The People's Court - General Discussion

meowmommy · June 13, 2018

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

After just admitting they stiffed big bro for 7 months, didn't have the $300 to pay on time this month either, now P says he paid full about in cash when he was served with eviction papers

And they've got a necklace and some other shit worth $3200 but GF wants to get on welfare. You can't even own that much stuff and still get food stamps, much less welfare.

Gotta love MM saying with a straight face that she's not Dr. Phil. Except for the 9000 times she has inappropriately tried to broker family relationships. The difference here was that she loathed both litigants and didn't care if they set each other on fire.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then we had the CHIMNEY (not "CHIM-IN-EY" - oh, JM!)

I kept waiting for Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke to break out in song....Chim chiminey, chim chiminey, Chim chim cheree! I know they don't have dialogue coaches on reality shows but somebody, please somebody, even if it's Levin, needs to let MM know when she's butchering the vernacular.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

SRTouch: You posted just as I was finishing. I hate doing the recaps, because I never get them as detailed or accurate as yours!!

I love both of them because between the two of them, I don't have to do any thinking. At my age, you're doing me a great mitzvah.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Plaintiff, swaddled in the skins of dead animals (which I hope were as faux as everything else on her exterior) really needs a BMW, so she cashes some retirement fund and apparently uses the entire amount to buy a 12 year old POS car with a slipping tranny

OMG did you see the hideous shit on her feet?? And as MM's complimenting her on being "20" and having a retirement account, she should be reaming her out for using her retirement account to buy said POS car. Do these morons not know that your 401K is not your ATM--until you are 59 1/2, with some very narrow exceptions, if you take money out, not only do you have to pay the original taxes on the money, but you pay a fucking penalty???

At the same time it was almost refreshing not to see the dealer asking for storage fees and all that shit when the car's been sitting on his lot for two months. I wonder if she ever went back to get the car and resume the payments or if Earl gets to resell it.

AngelaHunter · June 14, 2018

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

And they've got a necklace and some other shit worth $3200 but GF wants to get on welfare.

SHE was applying for the welfare, no doubt saying she's alone (and she probably is knocked up so granny-loving boyfriend can prove at age 36 there is at least ONE thing he can do successfully ) so she'll get the most she can and of course he'll be living with her. You'd think these government agencies might get a clue to this and stop flushing peoples' money down the toilet by making them support these parasitic varmints.

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I kept waiting for Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke to break out in song....Chim chiminey, chim chiminey, Chim chim cheree!

My thought exactly! At least Dick had poetic license on his side. I have a chimney sweep too. His name is Jim. He has never capped off my chim-in-ey. He also cleans out my eavestroughs. I love him.

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

, please somebody, even if it's Levin, needs to let MM know when she's butchering the vernacular.

Levin has no time for trivialities. Mr.Big Shot is too busy writing lame, ancient jokes for the former Hall Clown, and with his serious investigative journalism, like the "breaking news" that Jamie Fox was accused of slapping a woman with his penis sixteen years ago. Gotta keep his eye on the prize!

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

OMG did you see the hideous shit on her feet??

Truly, I've seen classier footwear on HBO's "Hookers on the Point."

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

And as MM's complimenting her on being "20" and having a retirement account, she should be reaming her out for using her retirement account to buy said POS car.

I guess there are some 20-year olds with eye bags like that. As for cashing retirement money to buy any car - let alone a 16-year old broken down BMW - well, some people just don't seem to think ahead all that much. Live for today! I think there was all of 1100$ in her fund, but still, it's not bright.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Big bro does stop (and we get a better look at his little man bun.)

Douche-tastic, wasn't it?

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I wonder if she ever went back to get the car and resume the payments or if Earl gets to resell it.

He was way too nice. He fixed the junker when he had no obligation to do so and she abandoned the thing on his lot and didn't pay for it. He should have sold it.

Silver Raven · June 14, 2018

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

We know this because some upstairs neighbour said he saw brother take stuff out.

We know this because plaintiff said upstairs neighbor told him. We didn't really have upstairs neighbor to testify.

Brattinella · June 14, 2018

35 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

He also cleans out my eavestroughs. I love him.

I have never seen this word before! Thank you for the new word! (gutters, in Americanese)

meowmommy · June 14, 2018

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

I have never seen this word before! Thank you for the new word! (gutters, in Americanese)

We can learn a lot from our neighbors to the north. Would that certain personages understood that.

That's a new word for me, too.

AngelaHunter · June 14, 2018

11 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Thank you for the new word! (gutters, in Americanese)

I'm saying "gutters" from now on! It's shorter and I'm lazy, but I don't know if my chim-in-ey sweep will know what I mean. He'll be looking at the end of my property (no sidewalk) and saying, "Eh? What gutters?"

Bazinga · June 14, 2018

Can someone please explain why today's dog bite case had a totally different result then last week's dog bite case? Makes no sense to me.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Bazinga

SRTouch · June 14, 2018

not a good day

??? first up - looney tunes suing with hearsay and non-evidence evidence who gives bleeper/censor dude a workout - fast forwarded through most, and potty mouth is given boot before the end... ?? dog attack case which I skip ?? only watchable case of the day for me. P goes to cheapest auto shop she can find, gets crap repair, tries for boNANza on very iffy evidence

health care worker wants money: not your usual recap on this one... P is hard to watch - disheveled, no makeup, oily ragged-cut hair, claiming to have history of childhood sexual abuse, and apparently has no control over what comes out of her mouth. Case started while I was in kitchen making coffee - (no doubt another reason not to rewind and watch Brandy downer - not enough caffeine on board). Anyway, Brandy is a home health care aide who is paid by her agency based on time sheet which client has to sign. Case is about $448 she says she is owed by wheelchair bound defendant for time she worked and he refuses to acknowledge and sign for. I suppose she eventually gets around to the case, but after a listening to a string of hearsay and non-evidence from her while in the kitchen, about the time I get my first cup and have a seat with Spotty cat on the recliner she's cussing and telling the nationwide audience about how she wants to knock the *bleep* out of him.... not sure how the hell she thinks ignoring repeated cautions from the judge about hearsay and cussing and threatening the other litigant with physical violence will help her case. It does help his defense - that she's looney tunes and once tried to run him over when he was in his electric wheelchair. (No countersuit - if true he can get more oytside small claims - well, assuming she can pay.... hmmmm maybe he ought to include the agency Brandy works for. When MM tells the lovely Brandy it's not smart to threaten a litigant while in a courtroom in front of the judge, the censors have to bleep it out because MM uses the same language. Ok, all that typing, and very little time spent watching case. Brandy strikes me as a truly damaged individual who BELIEVES what she's saying, but not sure if MM will be able to ever get her to produce any evidence. She offers lots of hearsay, a police report - which, of course, is just a record of what she told the police, not any actual findings after an investigation. Unless she offers some type of proof for working those unpaid hours - or defendant incriminates himself or sent damning texts, poor Brandy isn't getting any money. Oh, my impression of wheelchair bound defendant is that he may well have been a jerk and sexually/verbally harassed his aide, Brandy. As I said, Brandy strikes me as a damaged individual, and he just strikes me as a bully who would enjoy pushing her buttons. Course, I have nothing to base that on, except the bit of her testimony where she was acting like she was about to break down and he's over there chuckling at her story - which is when she says she wanted to assault him. Anyway, about halfway through the allotted time, I zip ahead and have yet to hear his voice. Ok, I stop and give a listen a little further on.... MM apparently caught her in a lie about working at least one day she's here suing about - also, Brandy arguing about the reason she's on probation, it's not because she's a liar who steals from her clients and forges checks, it's because --- don't care, I'm done with this one. Ah, apparently our TPC show runners think we want some Springer type entertainment as they decide to treat us to some bonus Brandy time. While I'm fast forwarding through, looks like MM has had enough and threatens to give Brandy the boot, but even that isn't enough temptation to stop and watch (still haven't heard defendant says anything.) Yep, there's Douglas escorting her and witness out... Douglas actually looks like a real bailiff for a change, standing between Brandy's bf/witness and the defendant - probably an accident rather than actual design. Ever notice how the TV bailiffs with actual law enforcement experience occasionally slip back into their old cop mode - course, Byrd has to be my all-time favorite.
skipped - ? case
Shoddy mechanic repair: whoa, intro paints this mechanic as an inept MacGyver. According to intro, P took car in for repairs - mechanic used a piece cut off an everyday garden hose in the engine - hose sprung a leak - P and hubby end up in hospital with carbon monoxide poisoning - suing for $2500. D denies garden hose accusation - yes he says he used a green tube, but what he used is silicon tubing approved for this use. And, oh looky, he brought a cardboard box - it's show and tell! Still, even if the tube was proper, did dude's repair fail and send P to hospital? Sounds like we'll need expert testimony to determine cause of leak, and was it something D caused - or even something he should have seen, as a professional working on the car. Ok, we're talking 15 year old vehicle, and repair dealt with catalytic converter and cost $1380. Few weeks later check engine light comes on, shop decides part must be bad, so replace the replacement. After the 2nd repair, multiple trips back to shop as pesky check engine keeps coming back on. Geez, 2 thoughts - 1st ever think of taking care to get a second opinion; 2nd, what kind of shop is this - maybe time to take it to a shop specializing in exhaust systems... I'd stick with Midas - sure, maybe cost more, but great warranties and only problem I ever had getting a vehicle getting checked (for free) was that our local Midas stays busy and it may take awhile to get it on a lift. Ah, anyway this lady just keeps going back to same shop - even though, according to her, they can't get it right. Actually, she's saying that they keep replacing the same part - which to me would suggest they're using bargain basement crap parts... there's a reason why same part costs $5 from one manufacturer and "same" part costs $20 made by different company - reason may have to do with quality of the part, the box it came in, or the name on the box. Ok, finally she takes her car to the dealer for a recall for totally different issue, and lo and behold they check and quickly determine (at least according to P and her service records from Ford) that problem isn't the part D is spending so much time and effort replacing... oh, and that when D did his repairs he used substandard parts, which melted and car was unsafe to drive... uh, she has the records from dealer, plus pictures of defective hose, and the dealer saying not to drive the car - if her evidence is what she claims - never a given - I'm ready to give P what she's asking. Ah, but lady in the robe doesn't appear convinced by the evidence. Actually, I get why she's questioning the whole health/hospital thing. What I'm hearing is P goes to doctor days after Ford warned her not to drive car complaining of CO like poisoning symptoms - what, was she still driving car even though dealer had told her not to drive until repair was done? Oh, and zero evidence presented of actual poisoning - just what she told Dr and his advise, based on her stated history, not to drive car. Nothing doing on health issue bills without test results showing CO poisoning. Oh, and part of her claim is that she has been without a car for months because she can't afford to give dealer the $500 they say will fix it. Course, D hasn't had a chance to talk, so maybe he can do some spin control (or actually refute her evidence). When D does start talking - it's chim-in-ney dude from yesterday all over - no defense, even says maybe he does use crappy parts in his shop and has lots of failures. Dude, a good auto shop tells the customer the various choices and let's the customer decide to go cheap or put in the best - oh, and a GOOD shop stops offering customer parts when experience tells them parts from that company are crap and fail as often as not. P isn't getting the inflated damage claim - I'd give her the $500 ford says it'llc take to do the repair. Yep, that the way MM rules, knocking 2 grand off the claim and awarding $582. Still, I was tempted to award a bit extra as dude apparently knows he puts crap parts into customers' cars - which could have deadly results.

