabe request compensation for emotional distress because her rental car wasn't the style to which she was accustomed?  Dollars to doughnuts that she ran out of gas because she didn't hit payday loans early enough. 

I did like Mr. Righteous fussing with Doug in the hallway.   My sympathy goes with Mrs. Righteous.  She's going to have to hear him lament from now until the day after Thanksgiving about how the KK wannabe backed into him, how his light wasn't damaged, how JM cheated him and wouldn't listen to him and finally how Doug bum-rushed him out of the hallway.

Then again, Mrs. Righteous might be the type to say "If I hear one more word about your damn car I'm going to shove those unfocused pictures up your ass".

Now that would be an interesting follow up for this case.

 

And an honorable mention to the hysterical religious Plaintiff in the rental case.  I honestly was waiting for her start speaking in tongues.

Edited June 6, 2018 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

did the Kim Kardashian wannabe request compensation for emotional distress because her rental car wasn't the style to which she was accustomed?

You heard correctly. The crappy loaner car she was given didn't properly reflect her position, even though it seemed she couldn't manage to put gas in her BMW (or was it a Mercedes?) Maybe she spent her gas money on false eyelashes.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

You heard correctly. The crappy loaner car she was given didn't properly reflect her position, even though it seemed she couldn't manage to put gas in her BMW (or was it a Mercedes?) Maybe she spent her gas money on false eyelashes.

Frankly I'm surprised she didn't have a driver.   She's a big shot. 

I think they said Mercedes but I'm not positive.  A cousin of mine had a Mercedes and he'd tell anyone who was in listening range that it was his free and clear.  The dope failed to mention that there was no proper passenger seat.  Just metal springs covered in duct tape.  The back seat had a ripped oilcloth covering the threadbare seats and when you turned the corner the knob on the shift handle flew off.

I will say though that my cousin was in better shape than the plaintiff.   As far as I can recall I don't think he ever ran out of gas.

[AngelaHunter]

30 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

The dope failed to mention that there was no proper passenger seat.  Just metal springs covered in duct tape.  The back seat had a ripped oilcloth covering the threadbare seats and when you turned the corner the knob on the shift handle flew off.

Yabbut - it's a Mercedes, even if it's falling apart! Not surprising. How many litigants do we see who buy a 20-year old Mercedes with 250K miles, just to brag they own one, and are outraged and suing because it turns out it's not in showroom condition and needs repairs?

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yabbut - it's a Mercedes, even if it's falling apart! Not surprising. How many litigants do we see who buy a 20-year old Mercedes with 250K miles, just to brag they own one, and are outraged and suing because it turns out it's not in showroom condition and needs repairs?

This is where I write "It is what it is..."  Or, "I sold it as is"

Can't remember if it was JM or JJ where the defendant blurted out "I sold it as is"....it was JJ, it was the defendant who was beyond insulted because the plaintiff had a copy of the CARFAX and somehow, the odometer went backwards yet he claimed he wasn't mechanical so he couldn't do that.  Yeah, right.

And you are absolutely right about the new wave of  Mercedes, Lexus' and BMW owners whose cars are being held together with a thin veil of rust.  May I also add that these are the same population of people who have to rent a room, on a month-to-month basis in a sketchy neighborhood with six other like-minded individuals who all share one shower and one toilet.

What did this generation do BC?  (That's Before Craigslist?)

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Was the glue used on her head appropriate? A yellow wig vs. a pink wig? Instagram vs. FB follows? Will a yellow wig dyed pink turn orange? 

What's always amazing to me is how much money people will spend to look that bad.

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Was it my imagination or did the Kim Kardashian wannabe request compensation for emotional distress because her rental car wasn't the style to which she was accustomed?