Edited June 14, 2018 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · June 14, 2018

4 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

health care worker wants money:

Ah, yes. The usual court show home healthcare worker. This was incredibly sordid, and I can picture Levin rubbing his wee, dry hands together in glee over it. Plaintiff loves saying "p***y. "Can't you find another word to use?" JM asks her in disgust. No. No, she can't. She doesn't know any better, since she doesn't have the vocabulary or education to find another word, just as she couldn't think of another way to say she "wanted to beat the shit" out of def. I have no idea who is telling the truth since they both deleted the relevant - and undoubtedly illiterate - "texes" (phone stolen, dog ate the homework and the other usual BS) - probably a little on both sides, since I do believe he made sexual comments to her even though he claims he "ain't know nuddin' 'bout dat" - and as this went on I didn't really care. The only thing that concerns me is that someone like plaintiff, who is on probation and who has zero education is going into the homes of people dependant on her services. Doesn't the agency check at all into the people who are advertising through them? I wouldn't want this woman in my home if I were disabled and at her mercy. Hell, I wouldn't have her in my home, not even to mop floors, even if I were perfectly healthy. Both litigants were vile and distasteful, and the fact that def's wife couldn't or wouldn't show up to "stand by her man" is telling, IMO.

11 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

d - ? case

I FF through the whole case but watched the end out of curiosity. Def's dog got loose and attacked plaintiff's dog, resulting in considerable vet bills. JM orders defs to pay the whole bill and even the interest on the bill. This, after def in the same circumstances on a recent case did NOT have to pay the rest of the vet bills. I still can't figure that one out, especially since in the previous case, def offered to pay the bills. I don't get it.

14 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Shoddy mechanic repair:

OMG. Listening to plaintiff in this case was like slow torture. She gave out with words as though they cost a dollar each and she's a miser. The really grave part and the part for which she and her equally slow-thinking hubby are claiming the bulk of the money - that what def did caused them to have carbon monixide poisoning - well, she has no evidence of that, not one report that they showed all the symptoms of that kind of poisoning. She doesn't happen to have that so take her word for it. Def. uses "after-market parts" which is common, but it seems he goes with the absolute bargain-basement parts and yeah, maybe they're crap sometimes as he admits, but I did believe him when he said customers always want the cheapest solution, especially for their ancient beaters. On another note, when was the last time we saw someone fighting about a car that was less than 15 years old?

SRTouch · June 14, 2018

37 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Def. uses "after-market parts" which is common, but it seems he goes with the absolute bargain-basement parts and yeah, maybe they're crap sometimes as he admits, but I did believe him when he said customers always want the cheapest solution, especially for their ancient beaters.

Hmmm, maybe reason I've only had 5 vehicles at 64yo is that I tend to go the other way. I opt for quality over cost without going to extremes. I mean, why put fancy Chrome/mirror finish wheels on a 4x4 then avoid gravel roads to keep them from being chipped/dinged? Guess that's why I like Midas. Those folks didn't realise when I had them replace the exhaust and suspension and get their lifetime warranty that my 4x4 vehicle would have over 200,000miles and be over 20yo when I gave it up. (OTOH, forget trade in value - I drive my vehicles til they quit or it'll cost more than they're worth to keep them on the road.)

Quote

On another note, when was the last time we saw someone fighting about a car that was less than 15 years old?

But wasn't yesterday's cherry BMW - you know, the one that ran like crap and the tranny kept slipping - wasn't that only 13yo.

Edited June 14, 2018 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · June 14, 2018

21 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

I mean, why put fancy Chrome/mirror finish wheels on a 4x4 then avoid gravel roads to keep them from being chipped/dinged?

Hey, we've seen 2K rims put on an extreme beater worth 1500$. Like, why not? Isn't the outside - the part that impresses the neighbourhood - most important? "Ooh, look at those rims!" they'll exclaim enviously as I putter by in my '99 Pontiac Sunfire or my '89 Lincoln. Well, it is for some people. We call those people "litigants."

24 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

you know, the one that ran like crap and the tranny kept slipping - wasn't that only 13yo.

You're right. That was a mere youngster by TPC standards.

meowmommy · June 14, 2018

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

dog attack case which I skip

I gratefully skipped this case based on your savvy recommendation, but damn if I didn't have to pause as I'm FFing to marvel at plaintiff wife's, shall we say, multi-tonal hair. There's red, brown, pink, grey, and something I can't quite place. Most attractive.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

This, after def in the same circumstances on a recent case did NOT have to pay the rest of the vet bills. I still can't figure that one out, especially since in the previous case, def offered to pay the bills.

Didn't some of our gentle compatriots on the board deduce that it was because the first dog didn't survive?

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

On another note, when was the last time we saw someone fighting about a car that was less than 15 years old?

I hope never, because my car is 7 yrs old and has to last my lifetime. I've already warned DD that if the car goes, we'll be driving a golf cart (seriously) because I don't have the money for new and no faith in old cars.

I wouldn't be surprised if the defendant didn't even use crappy aftermarket parts, but used salvaged shitty parts from junked vehicles.

Edited June 14, 2018 by meowmommy

AngelaHunter · June 15, 2018

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Didn't some of our gentle compatriots on the board deduce that it was because the first dog didn't survive?

Call me dense, but I still don't get it. Just because the dog died, the vet didn't forgive the bill plaintiffs had to pay.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

but damn if I didn't have to pause as I'm FFing to marvel at plaintiff wife's, shall we say, multi-tonal hair.

Yes. Lovely. Like the wig on an after-market doll. As my long-ago history teacher, Miss Bradwell, told me and my friend after she caught us putting on makeup in her class, "You need to pay more attention to what goes inside your head than on the outside." How right she was. Def. might try thinking about that.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the defendant didn't even use crappy aftermarket parts, but used salvaged shitty parts from junked vehicles.

That could very well be!

VartanFan · June 15, 2018

Quote

AngelaHunter

55 MINUTES AGO

2 HOURS AGO, MEOWMOMMY SAID:

Didn't some of our gentle compatriots on the board deduce that it was because the first dog didn't survive?

Call me dense, but I still don't get it. Just because the dog died, the vet didn't forgive the bill plaintiffs had to pay.

So, yes, you’re both right. We were all scratching our heads because MM SHOULD have made the defendant pay for the bills to try to save the dog. MM’s rationale (a total bumblefuck, if you ask me) was that basically once the dog died, you had to fall back on the ‘dog as property’ and put a value on the dog. Seemed to me that it was sort of like when the judges only allow plaintiffs to get value of the car and not MORE than the car’s value to fix it.

Anyways - the Ds in the dog case were complete and total assholes. The never contacted the plaintiffs after the attack. The P said she sent two unanswered certified letters and these losers couldn’t even think of an excuse when Doug asked if they’d done ANYTHING to try to help. Her defense was that when her unleashed dog got out of the yard and charged at two leashed dogs, the dog walker should have just let it happen instead of trying to hit the dog and get it to drop the little dog.

Bazinga · June 15, 2018

4 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Didn't some of our gentle compatriots on the board deduce that it was because the first dog didn't survive?

Call me dense, but I still don't get it. Just because the dog died, the vet didn't forgive the bill plaintiffs had to pay.

Why would the dog dying change anything? The expenses plaintiffs paid to take care of the dog are still the same. The dog was alive when the expenses were made. The expenses were reasonable. Why should the plaintiffs eat the expenses last week?

In this case, the plaintiffs' also got interest on their credit cards, with JM saying "why should you be out anything?" You know JJ would have ignored that and only given the amount paid. Back to JM. Last week's plaintiffs were also out the money they spent to try to treat their pet and save its life. That the dog died should make no difference in any of this. Oh, too bad, your dog died, you get nothing is both heartless and ridiculous.

JM seemed to be suggesting those people went above and beyond and would have went above and beyond even without the defendant's promise to reimburse them has to do with relying on the promise in order to recover, not whether they should recover, which she was denying in the first place.

In addition, I know we have seen cases where the pet died and the plaintiff recovers. Last week's decision is just plain wrong in my opinion. All I can think of is that plaintiffs' case focused on the promise to pay and here we had no promise. To me, last week's defendant was liable whether he promised to pay or not, just like this week's defendants, who certainly didn't promise to pay, and every other defendant who lost control of their dog and are therefore liable for the vet bills. Last week's case is just an outlier, to me at least.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Bazinga

aemom · June 15, 2018

On 2018-06-13 at 7:55 PM, meowmommy said:

Gotta love MM saying with a straight face that she's not Dr. Phil. Except for the 9000 times she has inappropriately tried to broker family relationships. The difference here was that she loathed both litigants and didn't care if they set each other on fire.

I noticed that there was no Dr. Phil lecture in this case, and I wonder if it was because they were brothers and not sisters. Typically MM gets all sentimental with girls probably because she is one and has three daughters.

On 2018-06-13 at 7:55 PM, meowmommy said:

Do these morons not know that your 401K is not your ATM--until you are 59 1/2, with some very narrow exceptions, if you take money out, not only do you have to pay the original taxes on the money, but you pay a fucking penalty???

I have to think that a 401K is like the RSP in Canada. You do not want to take any money out before retiring unless you are very desperate - the exception being if you need the money for buying your first house, there's different rules for that.

On 2018-06-14 at 12:24 AM, meowmommy said:

We can learn a lot from our neighbors to the north. Would that certain personages understood that.

*Snicker* Every single day this week in the newspaper, they have been printing letters from Americans saying "please don't hate us, we love you all, you are our friends!!!"

That woman wearing the fake(?) dead animal complaining about the 13-year-old BMW that she bought. You could get a newer, more reliable car for the same amount of money. PLEASE! No more cases of dumbasses buying a car that they did not inspect before hand. You could see on the TV the giant box on the paper: AS IS SALE. Are you blind woman?

Edited June 16, 2018 by AEMom
Typo

meowmommy · June 15, 2018

I tried to find some definitive guidance on when vet bills would be appropriate and when only the market value of the pet would apply, and most of what I read doesn't identify a differentiation based on whether the pet lives or dies; IOW, I really can't find anything to explain why MM rules the way she does. From what I'm reading, although the market value of the pet is certainly in play, reasonable veterinary bills should also be recoverable even though the pet does not survive.

This is an old opinion, but still interesting:

Quote

It is the burden of the injured party to present sufficient evidence as to the amount of consequential damages, for a jury may not award them if they would be speculative or mere conjecture. Some courts have been unwilling to allow the award of veterinarian bills when dealing with pets that have relatively low fair market value. Although not stated in the opinions, it is presumed that veterinarian bills are disallowed as unreasonable to the extent that they exceed the value of the dog. This is the wrong test for reasonableness. If an individual injures a pet, it is certainly foreseeable that professional care will be obtained to care for the animal. The consequential damages of veterinary fees should be allowed, if reasonable.

Here's an article from 2007 that tries to define what you could recover if your pet is killed:

Quote

Unfortunately, in the vast majority of states, domesticated animals are still considered the personal property of the owner and have no independent legal rights. They cannot be party to a lawsuit, and when injured or killed, the measure of damages is based on the harm to the owner, not the pet. In most cases, plaintiffs will recover only the market value of the pet – the amount of money someone else would pay for a pet of the same, age, breed, and condition. Pets of mixed breed would have little or no market value.

This is an interesting survey of federal and state case law:

Quote

In an attempt to place a pet owner in the position prior to the wrongful harm or loss of her companion animal, damages are calculated based on the fair market value of the companion animal at the time of its death

And another opinion:

Quote

If someone has injured or killed your animal companion, you may be entitled to damages regardless of whether the animal was injured or killed on purpose or accidentally so long as the conduct was at least negligent. When an animal is injured or killed, you are generally entitled to compensation for the “market value” of the animal, veterinary bills and possibly punitive damages, mental anguish and loss of companionship. What compensation is available depends entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case, and differs significantly from state to state.

SRTouch · June 15, 2018

appointment this afternoon to get to, so partial recap

failed BD bash pictures: ah. Please, MM, don't go all Dr Phil with this one. Family group of middle aged women all up in arms over BD pictures. Seems P paid D, a cousin, to snap some pics at her witness' birthday party. Then D took forever producing the pictures, got tired of being asked when she'd deliver them. Not even finished with P intro, and I'm wondering if this wasn't maybe BD girl's wish when she blew out the candle. D says it took so long because she was editing and putting the pics in an album - maybe it was more work then she thought. Have to wait and see - P suing for $175 she says she paid for pictures she never received, while D has countersuit for $248.48 for the same pictures plus food she contributed to the party. Oh, and I guess we'll get to see the final gifts being exchanged, as D has 2 gift wrapped boxes on her table. Ah, and preview has MM all giddy, wanting to know what's in the boxes. Ok, testimony changes things a bit. Seems actual pictures were being taken by a different cousin, who happens to be D's brother. Ah, but even before party D's brother and P were on the outs and not speaking. Soooo P asks D to ask the brother to take the pictures, then at end of party P says she gave D $175 to give to the guy... whoa, anybody think that is a tad out there - not to mention, if they can't even speak to each other about a paying job, why would you expect his best work to memorialize the special occasion. Foolish D sort of brokered the deal, thinking it might help heal the family rift... Uh, brother is notable in his absence... ah, and reimbursement for the food - not sure where that's going to end up. Apparently D makes a great seafood dish, which she agreed to prepare for the bash, and she says she agreed to buy a couple shrimp platters to bring along - says P promised to pay her later - well, only receipt is for spices and ingredients used to prepare her dish - nothing for the shrimp platters... I have no idea what is on her receipt, but I find whatever is there suspicious. Are we to believe that D is known for preparing this dish for family events, yet doesn't have the needed spices in her pantry. No problem on night of party, and brother supposed to have pictures ready in 3-5 days. Ah, now there's the rub - weeks go by, no pictures, not even a call to explain the delay. First P is calling D (remember she was already not on speaking terms with photographer brother) - excuses, but no pictures. Then P tries calling Bro direct - he won't pick up - finally she calks from a different phone - amazing, when bro doesn't recognise her number he picks up. Ok, seems he has a "situation" where he's apparently been locked out of his place the past month. (Apparently, crazy gf has locked bro out, and won't let him in to get to the 'putter with the pix and bro is now in the wind and homeless.) So, bro has breached the contract (P gave his pay to D to deliver to him). D offers pix she took on her phone - don't know what equipment Bro was using, but we know he was supposed to take video as well stills - so phone shots not exactly the same thing and probably worth no where near $175. What I'm hearing is P should get her money back for pix/video... but, as MM says, P needs to find brother and sue HIM for not delivering. Not sure what to do with no receipts for food, maybe rough justice with MM guessimating value. As for her phone pix... heck, looks like D went to a lot of trouble, and spent $120 of her money, getting the phone pics printed out and making a nice photo album - problem is, nowhere did P agree to pay for it, so hard to now make her pay. Case ends with nobody getting any money and D leaving with nice album of pix (MM tried to get P to buy the album - maybe she will, but I get why she would drag her feet since she's already out the $175.... then D really has no use for it, maybe she'll end up tossing it in the trash - or just giving it to P.

Ok - off to appointment

Edited June 16, 2018 by SRTouch

SRTouch · June 15, 2018

34 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I tried to find some definitive guidance on when vet bills would be appropriate and when only the market value of the pet would apply, and most of what I read doesn't identify a differentiation based on whether the pet lives or dies; IOW, I really can't find anything to explain why MM rules the way she does. From what I'm reading, although the market value of the pet is certainly in play, reasonable veterinary bills should also be recoverable even though the pet does not survive.

This is an old opinion, but still interesting:

Here's an article from 2007 that tries to define what you could recover if your pet is killed:

This is an interesting survey of federal and state case law:

And another opinion:

Yep, pretty much what I thought - my clowder of cats, priceless to me, are essentially valueless in the eyes of the law in many jurisdictions - what is "fair market value" for my Spotty, who I rescued as a stray 17 years ago, and immediately spent hundreds of dollars at the vet making her healthy, and more hundreds of dollars since in food and vet visits? I suppose her legal value is whatever her adoption fee would be if she was at the pound/humane society.

aemom · June 15, 2018

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I FF through the whole case but watched the end out of curiosity. Def's dog got loose and attacked plaintiff's dog, resulting in considerable vet bills. JM orders defs to pay the whole bill and even the interest on the bill. This, after def in the same circumstances on a recent case did NOT have to pay the rest of the vet bills. I still can't figure that one out, especially since in the previous case, def offered to pay the bills. I don't get it.

21 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Didn't some of our gentle compatriots on the board deduce that it was because the first dog didn't survive?

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Call me dense, but I still don't get it. Just because the dog died, the vet didn't forgive the bill plaintiffs had to pay.

18 hours ago, VartanFan said:

So, yes, you’re both right. We were all scratching our heads because MM SHOULD have made the defendant pay for the bills to try to save the dog. MM’s rationale (a total bumblefuck, if you ask me) was that basically once the dog died, you had to fall back on the ‘dog as property’ and put a value on the dog. Seemed to me that it was sort of like when the judges only allow plaintiffs to get value of the car and not MORE than the car’s value to fix it.

Anyways - the Ds in the dog case were complete and total assholes. The never contacted the plaintiffs after the attack. The P said she sent two unanswered certified letters and these losers couldn’t even think of an excuse when Doug asked if they’d done ANYTHING to try to help. Her defense was that when her unleashed dog got out of the yard and charged at two leashed dogs, the dog walker should have just let it happen instead of trying to hit the dog and get it to drop the little dog.

I was one of the people who thought for last week's case, that once the dog died, it became a case of how much is that breed/age dog worth? Perhaps the laws even vary from state to state? Who knows? Personally, I don't care if the animal dies or not. If you're negligent and my animal is injured by yours, you should have to pay my expenses regardless of whether or not my pet survives. Anything else really doesn't make sense to me.

In this case, the defendants were the usual variety of jerks who come up with a crazy ass excuse of why they are not responsible. Pallets are a replacement for a fence - SERIOUSLY? Glad they had to pay the whole shebang.

The home care worker seemed rather sketchy and I wouldn't want her in my house. But, I also think that he probably said all those things he said. However, proof is proof and without it, you are SOL in court.

The woman who needed her catalytic converter replaced and had all kinds of trouble with her car: I agree with AngelaHunter, she spoke so slowly that I started to think maybe she HAD suffered from CO poisoning because every question MM asked her seemed to need to roll around in her head endlessly before she answered.

I've learned a lot from this show. When we bought our last car, and the dealer threw in a couple of things, I kept saying "ok - so where is that written here on this contract that this is included free of charge?" They would write it down or point out where it was already included. I also only give the final payment for a job once the work is complete.

Edited June 15, 2018 by AEMom
Forgot something

AngelaHunter · June 15, 2018

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

failed BD bash pictures:

I just love how our dear litigants are masters of the understatement. When I say I have a "situation" I might mean a pipe has sprung a leak or a tree has fallen in an inconvenient place or even that I've fallen and I can't get up. For litigants it means: I got arrested and need bail, had a restraining order placed against me, got a DUI/thrown out of the place I 'stay'/got warrants on me/stabbed my baby daddy/am homeless/, etc etc. I don't know the resolution of this case since I seem to be developing an allergy to murdered English and couldn't finish it.

Guy suing for money back on a car he bought from car dealer: Ok, maybe he's not really swift and can't or won't read any communications sent to him and never bothered to see "Salvaged" on the paperwork he got, but still, sleazy, underhanded used car salesman never told him he was buying a totalled and repaired car before the transaction was concluded. Plaintiff wants back every cent he paid for the car after using it for 1 1/2 years, plus all the money spent on repairs. That's not happening, but JM does award him 4K which seemed quite generous. I don't know why people insist on buying cars from these sideline salesman instead of going to a reputable dealer. Yes, the car may be cheaper initially but as we see over and over, "the cheap comes out expensive."

Woman suing new owner of building she lived in for her 1950$ security deposit: Def, the new owner, who is not proficient in the language and doesn't know what she's doing had a lawyer who seemed to be of the variety we see here as defendants. What does the lawyer care? "Yeah, everything is fine" he tells def, but turns out it's not. 1950$ for plaintiff, of course. Really, in cases like this where def is so wrong to withhold monies owed( and whose only defense is "I don't know anything!") there should be some sort of penalty added for the plaintiff's inconvenience at having to go through all this to get what is rightfully theirs.