She did seem to think she was a very special snowflake and driving a rental not up to her Beemer standards was beneath her, because of course, she's a lah-dee-dah director of somesuchshit.  I also don't understand why MM clearly tried to get her not to sue for the medical claim and she blew her off and went for it anyway.  So if it turns out she ends up with $25K in medical bills, tough toots, tootsie.  She was lucky MM even agreed to give her $500 because she brought zero evidence, and that was only because MM was pissed at the plaintiff for bringing the suit.  Yet another case where MM awards damages based on how she feels that day instead of what the law requires.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, dude was 10s of thousands behind in payments for "commons fees" (maybe townhouse or HOA type stuff)... never good when dude owing the money has to guess how much he owes, and other side is ready, "I have it right here," and adds a couple more grand to dude's high end guesstimate of his debt..

I once rented from a lawyer who was in serious financial trouble, which I didn't know until after I moved in.  He had required me to leave two months' security deposit.  Eventually they foreclosed on him (served ME with goddamn papers!) and I realized in a nanosecond that if he wasn't paying his mortgage, he sure as shit wouldn't be giving my deposit back to me.  So I stopped paying rent for the last two months while I looked for a house to buy.  Of course this litigant has her rent paid by the taxpayers, so of course she thinks the deposit should go back to her instead of them.  And then she wants to be paid for going to a psychiatrist because dog forbid she just find another goddamn place to live on the taxpayers' dime like everyone else has to do when shit happens.  I want MM to explain the tort of INTENTIONAL INFLICTION of emotional distress and maybe, just maybe, one litigant will decide not to ask for that bo-nanza.

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

And an honorable mention to the hysterical religious Plaintiff in the rental case.  I honestly was waiting for her start speaking in tongues.

Ha!  And they call YOU Psychoklown!  You ain't got nuttin' on her.

[Pepper the Cat]

The person I bought my condo from was just about to lose it to the bank. I got my place below market value because of that. It was priced to sell quickly. My lucky dat.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

And then she wants to be paid for going to a psychiatrist because dog forbid she just find another goddamn place to live on the taxpayers' dime like everyone else has to do when shit happens. 

Such tender, sensitive, hot-house flowers on this show - they need psychiatric care and want the big bucks for their emotional distress if someone dents their fender, sends an email with a tone they dislike, asks them to repay money they borrowed, tows their illegally parked car, gives them a wig they don't like or they're told they have to move.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I want MM to explain the tort of INTENTIONAL INFLICTION of emotional distress and maybe, just maybe, one litigant will decide not to ask for that bo-nanza.

She could, but she'd have to figure out how to say it in words of one syllable and it would still be a waste of time and breath. Look at all the people trying to include money they lost by taking off work to come to court. Does no one ever watch this show before coming here? JM should make up some big flash cards to hold up the minute that shit starts and save her voice.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I also don't understand why MM clearly tried to get her not to sue for the medical claim and she blew her off and went for it anyway. 

"I couldn't be bothered," she said in the hall. It's clearly beneath someone like her to fight over petty things like money, I guess.

 

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I honestly was waiting for her start speaking in tongues.

I'd pay at least a dollar to watch that.

[Broderbits]

19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"I couldn't be bothered," she said in the hall. It's clearly beneath someone like her to fight over petty things like money, I guess.

I'm sure that if she deigned to wear only one layer of makeup and false eyelashes, there would be plenty of money leftover for frivolous items like medical expenses. She had on more crap this one day than I've worn in all my 60+ years.

[Florinaldo]

19 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I honestly was waiting for her start speaking in tongues.

I kept hoping for MM to call an exorcist on her.

But nooo; she let her going on and on with the dramatics and exaggerated 'tude (which she probably intended as self-righteous sass).

 

19 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Was it my imagination or did the Kim Kardashian wannabe request compensation for emotional distress because her rental car wasn't the style to which she was accustomed?

Of course. As "commercial dyerektor" (or was it "marketing"?), you cannot expect her to drive around in a no-name inexpensive car like most of the rest of us. I would not be surprised to learn that this is a glorified job title for someone who delivers catalogs and samples, all the while acting haughty and self-important, and so much well above the entire proceedings that she could not bother with the opportunity MM offered her to take the medical portion of her counterclaim to another venue (or it is most probably a sign that it was completely fabricated).