SRTouch · June 15, 2018

intermission over - and another double recap day as @ANGELAHUNTER posted as I was writing this?? - back to today's cases ?? interesting crooked used salesman case where rough justice is called for... #3 ? promises to be a yawn fest - another case where litigant entered into a real estate transaction represented by both a broker and lawyer - and the pros left the client holding the bag --- anyway, once I heard lack of defense I took a nap

few posts up thread
used car deal: just like yesterday, P suing because he failed to read the contract he signed. Yesterday woman with yellow Lil Abner clodhoppers claimed she had a warranty even though contract said AS IS. Actually, when today's case begins, it turns out this "contract" was borderline fraudulent. P bought a car with SALVAGE TITLE right there on title, and now wants money back because the car had been in accidents and had a salvage title. Ok, both these litigants are here with gaping holes in their case. D's whole defense is that the title he gave P said salvage title - but when MM asks to see a copy of the SALVAGE TITLE, dude says he doesn't have a copy of THAT title, but here's a SALVAGE TITLE from some other random car. Wth, being sued by P who is claiming vehicle fraudulently sold by hiding fact car had a SALVAGE TITLE - and his evidence proves some other car has a SALVAGE TITLE. Ah, but P has equally stupid gaping hole in HIS case - dude has possession and drove car for a year and a half before he discovered it was a salvage vehicle. OK, his copy of title DOES say SALVAGE - but MM doesn't see it until D tells her where to look. (Course, now days anybody with a smart phone can get a CARFAX in seconds, and when you're buying a used car from an auto repair shop (or really anywhere) why not get the carfax before paying several thousand bucks.) Ah, but the bigger problem is wocky purchase contract D says he always uses - very much simplified and MM points out that it doesn't meet state law (says sales purchase contract about what she'did expect when buying a new sweater). Dude admitting none of the paperwork he gave the buyer at the tine of sale said car was a salvage vehicle - only paper saying salvage was title that was received weeks after sale. He SAYS P was verbally informed it was salvaged - which of course P denies. Ah, a puzzler, MM is inclined to award damages - but how much? P has driven the car almost 2 years, wants not only money he paid for the car, but maintenance (including tires!). Says reason he finally decided to sue now is that he went to get a new car and was told they'd only give $1000 on the trade in... uh, an awful lot can happen in 18 months that would lower the trade in value. Wait, says D, here's a copy of KBB saying car is worth over 4 grand. Ok, MM takes the time to explain her reasoning - says she believes D violated state and federal laws, but he's the one with best guesstimate of true value of the car - and she straight out says she doesn't trust him to tell the truth. Rough justice time - D to pay P 4 grand. I'm thinking ruling mainly based on distrust/dislike of defendant and way he runs his business - I think she went overboard to punish defendant and ended up coddling P who needs to read a "buying car for dummies" book
rental deposit case: from intro, this is another landlord who should spend a little time learning to landlord (and buy property). Backstory is is that tenant lived in place when D bought the property. D doesn't seems to dispute the tenant paid a deposit. No, her thing is that the previous owner received the deposit, so the tenant should go to the previous owner to get the money. Huh? How would that even work. Is the previous owner supposed to come do the walk through and pay to fix any damages to new owners property? Hopefully this is another time when intro is total nonsense and real defense has yet to be heard. Nope, that's really her defense - Ok, second recent case where someone bought a property, working through a broker and had a lawyer - and the real estate professionals left their client hanging. Ah well, no work tonight, maybe I'll take a nap instead of trying to translate this accent into understandable English - can't even turn on CC cuz remote is WAY over there and I have three cats on me and all 5 are on the couch. Any other cat people here ever bring a dining room chair to sit on to watch TV because you don't want to wake up a kitty.... who said my cats are spoiled!

Edited June 16, 2018 by SRTouch

meowmommy · June 16, 2018

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

heck, looks like D went to a lot of trouble, and spent $120 of her money, getting the phone pics printed out and making a nice photo album - problem is, nowhere did P agree to pay for it, so hard to now make her pay.

Why on earth did she go and spend all that money to print out pictures without knowing if her cousins wanted them? She should have just downloaded them to a CD or stick drive and handed it to them and let them decide what, if anything, they wanted to print.

32 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Wait, says D, here's a copy of KBB saying car is worth over 4 grand. Ok, MM takes the time to explain her reasoning - says she believes D violated state and federal laws, but he's the one with best guesstimate of true value of the car - and she straight out says she doesn't trust him to tell the truth.

I thought he had printed up a Carfax report, but then MM said KBB doesn't allow you to input salvage when calculating a value, but those are two different sources. Her choice of $4k to return to the plaintiff felt pretty random, and mostly because she thought the defendant was shady.

34 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Any other cat people here ever bring a dining room chair to sit on to watch TV because you don't want to wake up a kitty.... who said my cats are spoiled!

Isn't that a requirement? Along with not being able to find room on a king size bed because the cats are lying on it at angles, so you squeeze yourself into a corner with no blanket or sleep on the floor, holding in your bladder until you almost have an accident because this is the day your cat decided to grace your lap with his incredibly adorable presence, and leaning over a table and then having to stay in that position because your cat thought this was a good time to take a nap on your back. They're all in the cat rule book; I checked.

patty1h · June 16, 2018

Really appreciate @SRTouch's recap today - TPC was preempted here because of FIFA soccer. Thanks for the rundowns, sir!

califred · June 16, 2018

No TPC here for a few days but o think it was women’s basketball in Hawaii

aemom · June 16, 2018

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I just love how our dear litigants are masters of the understatement. When I say I have a "situation" I might mean a pipe has sprung a leak or a tree has fallen in an inconvenient place or even that I've fallen and I can't get up. For litigants it means: I got arrested and need bail, had a restraining order placed against me, got a DUI/thrown out of the place I 'stay'/got warrants on me/stabbed my baby daddy/am homeless/, etc etc. I don't know the resolution of this case since I seem to be developing an allergy to murdered English and couldn't finish it.

So true! If I ever had a "situation" like that, I would call it more of a "catastrophe," and wonder what had gone so wrong in my life that it had come to this. No Dr. Phil speech twice this week. Maybe she only does it now if she needs to fill up time for the case.

20 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Any other cat people here ever bring a dining room chair to sit on to watch TV because you don't want to wake up a kitty.... who said my cats are spoiled!

Truthfully, no. If there was no other space on the couch, then I would gently scoop them up onto my lap and cuddle them, which I think still worked out pretty well for them. ;-)

19 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Why on earth did she go and spend all that money to print out pictures without knowing if her cousins wanted them? She should have just downloaded them to a CD or stick drive and handed it to them and let them decide what, if anything, they wanted to print.

I was thinking that too. Seemed like a sad situation where she was suing for less than $200. I can't imagine even suing my next door neighbours for $200, much less family. I think sometimes you have to consider the consequences of trying to recoup money. However, in this case, maybe she can find the brother and maybe he still has the photos.

19 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I thought he had printed up a Carfax report, but then MM said KBB doesn't allow you to input salvage when calculating a value, but those are two different sources. Her choice of $4k to return to the plaintiff felt pretty random, and mostly because she thought the defendant was shady.

I was surprised that the defendant didn't want only his first name used and the business name kept secret. Now everybody knows the name of his business where he will shady-sell you a car. The plaintiff wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, which is why I totally believe that the defendant felt he could get away from not telling him that it was a salvaged car.

MM did some research during the recess to get the best sense of what the car was worth in the different conditions and then used rough justice to come up with her final decision. I don't mind when MM financially punishes someone who deserves it.

SRTouch · June 16, 2018

1 hour ago, AEMom said:

Truthfully, no. If there was no other space on the couch, then I would gently scoop them up onto my lap and cuddle them, which I think still worked out pretty well for them. ;-)

Yep, that's another option to finding sleeping cats in all available seats.... I've also been known to pick up the phone and take a picture of the cute sleeping kitties

Edited June 16, 2018 by SRTouch

SRTouch · June 18, 2018

?? interesting tow case - not the usual entitled driver, this time we have entitled property owner creating an illegal parking space and getting driver ticketed and towed... ??? not sure WTH happened in this case - case about security, but P had me confused from the get go and I gave up - FF is my friend... ??? mommy of the year nominee defendant stiffs babysitter after she leaves her 4 kids for a month to go to the Caribbean .... and nobody filed counterclaims, today

tow case: intro for plaintiff claims D runs a tow scam. Claims D isn't a licensed tow company - has a set up where there's an unauthorized driveway - when someone parks, he swoops in, tows away the car, then refuses to release car until owner pays exorbitant fees. D comes in with his posse (4 of them). Dude leading the way has a folder, so maybe he brought along a copy of his license - but then P brought along a big envelope, too. Apparently their defense is that P had already been ticketed by the cops when they towed the car. Uh, if that's true, sounds like usual sour grapes from a towee, and another win for a tow company. Oh, and Defendants are mad, saying woman went online and accused them of running a scam. Ok, when testimony starts it comes out that this is something of anew ongoing neighborhood feud. These folks all know each other from the neighborhood, and P knows all the defendants, she says both tow truck driver and his gf park where she had parked when she was towed. P claims she went online and researched the driveway she was towed from, and City Public Works does NOT recognize the driveway as legitimate.... Ok, I seem to recall another case where a property owner created his own no parking area, someone was ticketed and towed, and the tow company lost... sure enough, this case is similar. Parking is at a premium in the neighborhood, property owner cut the curb and created additional parking in front of his building without the proper permits/permission from city - way back in 2001. Yeah, P was ticketed - because defendant homeowner called and complained she was blocking his driveway and responding cop didn't realize driveway was unpermitted. Ok, backing up a little here - all of the bunch that came in with defendant are NOT here for the tow company - P is also suing the property owner - who sent his know nothing 25yo grandson who supposedly came to court without bothering to ask gramps who created the illegal driveway. MM is not happy when she asks grandson and he denies knowing anything - you'll have to ask my gramps - can't ask gramps, cuz he sent you, now didn't he? Case not going as I expected. Don't know about the whole "tow scam" theory, but ticket would have been tossed and MM just told grandson that who ever created this illegal driveway stole a parking space from the public. Next thing - can P prove the intro claim that tow company has no license and had no right to tow the car. Cop ticketed the car "THINKING" car was illegally parked, but did he (or dispatch) call for it to be towed, or did driver hook it up when he saw the ticket and impound the car illegally... oh, and tow driver lives in building which has the illegal driveway. Ok, sounds like cops called for the tow, and the driver followed procedures for logging the tow through the local precinct. Ah, more mix up - supposedly on way to impound the tow truck breaks down - big kerfuffle when P arrives to reclaim her vehicle and car isn't at the lot. She actually watches (and takes video/pictures) as another tow truck goes and hooks up to the broken down tow truck, and pulls original tow truck, which is hooked to her car, into the lot. Whole thing is pretty ludicrous, and definitely doesn't help the defense when tow company owner tries to dance around, telling P he would talk with company owner to see if he could waive the fees when he is the owner - then he steps in it when he spouts nonsense about how he was trying to make it convenient for car owner - really, make it convenient how? asks MM. Ok, guess he was going to waive the fee, but decided to charge because of P throwing a tantrum. Anyway, P should not have been towed - but who gets stuck with the fees. She did nothing illegal - but sounds like tow company didn't either.... actually, only one I see who we know was in the wrong is gramps, who created the illegal driveway/parking place and called the cops to come ticket/tow P. Yep, that's the ruling - property owner, represented by know nothing grandson, pays - while co-defendant tow company is off the hook. Oh, and not only does property owner pay the tow fee, MM also tacks on missed work and wasted time fee.
tenant wants security: tenant wants three grand for security and ruined belongings - claims place was full of bugs, mice, squirrels - even an opposum. D says there was once A MOUSE in the basement - says tenant is just making stuff up and trying for a boNANza after making false complaints to Housing... oh, and he sort of squares off to stare at D when she comes into court... D also says dude didn't even pay a deposit. (Second case in row without a countersuit) Uh oh.... going to need CC and flowchart to figure out this one as P is mumbled and all over trying to make his case - never good sign when MM has to pick up a pen and take notes to figure out WTH a litigant is saying and keep track of the money. Ok, if I understand dude, some organization gave him $850 to either use as first month rent or security - after that - I'm lost and just going to let MM figure it out. Apparently the rent is $750, and he paid a total of $1750 when he moved in - uh, like I said, numbers don't exactly match - apparently rent was prorated for half a month, maybe then first month paid, plus the deposit? MM crosses the aisle, but D is as fuzzy with her numbers as P... yep, this is one of those where I give up and let da judge figure things out. D has a handwritten ledger sheet which she starts to read from - but MM asks Douglas to bring it on up. Huh, when MM reads off dates and amounts, P agrees, but says that while he was hospitalized for "hearing voices" he gave her his card (ATM?) and she took money out of his account but never gave him a receipt. Hmmmm could it be landlady is trying to take advantage of P? Dude came in with a wife, why give D his card to pay his rent instead of having wife do it. Halfway through case and I'm lost - which dovetails right in with MM asking these two why paying rent is such a major deal with these folks ... anyway - I hit FF and zip ahead... case dismissed and defendant wins
childcare/babysitting case: P says she watched D's 4 kids while D was off on Caribbean vacation, was supposed to be paid, but is still owed $2,500. D agrees she owes money, but says their deal was that P would be paid when D got her tax refund - says P wanted the money as soon as she got home - big kerfuffle - defense is that while she does owe, repayment not due until tax man gives her her refund. From preview I know D gets slammed by MM for leaving her 4 kids while she heads off to the Dominican Republic for a month if partying with her bf. (Sure seems like I've heard this story before - but think I'd remember heavy browed D) ok, looks like another litigant after a boNANza. When MM summarizes the case, she says agreement was P was to be paid $600 - how did that balloon to $2500 lawsuit? MM sort of starts out kidding around with D, but not long before she changes from joking about D going to see her man to mama bear, how could you leave your kids for a month? D doesn't help her case any when she talks about negotiating the babysitting fee for a month of watching 4 kids (13yo, 11yo twins, and a 9yo) from $800 down to $600 - then not even paying that. Ok, when D is getting ready to leave, she gives P $200 cash and $96 in Metrocards (public transportation passes) P agrees, but says the metro cards weren't supposed to count towards the $600 ... ok, second case in a row where litigants math is out there - now babysitting fee was $600, P was paid either $200 or $296, but is seeking $2,500. Creative math has been scratching my head.... ok, when she gets home, P owes either $304 or $400, but since P wants her money right away instead of when the refund comes, D says she offered to go tack on a couple hundred - back to original $800. Ah - big kerfuffle - they stop speaking - D pays nothing. Somewhere in here, P agreed to accept $200 additional to wait til March when refund was to come - but she DOES start asking for the money 2 months early (seems she wanted to move out of state, and needed the money for the move). Soooo, she agreed to wait and take $504, changed her mind and wanted the original $304, but D didn't pay her, so we're back up to $504... oh, and she wants an extra 2 grand for stress and aggravation - uh, nope, no 2 grand bonus, but she does get the $504

Edited June 18, 2018 by SRTouch

Katy M · June 18, 2018

40 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

When MM summarizes the case, she says agreement was P was to be paid $600

$600 to babysit four kids for a month? That's a steal if I ever saw one. I mean, I realize they're not toddlers and don't have to be watched all the time, but she still had to make sure they got home from school, had meals, did their homework, etc.

Silver Raven · June 18, 2018

I was parked in a legal parking space one time, and I came out to get into my car and found public works people painting n illegal parking space around my car. I always wondered what would have happened if I hadn't gone there in time.

AngelaHunter · June 18, 2018

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tow case: intro for plaintiff claims D runs a tow scam.

I couldn't watch this at all, because we had to have 80 minutes of hysterical weather reports from shrieking weather guys hopping around in front of a map telling us that it's going to rain! It might rain really hard. There could be thunder and lightning. There could conceivably be a mini-tornado. Or not. But TPC and the first JJ case needed to be pre-empted for this. No one can do anything about the thunderstorms, but we have to harp about them for over an hour. Look at the map! Just look at it! Look at all the orange and red! We feel so important doing this!

I saw only a few minutes of the first case, enough to see a 25-year old man - I still think 25 is the new 15 - who lives not (as usual on this show) with mommy and daddy, but with grandma and grandpa. He seemed to have a serious case of amnesia since he remembers nothing his daddy or his grandpappy did. I guess I'll catch this tomorrow on YT.

Brattinella · June 18, 2018

30 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I couldn't watch this at all, because we had to have 80 minutes of hysterical weather reports from shrieking weather guys hopping around in front of a map telling us that it's going to rain! It might rain really hard. There could be thunder and lightning. There could conceivably be a mini-tornado. Or not. But TPC and the first JJ case needed to be pre-empted for this. No one can do anything about the thunderstorms, but we have to harp about them for over an hour. Look at the map! Just look at it! Look at all the orange and red! We feel so important doing this!

I was looking at the radar when that storm was happening, and I said "I hope AngelaHunter is okay!" It looked pretty close to you! I DO commiserate on the shrieking weather-guy. When I first moved to this area, there was a weatherman non-stop for hours screaming about grapefruit-sized hail! It about caused me to have a stroke. I'm glad you are okay!

AngelaHunter · June 18, 2018

33 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I'm glad you are okay!

Thanks! It's oppressively humid and we've already had some storms, but that happens in summer. Okay so far, but this one-hour plus weather report is ridiculous. They already have the crawlers on top of the screen, which should be enough. I don't know why this is all necessary. I remember the last time they butted in to our shows, to rant about some tornado in Vermont. It never happened, so then they had to keep talking about what could have happened had there actually been a tornado. "Why, in my day, we just got weather without an hour-long warning about summer storm, and had to deal with it," she whines.

meowmommy · June 18, 2018

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

But TPC and the first JJ case needed to be pre-empted for this.

Of course, because it's the most interesting car towing case ever, especially since the plaintiff had all her ducks in a row.

Berating the grandson for not knowing the history of the illegal driveway was just drama. It doesn't matter whether the father or the grandfather did it.

40 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"Why, in my day, we just got weather without an hour-long warning about summer storm, and had to deal with it," she whines.

I think the meteorologists here must have the easiest job on the planet. Over 300 days of sunshine every year, and, ok, it may or may not rain in the summer. Lather, rinse, repeat for 365 days. I laugh when they put out new heat advisories--just keep it up for about five months straight and we're good. I think Steve Martin did a movie about a meteorologist in a city where the weather never changed, who pre-taped his segment so he could get out of town and it was the one weekend the weather deviated...oops!

3 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

I was parked in a legal parking space one time, and I came out to get into my car and found public works people painting n illegal parking space around my car. I always wondered what would have happened if I hadn't gone there in time.

You found public works people working? That really is amazing!

95% of the time I won't go into a city for an event or a venue, it's because I don't want to deal with parking. Why is city parking always such a nightmare?

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

P agrees, but says that while he was hospitalized for "hearing voices" he gave her his card (ATM?) and she took money out of his account but never gave him a receipt. Hmmmm could it be landlady is trying to take advantage of P?

Bizarro world where your landlady personally extracts the rent from you instead of you mailing a check, setting a draft on your account, wadding up cash and slipping it under the door, yadda yadda yadda, plus the option she provided of having him deposit the amount in her account, for which the bank normally gives you back the slip with the transaction printed on it. Boy, plaintiff loves to play the handicapped card, as if that excuses him from basic life tasks. Not so handicapped he can't go to court, though.

It felt like he dragged in every nasty thing he could think of to complain about the apartment--rodents, bedbugs, lead paint, mold, crackhead neighbors, what else?

If you've ever seen Throw Momma from the Train, the defendant immediately reminded me of the middle-aged lady in Billy Crystal's writing class.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

D gets slammed by MM for leaving her 4 kids while she heads off to the Dominican Republic for a month if partying with her bf.

MM was definitely pissed from the get-go that the defendant would tootle off to the DR for a month to hang with her BF and leave her kids with a babysitter. So she of course needles her, "Did you get married?" and of course, not married. Amazing how many thousands of 'fiances' out there who never quite make it to the altar.

And yet another defendant who thinks that "she kept bothering me for her money" is somehow a defense.

AngelaHunter · June 18, 2018

19 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I think the meteorologists here must have the easiest job on the planet. Over 300 days of sunshine every year, and, ok, it may or may not rain in the summer.

We get severe weather here - blizzards, heat waves, massive storms - but that's life. There's nothing I can do about it. I already know it can be severe, which is why I keep a Coleman stove, flashlights, etc, handy. I know when the weather is bad. I just have to look out the window! I do this because the meteoroligists, equipped with the latest forecast tools, are often dead wrong.

19 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Amazing how many thousands of 'fiances' out there who never quite make it to the altar.

Not only not make it to the altar, but of all the affianced we see here (often affianced for many years) I've never even seen one with an engagement ring, unless she bought herself on credit with 23% interest and is now here suing the erstwhile/brokess/formerly incarcerated/disabled/drug addict/loser suitor for the cost of it after the great love affair hit the skids.

Edited June 18, 2018 by AngelaHunter

meowmommy · June 18, 2018

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

We get severe weather here - blizzards, heat waves, massive storms - but that's life. There's nothing I can do about it. I already know it can be severe, which is why I keep a Coleman stove, flashlights, etc, handy.

But...but...but...but...I'd trade it all, because you're....Canada!

SRTouch · June 19, 2018

No recap today because.... no TPC. Well, not entirely true. We HAD TPC, but it was a repeat of yesterday's first cases. When I FF through, about halfway through they started showing Judge Mathis, which normally follow TPC. Oh well, kind of cloudy, maybe I'll waste 10 minutes switching my screen door for the glass.... nah, we need some rain, and if I get things ready for rain it'll stay dry... if only I had a weatherman to give me a forecast ?