She did not deserve the punitive damages but it was clear that MM wanted to sanction the plaintiff for his demeanor and unreasonable case. Too bad the award went to a litigant equally as insufferable as the one in the other case

Edited June 7, 2018 by Florinaldo

[SRTouch]

? ? ? nope, dog attack where P's ? is killed... ??? this one runs long to allow Uber boat salesman time to do his shtick - I lasted 7 minutes, thanks to commercials before zipping ahead... ??? last case a snooze fest...

? the ? in the peanut gallery during last case

1. heard too much while in kitchen getting coffee - hit FF as soon as I got to remote... listened to enough of hallterview to gather P's dog was a senior, and D, who had already paid more than his lawyer advised him to, ended up surrendering his 5yo dog - which was probably a death sentence if, as P wife alledges, this was not first attack ?
2. rental disaster: plaintiff has an apartment she owns, but doesn't live in full time. A neighbor had a friend/associate who needed a place nearby while they worked on a project together. He asks, and P agrees, to let the associate/employee rent the place short term. P goes by to see how things are going and collect holiday decorations and finds place a mess, and she wants over 2 grand in cleaning fees. Defendant doesn't argue the 2 grand cleaning bill. But, and pretty big but, he maintains the problem P is complaining about is due to a hurricaine that left place without power.... no ac and high humidity for a week - yeah there was a mildew problem. So he doesn't think he should be held liable for the bill - also thinks P has inflated the bill and wants over and above what needed to be done. Uh, don't see much of a case here - but may just be put off by first case... oh, and the way this one starts out. Instead of going to P after her opening summary of the case, MM turns to D and let's him give a sales pitch for his Uber boat service company - oh, and his witness is a visual aid, all dressed in pressed white captain's uniform, so of course we're to think dude would keep the place shipshape... soooo I hit FF to skip the pitch, and we don't get to P for her opening statement until minute 26 - what did first case run long, were there extra commercials, or am I just in a bad mood? Anyway, we just get a very short question to P, before MM returns to the rainman (thinking rainman from "Lizzy, look yonder here comes the rain" song https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tanyatucker/lizzieandtherainman.html). Geez, this is turning into one of those cases where MM let's a performer do their act, even though this performer is doing "super salesman" shtick. Ok, actual case finally starts a couple minutes later. I zip ahead to see if this is a short case where MM let salesman D fill time - nope, this case actually runs long. P wins - not quite what she wanted, but pretty close.... and I didn't rewind to see why, but from hallterview P presented lots of photographic proof mess was from Oscar living there vs some hurricaine.
3. Commercial lease flop: nothing new here.... tenant puts down $1,000 good faith deposit to hold rental - decides next day, for whatever reason, not to open his auto shop at the site - wants back the deposit since he never moved in. D, dude with the buzz cut hair and too small bright blue jacket who should have just worn a clip on tie,  says it wasn't the next day - but three days - says he had other folks expressing interest, but he pulled the place off the market for those three days. Says he told dude he'd return the money if he found a tenant to pay the month rent he lost out on while holding place, but new tenant didn't start paying rent til the next month. Hmmmm, I think I know why this case is a short one - there is no case. I actually stop watching when, as we head to commercial break before testimony begins, and hear MM explaining P provides defendant with his best evidence when P admits there was a verbal agreement he was going to rent the shop. Ok, I left it droning on in the background, but only paid attention for ruling - yep, landlord keeps the deposit, case dismissed.

while I don't listen to Harvey and the peanut gallery often, I enjoyed watching dude holding the puppy in the background. Camera was on Shorty, and dude holding puppy on right edge of screen, and you see a hand, from person standing next to puppy holder, reach over pet the pup. Yep, that was only bit I enjoyed today, and I didn't see the pup until beginning of third case. mini-rant: Thing is, though, when dude first picks it up ... was there something on his collar which the powers that be found objectionable, so it just appears as a pink blur? Was that really something blurred out, or just a pink fuzzy wuzzy something? Hey, if they're going to start censoring the peanut gallery scenes, they should start with Harvey and leave puppy garb alone.