Edited June 19, 2018 by SRTouch

June 19, 2018

So let me get this straight.

This tatted sub-human who has no issue laying down with a married creature (while his wife is living with her mother, and thinks he's in a homeless shelter) puts a cat giving birth in a suitcase out on the porch so said sub-human does not have to deal with homeless/shacking up with ex-girlfriend "prize" coming to her home so he can collect his cats. Mother cat and kittens on the cold porch.

I am beyond disgusted. She says she has a serious illness. In my view - not serious enough. She's still breathing.

Yes. I said it. And I will not apologize, retract or try to justify my statement.

May she rot in hell.

SRTouch · June 19, 2018

13 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

So let me get this straight.

This tatted sub-human who has no issue laying down with a married creature (while his wife is living with her mother, and thinks he's in a homeless shelter) puts a cat giving birth in a suitcase out on the porch so said sub-human does not have to deal with homeless/shacking up with ex-girlfriend "prize" coming to her home so he can collect his cats. Mother cat and kittens on the cold porch.

I am beyond disgusted. She says she has a serious illness. In my view - not serious enough. She's still breathing.

Yes. I said it. And I will not apologize, retract or try to justify my statement.

May she rot in hell.

Whoa ?? maybe a good thing my channel provider messed up - can't afford a new tv and stuff may have been thrown if that was today's case..... only question - how many two legged babies have these cretins spawned?

June 19, 2018

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Whoa ?? maybe a good thing my channel provider messed up - can't afford a new tv and stuff may have been thrown if that was today's case..... only question - how many two legged babies have these cretins spawned?

After JM threw her out of the courtroom (or set) the unapologetic wiseass was fuming in the hallway (UNCROSS YOUR ARMS) and when Doug told her the judge seemed to be impressed with her daughter but not with her essentially told Doug that she didn't give a damn what anyone thought of her. Stupid wiseass.

He did get his lick in but then moved quickly to her daughter who was about 13 or so and the complete opposite of her worthless mother. The daughter was out looking for the cat and kittens because she was worried about them. They never found the cat or kittens. Even the mom-cat had enough sense to get away from that defiant jerk.

And the lovely piece of man two women were pining over was barely coherent. He wanted thousands for his shelter cats. I think. He was talking like he had oatmeal in his mouth.

What I didn't mention was that lovely piece of mans' wife went to her mother's house for shelter. He supposedly does not get along with her mother (hmm, there's a head scratcher) so he tells her he's going to crash in a homeless shelter but swings by his ex-girlfriends. She invites him to shack up with her, and somewhere along the line they get into a disagreement and send the foulest text messages that JM read (with many alterations).

I am sorry that my post is a bit muddled. I am still angry at the hose bag who mistreated a cat. This ranks up there with the idiot who impaled a horse in the groin with a fence post.

I need a stiff drink.

AngelaHunter · June 19, 2018

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Well, not entirely true. We HAD TPC, but it was a repeat of yesterday's first cases.

I didn't get what I saw of yesterday's case. I got a woman who has some kind of help center, to get ex-cons or whatever straightened out and back into productive lives. She hired the def. to work for her, and gave him a month's pay in advance to help him along. He never showed up to start the job, never even called her to tell her about his diarrhea (UGH! UGH!) and never showed up. He just spent the money but got kicked out of his place anyway. Why she imagined he would ever heave his huge, drippy ass out of bed in the morning to go and work every day, I can't imagine.

Heard "cats and kittens" and figured I didn't want to hear what any of them did with the unfortunate animals. Skipped.

Then I got the bail bondsman suing for a bond owed. Def paid 2000$ to bail out her loser, violent creep asshole of a brother after brother assaulted def's husband(his 3rd assault!!) and surprise! Brother left town seemingly to advance his career (Ha!) leaving his loving sister holding the bag and owing the money. She thinks she shouldn't have to pay, even though she signed a contract saying she was responsible if the loser creep didn't pay. But she told plaintiff where to find her brother, halfway across the country! Isn't that good enough? He should just hop a plane and go look for him. She never bailed anyone out before so even though she signed that agreement, she shouldn't be held responsible. Seriously, if my brother attacked my husband in such a way that resulted in a big bail amount or jail, I kind of doubt I'd rush to his aid. Def has called her brother, telling him she has to pay this and asking him to pay it himself and he basically told her to go pound sand. Her husband dumped her over this, but came back for unknown reasons although he's now on notice as to where his wife's loyalties lie and it ain't with him.

meowmommy · June 20, 2018

The cases I saw today:

1) Superfast case (11 minutes including all the commercials and Levin and shit) -- Ex-offender with whiter tights than I ever wore as a nurse who now runs a social service agency for ex-cons, gives our defendant a $1500 advance on a job she helped him get. He never showed up for work, never paid back the advance. He has more excuses than a dog has fleas, I had diarrhea and vomiting, so I called and left messages, but no, I can't prove it. MM grills him and he claims it was a personal check and a gift, while plaintiff digs into her phone to find her bank records, and meanwhile, the lovely GI symptoms (don't seem to have made much of an impact on his circumference) have now morphed into, I was in the hospital. To which MM immediately snarks, for four months?? Meanwhile plaintiff has found her bank records and it turns out the check was drawn on the agency account, not her personal account, at which point MM is toasty done, reams out the defendant for biting the hand that fed him, and orders him to pay it back.

2) This must be the case PsychoKlown and AngelaHunter are referencing: Very patriotic plaintiff (must be since he's all flagged out) says he was in need when his apt was being renovated, wife moved in with her mom, ex-GF defendant let him stay with her, and of course he brought his 55 inch TV and five cats with him. Doesn't everyone who needs a bed for a couple of days a) own a giant TV and b) take it with them everywhere they go? VPP says ex-GF wanted side benefits and when he wouldn't put out, kicked him out after three days, which is exactly how long ex-GF claims she originally agreed he could stay. Defendant's name is Meyers, but I swear (and I listened twice) Hallclown called her "Liars." Something to be said about the type of litigants MM sees that when VPP mentions his "wife," she has to ask if she's legally his wife or he just calls her that. MM asks why VPP goes to the ex-GF while wife goes to her mom, and wife thinks he's actually at a shelter. What a charmer, our VPP. Wifey didn't know where the cats were going to go, since her mom had dogs and couldn't have cats. MM does the "don't call me Miss, I'm a judge," after we had that conversation last week or so about her double standard. Dentally impaired defendant who looks like some Star Trek alien of the week with ski poles sticking out of her earlobes and some half-done neck tat creeping around from the back of her neck, babbles something about how he's got shit on FB on her phone (which of course she can't show because like every litigant here, her phone broke). MM wants to know how we got from day 1 to putting out the TV and his cats, and says he was entitled to at least some notice especially since cats were involved. VPP says defendant is getting on his computer and logging into his FB; MM begs him to give up the real reason. VPP says defendant was still in love with him. Defendant says at 1:30 that she's putting everything out at 4. VPP provides a text message where defendant goes all sappy, so of course her response is that she has a life-threatening illness. MM goes round and round with these two trying to get to the bottom of the dispute, where our girl says she'll take a polygraph. Then we get from love love love to she wants to fight him. Such a warm, chummy relationship. Then more shit from defendant, blah blah blah. Now MM wants to figure out the correct cat count. MM asks the same thing I did, why do you take a 55 inch TV to your GF's house...why, it's my baby! VPP says all he got back was his clothing. Now MM's irritated at the cat count again, finally it's revealed that there were brand new kittens born at defendant's house, and this is where I jump in line with PsychoKlown and AngelaHunter to want to beat the shit out of the motherfucking feckless cunt defendant. MM goes ballistic and calls her heartless, and she agrees but doesn't give a shit. Here comes the wrath of MM and she finally kicks the bitch out for yelling over her. She changes her tone when talking to defendant's daughter, very soft and gentle. VPP's wife is underwhelmed by it all, says it's a lot to hold in, and of course MM has to say she'd kick out her own husband if he behaved like this. MM asks the value of the cats, VPP can't answer. Defendant daughter says the cat never came back, and she keeps going back looking for them. MM says VPP is just full of bad decisions. MM's rough justice orders payment of $780.

3) Bail bondsman suing for skip fee on brother of defendant, arrested on domestic violence involving defendant's husband. Defendant says she told the BB that her brother was in Ohio, and it's his job, not hers, to go get him. I guess she's been watching Dog the Bounty Hunter and Midnight Run so she thinks all BBs have bounty hunters on retainer or something. Sister says her brother found a job in Ohio so that's why he left, and she doesn't know why he didn't follow up on his court case. MM states the obvious, that it will cost more for plaintiff to go hunt down the brother than the amount of the skip fee. Slam dunk for the plaintiff and MM says to the sister to get the money from her brother.

Edited June 20, 2018 by meowmommy

aemom · June 20, 2018

On 2018-06-18 at 5:11 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I couldn't watch this at all, because we had to have 80 minutes of hysterical weather reports from shrieking weather guys hopping around in front of a map telling us that it's going to rain! It might rain really hard. There could be thunder and lightning. There could conceivably be a mini-tornado. Or not. But TPC and the first JJ case needed to be pre-empted for this. No one can do anything about the thunderstorms, but we have to harp about them for over an hour. Look at the map! Just look at it! Look at all the orange and red! We feel so important doing this!

I saw only a few minutes of the first case, enough to see a 25-year old man - I still think 25 is the new 15 - who lives not (as usual on this show) with mommy and daddy, but with grandma and grandpa. He seemed to have a serious case of amnesia since he remembers nothing his daddy or his grandpappy did. I guess I'll catch this tomorrow on YT.

I knew that AngelaHunter was going to be as upset as I was about the preemption since we get the same feed. I had a really stressful day, and while I still had laundry to attend to, at least I could watch TPC. No, instead I was gifted with the endless tornado warning. Argh! Did anything exciting actually happen in that area after all?

So onto, today's episode. The defendant was a thief who took advantage of a naive woman. Her tights were so white and thick that at first I thought they were thigh-high boots. Glad she had all her proof and got her money.

The defendant in the next case was a horrible person who put brand new kitties and their mother outside. I cannot fathom that these two women were fighting over the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's wife appeared to be a few pancakes short of a stack. The defendant's daughter appeared to be light years ahead of her mother in terms of brains and maturity which was nice to see since it's very rare on this show.

The bail bonds case was interesting since I read a book series about one. I actually was able to follow the process they described, and knew early on that the woman's defense was toast. Christmas with her brother will be awkward this year!

AlleC17 · June 20, 2018

On 6/19/2018 at 8:38 AM, PsychoKlown said:

So let me get this straight.

This tatted sub-human who has no issue laying down with a married creature (while his wife is living with her mother, and thinks he's in a homeless shelter) puts a cat giving birth in a suitcase out on the porch so said sub-human does not have to deal with homeless/shacking up with ex-girlfriend "prize" coming to her home so he can collect his cats. Mother cat and kittens on the cold porch.

I am beyond disgusted. She says she has a serious illness. In my view - not serious enough. She's still breathing.

Yes. I said it. And I will not apologize, retract or try to justify my statement.

May she rot in hell.

Could not agree more. The pathetic, disgusting POS pissed me off royally. How did she ever give birth to such a (seemingly) normal child? Her kid seemed really nice, and I don't understand how that happened. Poor, poor momma cat and kittens. I had to give extra hugs to my kitty crew after watching this.

SRTouch · June 20, 2018

?? cheap is expensive case - P hired landscaper to move her stuff, dude didn't have foggiest idea what was needed or how to move a house full of furniture, has trouble showing up on time, P pays a bunch of front money - move a disaster - wants money back... ???(need the CC for this one) started out thinking D was ok, but wow, once he started he quickly talked himself into trouble, and by the end - wow, what a conceited little ass - MM ends up awarding several times what P sued for. (Case started early and ran long)... ???short and quick - dummy would have won as P had no proof of a loan, but first thing out of D's mouth was he borrowed the money, but didn't sign anything. .. so MM asks doesn't he think his admission is all the proof she needs think of hear

suing the movers: P (both P and witness daughter sporting cross necklaces) hired D to move her household goods, but says he flubbed the job and she's here to tell the world not to do business with the guy - it's the principle, you see - oh, and the $1720 she's out. D, named Steve Martin, argues he did a good job for the lady. One of P's complaints is that ole Steve is not a professional mover - Steve says she knew from the start his regular job is a landscaper. Says after the move she had no complaints, so he was surprised when he received notice she was suing him, as he thought she was happy with his work. Hmmm, going by MM's opening summary, P actually planned to move twice - first move over and done with, but suit is over money for move which has was put on hold. The moves came about when P sold her condo. She sells some of her stuff to a family friend and meets D when he ends up moving her old bedroom set for the friend. They get to talking, and she says he gave her an estimate for moving rent of her stuff to Virginia and she hired him. MM asks to see the estimate - P doesn't have the estimate, but does have the contract. She was supposed to pay 50%, $950, up front to Steve Martin Landscaping and Cleanup Company - uh, says MM, not like D hid fact that he isn't a professional mover when the contract is clearly from a landscaping company. Ah, but seems after the first signed agreement, after she pays the upfront $950 deposit, the Virginia move is put on hold. But her condo has been sold, so now she wants D to move her stuff into a storage unit. New agreement entered, and she points out that on the new agreement D now calls himself a moving company. Anyway, she says the already paid $950 was to now to pay for the storage unit move, with left over to go towards the Virginia move - which still hasn't taken place. Ah, but she claims when D realised he had her over a barrel, her closing was right around the corner and she needed the condo emptied - like yesterday - so she agrees to the new contract - dude increasestopped price and she has to pay additional $750 for him to move stuff to storage. MM turns to D and asks why P needed to pay the additional money. Sort of saw this coming - part time mover D says he was renting a moving truck, and the $950 went to the rental deposit - which he lost when she made her last minute plan change. Uh oh, looks like Steve spent all his pre-trial prep picking out what to wear instead of gathering evidence. Steve IS better dressed than your average landscaper - but when your defense sort of hinges on claim that you used the deposit to rent a vehicle to do the job, it would be nice if you brought something to show you ever contracted to rent a truck. Back to P's side, and now she's telling us how good Ole Steve started gouging her. She needed her stuff out of the condo yesterday - too late to hire someone else - and now Steve was insisting she sign a paper saying the move was completed satisfactorily, nothing was damaged, etc - nothing wrong there, oh except Steve wanted it signed 4 days before move was done. Time for MM to question why in the world, if dude was so obviously gouging her, she's signing a release prior to the move. Waah waah nonsensical excuses, then commercial break. After break MM questions Steve why he would have her sign such a thing prior to the move. Oh, he didn't "make" her sign it, says Steve. But why even give it to her prior to the move, asks MM? Stevie doesn't have an answer to that one, and MM gets loud when he tries to just skip past answering her question. Ok, actual move date comes - No call-no show, til 3:30 when he finally calls to say he can't come today as promised because he's at home watching his kids. Really! At this point she's paid him $1700 and he couldn't afford a babysitter... don't worry, though, he has the signed paper saying how well the move went. Ok, more poor preparation on part of D - almost feel sorry for dude, as he can't seem to avoid stepping in it. Story he's selling is that he is home stuck with the kids, MM is asking when he was supposed to show to work, he says between 11 and 1, and that he called at 1230 to say he couldn't make it (and P holds up her phone records saying nooooo, didn't call til 3:30). MM asks him when he found out he was going to have the kids - again with the no answer, doesn't remember why he had the kids, maybe not school that day (uh, talking pre-school, maybe, didn't he just say youngest is 1 1/2). Gotta hope Steve is just not too sharp - because if he's really this dumb he doesn't have a future as a con man - what am I saying, court TV litigants will be lining up to hire him after his appearance today. Next day he finally comes - with little $19.95 uhaul and 1 friend driving the bus from the VA center (apparently friend works for the VA center driving the van - wonder if his supervisor knew, and hope none of the vets needed to get to any appointments that day. I live just down from a fairly big VA center, see lots of the same size bus as the one P took a picture of, and know that those things stay busy here running vets out to post and up to Oklahoma City.) Hate to say it, but any sympathy I had for Steve is long gone (come on Steve, we share the same first name and you let me down). The 2 guys finally show up, after noon and a day late, 1 in misappropriated bus from the VA and other in small uhaul truck, and these two are to empty a 2500 square foot house of all the house hold goods in 4 hours - and let's not forget P prepaid $1700. Sounds like she should have rented her own truck and swung by and picked up a crew of day laborers and saved a few bucks. Move to storage unit was supposed to take 4 hours, and P has all kinds of evidence - including pictures and evidence Steve took 9 hours to get everything piled into storage unit, and proof she later paid someone $200 to reorganize the mess. Ok, rough justice time.... D had to return the $950 deposit for the move to Virginia - MM says normally she'd let him keep it since P postponed the move and now wants out of the contract, but way he flubbed the move to storage is enough to justify P not using him for Virginia move... says he earned the $750 for moving stuff to storage, but he has to cover the $200 P paid someone to straighten out the mess he left the unit in. Steve wanted to say something, but MM wouldn't let poor Steve make any more excuses... Net: D keeps $550 and P gets $1150 back.
driving school: plaintiff hubby was enrolled in defendant's driving school - complains that on day hubby was to take his driver's test to get his license, D was a no show, so P ended up using car from another school to take the test - here wanting the $80 spent to on car to take test. Defendant says he was there at time scheduled for the test, but P was late and missed the appointment. Says then P had to wait in long line for next open slot, but then D had to take car and go to another appointment. Says he offered to be available for a rescheduled test, but P got his back up, they had a kerfuffle, and D washed his hands of silly P says he did his job, as per their contract, and it was P who fouled things up. Ah, tried and true (but seldom successful) countersuit for missed work. Ok, entertaining by play between MM and plaintiff. Seems plaintiffs have been married a year now, and hubby wants to become an Uber driver. Yep, hubby, who has no license, and even after attending driving school has failed driving test twice, may be driving you around next time you call Uber if he can only pass the freeking parallel parking portion of the test. Wifey is doing most of the talking here - thankfully - but even as she's presenting her case I'm wondering if she's not helping def a bit. First, not really sure how realistic the plan is for a newbie driver with zero experience and multiple failed attempts to get a license is to become a professional driver... but also, she's talking about how she rescheduled the test - uh, did she consider the reason D scheduled test on different day was because his schedule was tight on day she found an opening at the DMV - oh, and doesn't bode well for P showing up on time when she changes test time from 8 to 8:30 - leaves me wondering if she may have had hubby, driving school dude, or both, show up at wrong time. Ah, not only that, but admits hubby was late (but don'cha know they were supposed to give hubby a 15 minutes grace period). Have to laugh at the part where wifey says hubby was supposed to be there "an hour in advance, like previously." I was a little confused just where hubby was supposed to be an hour before the test - turns out they're talking about where he was supposed to meet the driving school guy to get the car to be used during test. So, hubby was either 10 or 40 minutes late, depending on actual test time since wife waffles between 8 and 8:30. So, hubby is there, late, wondering where dude with car is - calls but call goes to voicemail, finally he heads over to testing site hoping car will be there. No car. Manager at test site tells him if he shows up before 1pm they'll squeeze him in, otherwise he'll have to reschedule. Defendant has yet to say anything, but I'm thinking the public may owe him thanks for delaying P hubby in his quest for uber-driverhood. Ah, but hubby really wants to test. He takes his third cab ride of the morning, back to driving school - still nobody there - ah, but he knows D works out at the gym down the block, so he goes there and convinces somebody to give him D's personal phone number (a no-no says MM, gym should not be giving out personal numbers). Ok, finally reaches D at 9am, and D says come back to driving school and sends P back to test site with his adult son in a company car. Uh oh, here I thought it was time challenged plaintiffs who screwed up the time, but maybe not. As we go to commercial D is asked why there wasn't a car there when test was scheduled, and D gives some BS answer about how DMV always tells you to be there at 8 or 8:30 - guess that sort of blows defense as stated in intro out of the water. (D's gravelly voice also benefits from CC - though mute would have been better) Anyway, we know D is going to say DMV wants people to show up at 8 or 8:30 because of the pre-commercial preview - yet here he is telling us his practice is to have son transport test-ees to DMV for the test at 8:45 - so, another time challenged person who thinks appointment schedules are just a general guidelines to be ignored. Soooo, forget how D was there on time, he tells us DMV never - ever - starts on time, so he never tries to show up on time (oh, and while P was looking for time DMV told hubby to be there, D helps her out by producing letter from DMV saying appointment is at 8:30.... dude - that's the case for me - to me, D breached by not being available when instructed by DMV, so P gets back the $80 he paid dude to be there. Actually, turns out D doesn't even have any first hand knowledge of time P was told to be there - his secretary tells customers when to be there - and she "always" tells people such and such - which apparently changes with the season. D had no defense - but like so many before him feels totally justified. This time, plaintiff was part of morning group of drivers to be tested, he finally hooked up with son at 9:30 and spends rest of morning waiting to be tested, but at 12:30 as he's finally getting to head of the line, son boots him from the car to go pick up the group of folks who are to be tested that afternoon. 0h, and more hearsay, before it was secretary who D was testifying for, now he's telling us what son saw/said/did with no actual firsthand knowledge. P frantically checks with other driving school who have car there available for THEIR students to test in, finds somebody that will let him use their car, and takes the test - but not in Def's car - oh, and fails test. Wifey explains she filed the case when she felt D and his school insulted hubby ... starts around the 40 minutes mark and I totally believe her and, if I hadn't already been against know-it-all, arrogant little D this would do it for the no defense joker. Heck, half of what D us saying contradicts his earlier testimony... oh, and some bull about how examiner tells P he can't be tested that day, yet we know he WAS tested when he borrowed a car from another school. That isn't doing it for MM, and when she tries to get D to answer her questions he gets mouthy. MM is not impressed, in fact, MM invalidates entire contract, and ends up returning, not just the $80 for a test car, but $355 - which I guess is everything P paid the school. Yep, like I said a couple times - we have a litigant with no defense who feels totally justified. Oh, and when he gets outside, he tells Doug "business is business - you deal with these types of people all the time - no big deal" - he claims he's the best in the businessman.... yep, but Doug was thinking same thing - about defendant.... uh oh, as Doug wraps up P hallterview we learn hubby finally passed his test - he starts driving for uber-driverhood the next week - watch out New Yorkers
car sale gone wrong: quicky case as 2nd case ran long. P with iffy employee/defendant,hires and fires guy a couple times (to give him a second chance, don'cha know). Also loans D money to buy a car. D says P runs a sweatshop and he quit. Now they're here with P saying money is still owed on car loan and D saying he's still owed wages from before he quit (or was fired). Iffy case - no signed IOU, not a single receipt, etc, MM frequently interrupting for clarifications.... only way P wins is if D admits (or admitted in texts) that he owes money. Okkkkk, that said, first thing out of D's mouth is he admits borrowing $700, but doesn't think it counts since he didn't sign anything. Sooooo, still 8 minutes, guess we'll talk about back wages after the break (oh, and half that time will be eaten by commercials and Shorty yapping.) Nope, not even getting to countersuit for wages - MM has too much fun with D - "how stupid can you be? I'd fire you, too!" Actually, MM does ask about the counterclaim. From back wages it morphed into another claim for D wasting his time having to come to court - dufus, you wasted everybodies time when you didn't just pay what you admit you owe --- but you were good for a laugh. Even Doug can't get dude to make sense during hallterview - everything is bogus and stupid, him getting sued for $700 he admits he owes and refused to pay. P offered some excellent advice during his chat with Doug - don't lend money to morons!