Edited June 7, 2018 by SRTouch

[Bazinga]

In the dog attack case, why was this situation different then every other dog attack case where the vet bills get paid?   That is what I thought usually happens.

Also, deposits, I am sure I have seen JM and JJ return deposits.  I even have a vague recollection of a D being treated like they were crazy to think they could keep a deposit.  Think that was a Judge Judy case, not sure.  I remember thinking what is the point of a deposit if it has to be returned?

Don't understand why situations that seem the same legally are treated different sometimes.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Bazinga

[Florinaldo]

17 hours ago, Bazinga said:

I remember thinking what is the point of a deposit if it has to be returned?

Don't understand why situations that seem the same legally are treated different sometimes.

I think it depends on the specific circumstances of the rental not going through; if the renters change their mind and the landlord has to scramble to relist the flat with no takers, they are out of luck and must forfeit the deposit as in this case. If the landlord is the cause of the deal falling through or made false representations, then the deposit has been returned in other cases.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

In the dog attack case, why was this situation different then every other dog attack case where the vet bills get paid? 

Exactly what I want to know. All the vet bills were as a result of the attack. Maybe I missed something. Were the plaintiffs asking for the value of the dog,which of course would be zero? Weren't they just asking for the the other 5K of vet bills to be paid? I was completely confused with this? JM says def saying he would pay the bills wasn't reasonable because he can't keep paying forever? He wouldn't have to since the poor dog died. Why isn't he liable? I liked the dad plaintiff saying the dog was his only friend, and was his life, with his wife and daughter standing there. At any rate, very sad case and just awful this poor little dog had to die in such a terrible way.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

rental disaster: 

I'm glad we got something light to follow the first upsetting case. The skipper, who stood there in his dress whites with his skipper cap clutched under his arm, smokes "sometimes" and he turned the plaintiff's beautiful apartment into a transient flop house for other skippers to come and go, and they all left the place a pigsty. Skipper seemed a little "out there" - not sure if I'd want him in charge of my boat, if I had a boat. Other def. was a fast-talking, shady, shyster type who was going to create the "world's biggest shipping something-or-other" (sure) did talk so fast I couldn't understand everything he said. I did get that his ridiculous excuse for why the apartment reeked of smoke is that the skipper's son visited and the clothes in his suitcase were so permeated with smoke they stunk up the whole apartement, including the carpets and drapes. I guess the clothes were still smoldering from a massive fire when he took them from his suitcase. He also acted as ventriloquist, putting words in the skipper's mouth as to why the whole place was a total disaster. It's Florida! There was a hurricane, so of course the place was filthy and the shower curtain was covered in slimy black mold. I'm surprised he didn't blame the smoke on the hurricane too. I guess he didn't know JM lives in Florida.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Commercial lease flop:

Mr. Bevilaqua isn't the brightest bulb on the string. Maybe he learned the definition of "deposit" today, so his trip here wasn't a total loss. Maybe.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

while I don't listen to Harvey and the peanut gallery often, I enjoyed watching dude holding the puppy in the background

As much as I love animals, not puppies, kittens or even a frickin' unicorn could make me stop my FF or un-mute Shorty's flapping piehole, high-pitched screeching and idiotic nonsense.

[meowmommy]

It was so hard to listen to the family talking about the loss of their dog.  Damn the camera operator for zooming in on the poor daughter's face as she told her story.  But then the plaintiff father goes on about the defendant as if the defendant planned for the dog attack, and that just wasn't fair.  Hallclown really mischaracterized the attitude of the defendant in the intro.  It was a terrible situation, but the defendant was remorseful.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM says def saying he would pay the bills wasn't reasonable because he can't keep paying forever? He wouldn't have to since the poor dog died. Why isn't he liable? I liked the dad plaintiff saying the dog was his only friend, and was his life, with his wife and daughter standing there. At any rate, very sad case and just awful this poor little dog had to die in such a terrible way.

I didn't understand this, either.  I don't remember hearing in any of the earlier dog attack cases anywhere where the liability is capped at the value of the pet.

I could not look at the dog pictures.  My cat Tommy was my life, too and my best friend.  You guys have to make sure I don't watch any more dog bite cases.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

MM turns to D and let's him give a sales pitch for his Uber boat service company - oh, and his witness is a visual aid, all dressed in pressed white captain's uniform

What was that military uniform supposed to represent?  Dressed up like a Navy captain, wearing the rank of a Navy lieutenant, and plenty of scrambled eggs on his hat, but no naval insignia.  An U-ber boat captain, ah.  Probably there to make MM swoon at the sight of a uniform.

Oh, and mouthy defendant babbles, and MM cuts him off, and defendant says, "I'm not finished," and MM doesn't tear him a new one???

[aemom]

The case with the couple where he was stabbed and she thrown out.  Oh my God, why are there always children involved with these people.  That was just a sad sack case of very inept violent people who shouldn't be parents.

 

The case of the rainbow wigs gave me further insight into the existence of social media jobs that did not exist a generation ago.  Selfie this, video that.  So much drama over fake hair.

 

The hot water heater case: I was waiting and waiting to hear how he mis-installed the exact same one over again.  Then I find out that he should have known better.  OK, but like MM said, it was fine for years and years and years.  Lady, you're just going to have to eat this one.

 

On 6/5/2018 at 8:41 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I liked Momma Bear's response when JM asked her if she had friends on the police force. "I'm 51 (even though I look 65) and he's in his twenties!" as thought JM had been insinuating some sexual affair with the cop.

 

Yes, and I kind of disliked JM acting as though she were looking for a boe-nanza. When you have to go through all kinds of crap and aggravation - putting in the ins. claim, renting a car, getting your own car fixed, contacting contractors to repair the damage that some stupid boy did and whose mommy offered to pay not a cent, plaintiff deserved everything she was out. JM again goes easy on stupid boy, asking his mamma for explanations when SB is standing right there and is legally - if not mentally - an adult.

MM actually asked her if the she and the cop grew up together, and that's why she answered the 51/in his twenties bit.  I also think that MM should have just given Martha Stewart (I thought the same thing SRTouch) everything she asked for with all the grief she went through.  My son is also 18, but if that had happened to him, we would have gone over to her house after all the drama had died down and figured out how the insurance would cover all the damage and then figured out the best way to pay what was left.  And my son would have apologized of course because that's the way I raised him.  Mom: Your snowflake fell asleep, he wasn't drinking or texting, but he was still responsible.  It wasn't on purpose, but that's why they call it an accident.

 

On 6/6/2018 at 5:50 PM, AngelaHunter said:

You heard correctly. The crappy loaner car she was given didn't properly reflect her position, even though it seemed she couldn't manage to put gas in her BMW (or was it a Mercedes?) Maybe she spent her gas money on false eyelashes.

It was a BMW. 

22 hours ago, Broderbits said:

I'm sure that if she deigned to wear only one layer of makeup and false eyelashes, there would be plenty of money leftover for frivolous items like medical expenses. She had on more crap this one day than I've worn in all my 60+ years.

Oh my God, she had on SO MUCH eye makeup.  I can't imagine how you would get all that off every night - and wouldn't it also get in your eyes during the day?  I didn't listen to the halterviews for this one because I knew the guy was just going to go over the whole case again and I couldn't bear to listen again.  She was a snob, but she had a right to be pissed about being sued and got hurt in the accident, so I have no problem with MM giving her $500.  I imagine that the doctor visit alone probably cost her something.