Edited June 21, 2018 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · June 20, 2018

So, today we get a woman - very lovely and well-spoken, who has a 2500sq.ft home (yes, we heard that the first time. I have a 2500sq.ft home as well, but when moving, I hire movers) who is moving to Virginia. I'm sure her large home is filled with many valuable items, but when it comes to moving, she doesn't want to pay to get a real moving company. What she does is hire the def, who is a landscaper, to do the move. Ooh, he's cheaper! He moves people in his spare time. Lady, what the hell were you thinking? I've moved house several times and not once did I say to my husband, "Hey, let's get the guy who is landscaping the neighbour's yard to move us. Think of the money we'll save!" He gives her a contract that clearly says "Landscaper" on it. She also signs 4 days in advance of the move that it was done splendidly and that everything was just fine. He forced her to do this, after getting a 900$ downpayment on the move, or else he wouldn't do it all. Gee, the day of move when he's supposed to show up at 11:00a.m he finds out he has to stay home and take care of his kids. Maybe school was out that day? He's not sure. He calls her at around 3:00 to inform her of this, but no way will he let her down! He shows up with some guy driving a hospital transport bus and a tiny, 19.95$ per day truck to move her massive amount of furniture. Hey, she's lucky he bothered to come at all! Then he piles her furniture in precarious heaps - dining table balanced on top of electronics, etc and plaintiff has to hire someone else to come straighten out the mess he made,but he has nice earrings. I wish I could write in Spanish what JM always says, that the "cheap comes out expensive." I hope this woman has learned not to be such a cheapo fool and gets someone other than idiots like the def. to work for her. Honestly... He has to pay back the 900$ plus the money she had to pay someone else.

Next case was butted into by some Trump stuff. When we rejoin the case, I'm not sorry I missed most of it. Plaintiffs are suing def, who has "the best reputation in New York" for driving courses (I think) but who screwed the plaintiffs over royally. His son, who actually dealt with plaintiffs, decided not to show up here to back up his old man, so the case hinges on hearsay. Plaintiffs were suing only for 80$, but JM awards them the entire amount they paid def. just for his general asshole-ery. (Yes that is a word now). Doug in the hall derides him.

OMG, the last case? Plaintiff, who has a family business, hires the defendant not once, but twice. He was fired once for his bad attitude and general jerkiness, but plaintiff seems to think that everyone, even shit-headed assholes, deserves a second chance. JM disabuses him of that notion. Anyway, plaintiff not only hires this ignormus but lends him 2000$ to buy some sort of vehicle. Sadly, plaintiff has to again fire the jerk, so jerk stops paying the loan. JM asks what is his defense for non-payment? Def says that yes, he did borrow the money and didn't repay it, but the fact that it was not in a written contract means he doesn't have to repay it, even though he freely admits he owes it. This leaves JM speechless and turning to Douglas, with a "Can you believe what a goddam moron this tatted fool is?" Def's sadsack, mopey little girlfriend sits there and I hear Tammy Wynette in my head, yowling how you should "Stand by your man" even if he's a fugly, stupid loser. Judgement for the plaintiff. Doug in the hall is nonplussed, but informs def. that he appears to be a total fool. "It is what it is," def drawls, informing Doug that the whole thing is stupid and with the few words he has at his command he relays he's unhappy he had to miss a whole day at his Fortune 500 company he operates. Girlfriend hovers in the background.

EEK! I was composing this while SRTouch was posting as well, so sorry for any repetition!

Edited June 20, 2018 by AngelaHunter

meowmommy · June 20, 2018

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I wish I could write in Spanish what JM always says, that the "cheap comes out expensive."

That's the phrase that came to my mind, and expected MM to break it out any second, but she never did. How could this seemingly intelligent person not notice that this guy was not a licensed, bonded, insured interstate mover? All I can say is how grateful I am that I finally found a really good mover who handled my last two moves. Otherwise I'd get hives flashing back to mover hell, and those were licensed companies. And who the hell is stupid enough to sign a release before the goods are received? This plaintiff, I guess. I think MM could easily have told her to drown in her own stupidity as an object lesson, but she didn't.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

here wanting the $80 spent to on car to take test.

As I'm watching, I'm wondering how much it costs to file a case, and darn if MM doesn't ask the same question. Filing these piddly little cases just doesn't seem worth it, especially if you lose, and you're already taking time off, presumably, to go to court. But I guess the wife had time and money to pursue the principle.

I don't get MM's decision to make him pay back the whole amount, even though she didn't like him, since he did provide the driving instruction. She's been on a roll of what seem like emotional and not legal decisions.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Wifey is doing most of the talking here - thankfully - but even as she's presenting her case I'm wondering if she's not helping def a bit.

I wondered about that, too, until hubby opened his mouth.

Gee, I know I want to be an Uber passenger of a guy who just got his license...and on the umpteenth try at that.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Okkkkk, that said, first thing out of D's mouth is he admits borrowing $700, but doesn't think it counts since he didn't sign anything. Sooooo, still 8 minutes, guess we'll talk about back wages after the break (oh, and half that time will be eaten by commercials and Shorty yapping.) Nope, not even getting to countersuit for wages - MM has too much fun with D - "how stupid can you be? I'd fire you, too!"

One of my favorite movie lines, probably I've cited it before, from Ruthless People: "This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth. Perhaps we should shoot him."

I do suspect between the emotional decisions and flat out telling people they're stupid instead of being diplomatic, maybe MM is just bored out of her mind and trying to shake things up.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

EEK! I was composing this while SRTouch was posting as well, so sorry for any repetition!

So glad you're both back on the job! That recap yesterday was hard!

Edited June 20, 2018 by meowmommy

AngelaHunter · June 20, 2018

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

MM has too much fun with D - "how stupid can you be? I'd fire you, too!"

I assumed that question was rhetorical, since we saw very clearly just how stupid he and his dopey, mousey girlfriend are and forever more shall remain. I bet they'll breed too, just to prove they are proficient at something.

9 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

One of my favorite movie lines, probably I've cited it before, from Ruthless People: "This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth. Perhaps we should shoot him.

So many awesome movies could never be made now. The snowflakes, SJWs and PC Nazis would have a mass meltdown. Tumblr would ignite with their outrage, even if they aren't sure exactly what they are outraged about.

11 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

How could this seemingly intelligent person not notice that this guy was not a licensed, bonded, insured interstate mover?

Yeah, but hey - super cheap move! "You get what you pay for" will never not be true.

10 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

That recap yesterday was hard!

But you rose to the occasion more than admirably!

aemom · June 21, 2018

Today seemed to be a celebration of stupid litigants.

31 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

That's the phrase that came to my mind, and expected MM to break it out any second, but she never did. How could this seemingly intelligent person not notice that this guy was not a licensed, bonded, insured interstate mover?

Like all of you, I was thinking "the cheap becomes expensive." I'm always amazed at the things that people decide "Yes! This is worth cheaping out on. Moving my entire house -- I'll go for a deal!" Go for a deal on a sweater, not all your worldly possessions. Jeez!

31 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Gee, I know I want to be an Uber passenger of a guy who just got his license...and on the umpteenth try at that.

LOL! I also missed most of this case because of the Special Report about Trump, but MM REALLY hated the defendant with her judgment.

16 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I assumed that question was rhetorical, since we saw very clearly just how stupid he and his dopey, mousey girlfriend are and forever more shall remain. I bet they'll breed too, just to prove they are proficient at something.

This guy was starring in Chapter 572 of the book "Ultimate Loser Boyfriends on TPC and the Women Who Love Them."

He's so stupid, that he admitted he borrowed the money. Had he not, the case might have gone the other way.

Florinaldo · June 21, 2018

44 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

And who the hell is stupid enough to sign a release before the goods are received?

Plaintiff was so deluded in expecting a Platinum-level of service from hiring a bargain-basement person, who is not even a professional mover, that I wished MM had tossed her back out on her ass with not a single dime for an award. That might have been a valuable lesson for her. Although someone who signs a "satisfactory service" release before it is even rendered is probably too stupid to learn from anything. And why is it most often women on these shows who expect cheap to come out gilded with gold?

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

driving school:

I shudder to think that idiot hubby could actually become a Uber driver after failing his test so often and not demonstrating too many functioning brain cells. I do not want to share the road with people like him.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

P offered some excellent advice during his chat with Doug - don't lend money to morons!

At least one litigant learned a valuable lesson from todays's proceedings...

Sign In

The People's Court - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

teebax

arejay

zillabreeze

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment