AngelaHunter October 3, 2018 Share October 3, 2018 11 hours ago, AEMom said: The boys were squirrely and acted immature and stupid (they don't even have contracts for their moves), but he did say "ma'am." I was wrong - he did say "m'am"! Since when is that the wrong way to address a judge? It's never, ever been wrong, until that moment. Douglas calls her "m'am"! If she wanted to tear into that little arrogant brat, it should have been after listening to that obnoxious phone call, where brat called a client who was old enough to be his grandfather, "bro." 4 Link to comment
AZChristian October 3, 2018 Share October 3, 2018 10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Maybe, but she would have ripped this snotty bitch a new one, not gazed admiringly at her and inflated her delusional ego further, while gushing how she'd love to hang out with her. JM is a 56-year old, educated woman, prosecutor and judge and she would like to schmooze with a "miserable piece of lying, irresposible, ignorant piece of shit"? What would they "conversate" about? Fake nails? Inappropriate clothes? Maybe JM was being uber-sarcastic? I would like to think so, but no doubt I'm dead wrong. Can't we all hear JJ screaming, "You're an IDIOT" at the snotty young driver? I'm just surprised she didn't enter into evidence a youtube video selfie of the accident (which, by the way, would show her to be at fault). How self-absorbed and out of touch with adult reality can one person be? 3 Link to comment
ohcomeon October 3, 2018 Share October 3, 2018 I actually loved the landlord in the first case. She gave the tenant a nice offer and all the tenant had to do was abide by the offer but she instead decided she'd milk the system just a little bit longer. Landlord was upfront saying she weighed her options of abiding by the rules or accepting her punishment and she preferred the punishment. I think it is absolute karma that the tenant will pay the $500 back rent which will go to pay the landlord's $200 fine plus she'll have a nice amount to go out and celebrate her moral victory. 10 Link to comment
Florinaldo October 3, 2018 Share October 3, 2018 (edited) As I have said before, MM sometimes displays signs of bad-girl envy. Either she was not part of the "cool" snotty and bratty crowd back in school and wish she had been, or she was and is nostalgic for the good old days. 15 hours ago, AEMom said: The boys were squirrely and acted immature and stupid (they don't even have contracts for their moves), but he did say "ma'am." And MM laced into him with "it's not ma'am, it's judge," and I thought to myself - we've had tons of litigants call you ma'am. I know that "miss" will send you off the deep end but since when is ma'am a problem? These two need to revise their business practices quickly or they will leave a long trail of bad experiences on both sides, with no records to document the contracted expectations. And the younger associate must stop being involved with customer relations, unless he gets some heavy-duty training in that aspect of the business. He is the one who truly deserved the tongue-lashing. Edited October 3, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 3, 2018 Share October 3, 2018 (edited) breakup money woes: haven't even heard the defendant's intro yet, and already wondering about P's story. Going by preview & intro, he and gf co-mingled finances and had joint banking account - he's too lazy/lackadaisical to bother with glancing at the bank statements, and lets the gf manage his money - when they break up, he doesn't bother to close the joint account, so ex still has access to his money - oh, he still doesn't check the statements - a year after the breakup he finally stumbles onto the fact that the ex is still using money from the joint account to pay her credit card debt - asking for the max of 5 grand, but says he's out more than that. Defendant's story is that a lot of their expenses while they lived together went onto her card, so she is justified in using the money from the joint account to pay off the balance - oh, and she says there's still 2 grand owed on her card from when they lived together, so is countersuing.... hmmm, maybe so, if she can show the card was, in fact, used to pay their joint expenses - and not her personal use during or after the break up - another point I ponder, how much of the balance resulted from finance charges - remember the old story of just having to buy something on credit because it's on sale, making the minimum payments, and ending up paying more in interest than the item cost - oh and she blames the lawsuit on the new gf, who, if preview is accurate, is currently handling P's account.... soooo, testimony starts and we learn the litigants only dated 2 years and lived together for a year - geez, this dude is even lazier and financially irresponsible than I thought - he says he added her to his account so she could handle joint bills, but she never deposited her money in the account - so even when they were together he really had no idea of what she was doing with his money. Anyway, his testimony is that it was too much hassle to close the joint account and open a new one because a lot of his accounts were paid by automatic withdrawal... uh, how many is alot? More than could be handled with an hour going over the bank statements and a few phone calls? Actually, back when I was active duty I'd let a couple months go by and between times I balanced my bankbook - but hey, DoD direct deposited my check for the same amount to every month, and I knew exactly how much it was and that my regular expenses would be covered... ok, when the happy couple lived together, sounds like ex gf set up all the bills to be paid automatically that she could - including her credit card. When they broke up she stopped all the joint bills - EXCEPT her CC, which apparently averaged between $275-300 (bet the CC loved these folks and just kept upping their limit). After the break up, it isn't long before there's a new gf, and when they want to move in together she goes over their finances and discovers ex still paying her CC with automatic withdrawals from the joint account. So, at least 3 women were attracted enough to this bald dufus, or his bank account, to want to move in together or have his babies (one of the automatic withdrawals is child support). Once new gf discover it, she gets dufus to open a new account and transfer everything except the auto draft payment for ex' CC - couldn't just close the old joint account without ex signing off. This is where things go astray (and I'm losing interest in the mess - fast) - because they took everything out of the old account and CC still being billed - payment bounces. Than, instead of working it out and paying the overdraft they let bill go to collection. Now everybody's credit is being impacted, and they're having trouble getting statements and evidence because this nonsense goes back years (two litigants broke up back in '16). Ok, enough with P side, finally going to D's side. Oops, not sure it's such good start when MM asks her what's going on, and D replies where do I start. No surprise to learn D says she just "forgot" to stop the auto draft CC payments when they broke up. She wants us to believe she doesn't bother looking at her monthly CC statement like dufus doesn't look at bank statements. Is the only one standing at these lecterns who has heard of a budget the new gf? She caught the CC monthly statements when she was working on budgeting moving in with dufus. Ok, boring case, slightly interesting at first, but sinking fast. Only way D doesn't owe is being able to prove the debt was incurred jointly. Yet, she is pleading ignorance of fact that every month for a year a payment was being made on her account? Sort of scary to hear her mention she has a business. JJ would hate these two - everything possible done online, and neither read statements - claiming even unread statements are email. Ok, 'MM asks for her CC statements. Then we get another silly lie - D says she didn't find out about this mess until dufus put it out there on social media. First, why in the world would dufus put out there that he's such a... dufus? Ok, yeah, he probably did - after all he IS such a dufus. But, the lie easily disproved, as MM had already read texts where he contacted her asking WTH!?! Oh, and 'nother lie. She says no additional charges after the break up, passes up statements (no doubt yet another litigant who thinks judges can't read) - lo and behold, several charges made each month after the break up. Well, interest level back up a tad as we watch D setting her pants on fire with these lame-ass excuses - but thankfully we've reached the 16 minute commercial - time to zip through the ads, short-stuff and the street crowd and hear the judgement. Oh no! 20 minute and we're still yakking about this nonsense - yet another case which should have ended early is going to overtime. ? ok, dud case, and I keep the fast forward on - stop to hear a couple seconds where D is waving some papers complaining about how her credit took a hit - uh, yeah, if what I heard from HER is true, she SHOULD take a credit hit (him, too, no innocents here except maybe new gf - and her judgement is in question as she's still with dufus). Finally, as expected from minute #4, P gets paid - but only some of the money. Seems instead of going after her for the amount of money taken from his account after the break up - a whole mess of the 5 grand is overdraft fees. He walks out with a little over 3 grand... hmmmm I have no idea how much was owed on the card (probably still owed) versus how much was from various interest/overdraft fees but certainly sounded like most of the money they're fighting over is going directly to the bank and CC company. tenant suing for security: long time tenant moves out and landlord keeps deposit - tired old story, but sometimes the litigants are entertaining. Intro for P - nothing to write about. D - well, maybe, says guy was there for over 5 years then moved out without notice, oh, and caused big time damage. We learn as MM introduces the case that tenant, P, is seeking double the security - so over $1800. So, we have a month to month tenancy after the initial year lease. P says he gave verbal notice on Jan 10th that he was leaving at the end of the month - ah, but he says when he told D he was leaving, D replied no problem, short verbal notice was ok, otherwise P says he was prepared to give written notice and stay until the end of February. Uh oh, not going to like landlord - MM turns and asks if the verbal notice went like P said, and D pauses and tries to play word games. Ok, what he says after the iffy start is that the conversation did take place, P did say he might be leaving, but didn't give a move out date.... back when I was looking to buy this place is told my apartment complex manager I might be leaving - then spent 3 or 4 moves looking before I actually found this and gave written 30 day notice.... ok, maybe D just had first-question-on-national-TV jitters, I'll give him another chance. Now he's saying the first hint he had that P was leaving at the end of January is when he physically saw P loading up to leave. Ah, we have yet another landlord not knowing the legal requirements of being a landlord. In these folks jurisdiction the landlord is required to send a letter detailing the reason for withholding any of the deposit. Oops, even if D could justify withholding the deposit, that's usually end of the case. Ok, MM tells us in their jurisdiction all is not lost for the landlord, if he can justify what he withheld he get that and won't have to pay double. So, he withheld $900+. Rent was $675 - no written notice as per rental agreement - so he could legitimately get a month's rent. Now MM is ready to listen to the damage claim. Ok, P was there 5 years, and his claims are more wear and tear than something a tenant would have to pay for. Not notified of missing tiles on tub surround - ok, if P had notified landlord while still there D would have had to do the repair he less tenant negligently/purposely caused the damage. Next - stained carpet - well how old was carpet when tenant moved in, or has it been replaced while he was there? Time wasted looking at pictures - D says carpet good before P moved in - P says a friend was there before him, carpet already at least two years old and stained when P moved in. No before or after pics - no evidence of age, but landlord just admitted carpet was already yhere when he bought the place in 1989. NEXT - P is a smoker - yeah, he says he smokes and smoked inside the apartment - says D knew and had no problem with his smoking - ah, but admits written lease says no smoking - ok, needs full painting, including ceiling, and probably multiple coats - but again, 5 yes and how long since it was last painted - P going to lose this one on JJ's 4 corners argument, but how much will he have to pay (course there's only a couple hundred of the deposit left after moving without written notice as per the written agreement) ok, pictures of the wall of nicotine stains is enough for JM, to rule none of the security was wrongfully withheld... Quick dismissal and a couple minutes closer to being on schedule. Classic hallterview - loser saying he didn't get to state his case, and winner was a liar liar... nah, dude, what it comes down to is the written contract trumping secondary verbal agreements. As is car sale nonsense: P suing, claiming D knowingly sold him a lemon whose suspension failed within days - almost causing an accident - wants $2800. D is used car dealer in business for 35 years - says car was sold as-is - he would never sell knowingly sell an unsafe vehicle. His story of the break down/bad suspension miles apart from P's intro. D says it was weeks, not days, after the sale before he received a call complaining of any problem - said he told P (actually, says it was P's uncle who called) to bring it in so D could inspect the suspension. Instead of bringing it in so D could maybe fix the problem, P decided to sue for his money back... buyer's remorse, or maybe P wrecked the vehicle... ah, maybe case will get interesting - preview clip has our car dealer arguing he was just the middle man who collected the money, car not sold off his lot but from a neighboring property, in fact after paying P picked up vehicle from the other property - oh, and there was never a bill of sale... ok, testimony starts with P saying he purchased this old van for $1400 (he's doubling his claim by piling on nonsense - including lost wages, but somehow no pain and suffering). Young kid, clean cut, works - just not too swift - from the wishy washy preview clip I already dislike dealer dude - but unless P can prove an unsafe car was knowingly sold, there is a warranty, or something in their jurisdiction that protects foolish buyers, the kid's is out of luck. Oh, and kid admits he bought the car without even test driving it. Kid has a statement from a repair shop saying car unsafe and not worth repairing - which may be why D is disavowing the sale and claiming he just collected the money. Hey, even if that's true, he's the professional. He collected the money from mystery seller without getting a bill of sale or getting or giving any receipts. Make greasy dude in bad suit give back the money and have slick go after the seller. Or, maybe second dude in bad suit, the one with sausage fingers, is mystery seller. Ok, big surprise, preview misleading. When D gets a chance to talk, things look even worse. Now he admits he owed the clunker, says when he bought it, wasn't good enough for his lot, and was destined to be unloaded at some future auction. When P told him he didn't have much money, he was shown the clunkers that failed to meet the high standards to actually be parked on the lot - may need a shower after listening to this guy. Ok, not just me - one second dude admits he owed vehicle, the next he "wholesales" a lot of clunkers and he was really selling it for someone else. D in this one even worse than credit card liar earlier - at least her lies made a little sense until evidence proved they were lies. This guy - I have no idea what he's saying - and I wouldn't buy anything from him - would count my fingers after a handshake (and then pull a Sheldon Cooper and use hand sanitizer). When MM stops him and asks what the heck he's saying, I hit FF rather than listen. Ah, guess MM finally waded through this BS - but hey she gets paid to listen and I have a FF button. When I stop for rough justice time - evidently, MM couldn't unwind the deal even if she wanted to - seems P already junked the car so it's not around to return to the seller - whoever that might be. So - as-is sale (from somebody) - car already at junkyard so can't be returned even if MM wanted to - case dismissed. Edited October 3, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo October 3, 2018 Share October 3, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: breakup money woes: Two idiots being much too casual how closely they keep track of transactions occuring in their bank accounts. Plaintiff certainly deserved some reimbursement, but it was also justified that MM made him take a hit for his negligence. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing for security: Those pictures of the nicotine-stained walls were truly disgusting, They clearly demonstrate that slapping a single coat of paint is not enough to counter the smell and deposits from smoking in an apartment. They should be shown to JJ. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: As is car sale nonsense: Not only did the plaintiff not have the car inspected before buying it, but he also had it towed directly to the junkyard, without bringing it back to the seller who had offered to take a look at it. Whatever small opening the possible lack of sales documents might perhaps have given him, he shot down his own case with that move. Edited October 4, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 I just watched a repeat, where a dog owner was suing for vet bills for an attack on her dog that required stitches. The defendant lost, the minimal bills were paid, and Doug asked him if he still took his dog to the dog park, and he said, yes, because "My dog never bit anyone". Who wants to bet his dog has nailed a lot of people and animals, and the idiot could stand there while the dog mauled another dog, and still say his dog didn't do it. 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 (edited) Todays new show-Couch surfing girl moves in with a family friend, he wants her out, she takes most of her stuff to mommy, and grandma's houses, and leaves two big screen TVs behind forever. I love how the defendant was sued for putting the TV's out, after the couch surfing bimbo left the TV's behind, sent him at least one very nasty email/text. Then he called mommy to pick the TV's up because he put them on the lawn, and d. was standing next to them. Mommy made every excuse in the book for not picking the TV's up, including her disability, but I'm sure the d. would have put them in the car for her, and he got sick of excuses, left them on the lawn and the TV's disappeared. The bimbo girl was asked the question we all want to know, from Judge M, How can someone who's couch surfing afford two huge new TV's?, Bimbo couch surfer had enough makeup to cover a small country, eyeliner all over the place, microbladed brows, and is still mooching? I'm glad the defendant didn't have to pay, and the bimbo and her mother were outraged, and I enjoyed their outrage. Edited October 4, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama 8 Link to comment
SRTouch October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 (edited) no good deed: ok, this is the case @CrazyInAlabama posted about. Too bad grandma wasn't there to waddle in with P & mommy - curious if short and dumpy goes through all three generations - and again, I'm seriously thinking hair products/wigs should carry warning lables that IQ is adversely affected by their use.... or it could be the clown paint so many litigants have on the face - really, a study should be made, because it might also be caused by restricted blood flow from wearing outfits 2 or 3 sizes too small when you appear in court. Princess Plaintiff's intro claims she had two brand new flatscreens, defendant upset that when she turned down his advances, meany kicked her to the curb and either still has her TVs or sold them - wants close to $1600. Defendant intro - he says Princess lost her place and was storing her stuff in various friends/relatives houses - says when P hinted she might like to move in with him, he turned her down, since his gf might frown on having a second woman in his place - but he did let her store the TVs - after awhile he got tired of his small place being used as a storage facility, he told her to come get them, she didn't, he considrred them abandoned and put them outside. Ok, testimony starts and - Surprise! - doesn't match intro. Sounds like Princess and Mommy weren't happy in their place (hmmmm am I hearing place wasn't good enough for Princess, but mommy still in the dump fighting with landlord) - something about no water/heat and a bad landlord - so Princess spent a couple months in defendant's place - nope, get your mind out of the gutter, she stayed in his 5 yo's room while kid slept with D. She says he was long time family friend, mainly friends with her sister, and right around corner from her mom's old place there in the neighborhood... I say must have been a really good friend to let her move in and disrupt his family for 2 months. Then, P tells us D started making advances and trying to make her jealous by pretending to have a gf.... thing is, I think that maybe in her mind she believes she's irresistible - what with the war paint, nails, tight outfit and two toned hair - that she keeps brushing back to show off said nails and carefully painted round face... she says they had a kerfuffle after a couple months when he got fed up with her not responding to his charm and she turned him down... couldn't possibly have been he was sick and tired of the squatter sleeping in his son's bedroom while son was in his bed stealing the covers and kicking him all night (not to mention putting a crimp in his relationship with his REAL gf.) Anyway, she keeps dancing around trying to make us think D was after her to make her his wife (which make no sense, as later she says he wanted her out to make room for his other girl - or girls), how she felt she needed to leave because she was uncomfortable in HIS home, then it slips out that the cause of the kerfuffle that had her moving out was that his real gf was coming to spend a few nights... oh, and maybe wouldn't appreciate the 5yo in the bed when gf slept with daddy... then she gives MM a letter which she says shows how much he loved/lusted after her - and what I hear when MM reads a passage is dude saying he loves her as a friend and doesn't want their tiff to end the long time family friendship... Ok, like I said - I think this entitled, self absorbed spoiled brat probably believes she is so irresistible dude had to be panting after her... love it that MM cuts off the princess and points out that only reason she was living there was because of his generosity - she was just a guest who had over stayed her welcome - not a rent paying tenant - and D was well within his rights to give her the old heave ho - and Princess agrees, then totally ignores it and continues with how D was being malicious when he asked her to leave. Ok, MM realises Princess is in her own little world, so shifts gears and asks about the TVs. ok, seems she bought two new flatscreens in January, while she was homeless and couch surfing - uh, WHY? and HOW asks MM. Oh, little miss says, she's had a job for 4 years - totally missing MM's point that it makes no sense to spend money buying TVs when you don't have a place to plug them in that you call your own.... ok, commercial break - hopefully MM is finished with the Princess and will talk to D now - and he's not as loony toons as Princess... well, maybe not as bad - but, yeah, his story is off plumb... says after P left he asked her 3 times to come get the TVs, with last time putting them outside and telling her he was done, come get them since they're not going back into his place - oh, and he says P told him mommy was coming to pick them up, so he moved them out and waited outside with them, so that makes more sense. So, D is outside waiting for 20 minutes, then gets a call from mommy saying her husband doesn't want them in the house. Now mommy shouts out saying that a lie - and MM turns to her and asks why didn't she just go get them - oh, she's disabled and wouldn't be able to load them cuz they're too big for her car, so please just take them back inside your place for a few more days (weeks or months of free storage). Ok, phone calls between P, mommy and D - end result D hauls them back inside - he says he tells them they have a week to figure out how/where these things are going before he puts them on the curb and washes his hands of the mess - they argue there was no deadline... wouldn't matter in my eyes, they admit he told them he was sick and tired of them and they're treating his home as a flop house and storage unit - they could have rented a uhaul, found a couple guys willing to load them for 5 bucks, and picked them up that afternoon. D says when the deadline passed (actually, he waited almost 2 weeks past the deadline), he put them out on the street - and MM has trouble believing he put two brand new flatscreens out.... hey, I could see that happening - if dude is mad enough at these folks, I can see him feeling good thinking about some passerby hauling them away - yep, I know, not smart, but I can understand - the old 'cutting off the nose' thing but to spite freeloading Princess and her whole family... ok, getting fed up with these folks, but time about up. Did D have any obligation to safeguard her TVS after everybody acknowledges he didn't want them in his home. If she had paid a penny in rent, her stuff would be protected - but what about a guest who has over stayed their welcome. I don't think so. After commercial, MM is trying to decipher a message Princess sent to D - but apparently the grammar and language are too bad to even read - and these was sent BEFORE D put the TVs out - oh yeah, and Princess gets hand slapped for shouting out as MM holds up the message. Nope, I was borderline before - now I say case dismissed... ok, MM wastes some time trying to penetrate Princess' closed mind - but wasted effort - she feels entitled to everyone bowing to her whims and when she doesn't get her way she feels justified in blasting them in profane messages - and they should STILL store her crap rentfree, no matter how much it inconveniences THEM. Little legal lesson before MM tosses the case - law is D would have been required to give P a "reasonable" amount of time to get her stuff out after first notice he wanted it gone - actually almost a month from her nasty/vulgar/profane message before he put the TVs out - case dismissed. As she gets up to leave, MM pauses to say she doesn't believe his story about putting the brand new TVs on the curb - maybe so, but, especially after the message, I could believe it. Hallterview - as expected, Princess thinks she's been robbed, her sh*t don't stink, it's a travesty of justice, etc etc, and she has nothing to say - but then talks anyway. car sale fail: ah, rolly polly dude bought a used 'Benz - and I find myself wondering if he could reach the pedal after putting the seat back far enough to fit behind the wheel. Ok, if intro is right (yeah, right, an intro being right - ha!) dude may actually beat the AS IS principle. Claims when he bought the car it had a fraudulent inspection sticker - which would trump AS IS. Course, he'll need to prove seller knew it was a fake sticker, and not that car passed an inspection in the past, had a valid sticker, then something happened that causes car to fail inspection after the sale. Oh, and claims when he bought this old car (2008), it had over 100,000miles on it, so the warranty he paid for is worthless. Wants the almost 4 grand he spent on junker that it took (or might possibly take if he ever get repairs done) in repairs to pass inspection (also, inspection never done). hmmmm, seems D already checked out of his motel, he brought his suitcase to court (have to laugh, as I'm thinking of woman on JJ who claimed she left her purse - with $200 - in her car back at the HOtel because she didn't want to be carry a bunch of stuff on TV.) Not much else to say about D's intro - says P bought the car AS IS, then bought a limited warranty from the finance company. Yeah, sounds about right - and I imagine limited meant very little actually coverage on a vehicle with 100,000 miles. Either case is a bust, or D really is a slime ball used car salesman who tried to commit fraud. Oh, and as long as he's wasting the day getting the free lunch, he filed a $4500 slander/defamation countersuit so he can stay on screen an extra 30 seconds - plus the $500 still owed on the sale. Oh dear, as we go to commercial before MM's summary of the case, P is on screen complaining that the light on the sun visor mirror doesn't work on this 100,000 mile car - probably his 'dream car' - it's a MERCEDES-BENZ! - and his vanity light doesn't light up. Ok, testimony time - dude bought car early April, drove it for 3 weeks, then took it to a Mercedes dealership with a list of complaints. Course, the dealer condemned the car and presented him with humongous estimate to fix it - probably bringing in a salesman willing to sale him a brand new 'Benz and get him out of the deathtrap... for those who get a chuckle with litigants who try big words in court - dude says his new hooptie was found to "have a numerous amount of problems." I really hope this guy has something else, cuz I've already picked up the remote. Ok - here's a biggy that might actually have meaning - says he was told the New York State inspection was fake - ah, but when he keeps talking it turns out it's not a fake, but that the window tint is too dark so it shouldn't have passed inspection. Ok, don't believe fatty ran and and had dark tint put on in the three week he was driving around - but he could have. Key thing is, even if tint was too dark when he bought the car, that doesn't mean D knew it - and P could have insisted on having the car checked before the purchase, saw the windows, and was fine with them. Ok, P blows any possible credibility when MM tries to pin down the tint quedtion. He keeps calling the inspection sticker a fake - but when pressed he backs off on it being fake and changes to 'here's a statement from the dealership that it SHOULDN'T HAVE passed inspection. At same time Douglas is collecting the dealership statement, defendant is waving around the inspection papers showing that vehicle passed inspection from a third party inspector - not his dealership - oh, and P was there waiting in the office while car was sent to be inspected. Clincher here, all P has is dealership recommendation that tinting be removed or windows replaced, but dude never tried to have it inspected. Then dude goes down long list detailing long list of - well, pretty much exactly what you would expect to find on a 10yo car with over 100,000 miles..... ok, dude, holding remote again - ah, but it's like MM knows when I'm getting fed up and it's time to changes sides - fat dude has me about to fast forward, so she switches sides and defendant gets to talk... ok, D isn't doing it - zip-time - oops, hit it too fast, and I rewind to hear more... seems P is a serial YELP complainer - dude has 38 businesses he's trashed online in his reviews... Ah, but does he ever cross the line and go from voicing his opinion to actual slander - I have a friend with a cousin like this guy, who will trash a business without ever stepping foot in the business... hoboy, wish D had brought his mechanic instead of a notarized statement. Juiciest stuff is coming from this statement - including P supposedly offering mechanic a grand for a phoney invoice for repairs after he damaged car after a road trip to Atlantic City.... ok, back to P - and I'm not listening to guy getting louder and arguing with MM as she goes into her 'cash doesn't leave this hand...' mantra. MM tries to go back to D for the counterclaim argument and P just keeps shouting out. Ok, eventually MM reads us the YELP review.... sure sounds like he's stating his opinions as facts (including called another dealer a thief - because he rents space to D - but this other guy had nothing else to do with this sale). MM is going down the review quoting where he states things as facts - not as opinions - as dufus P stands there nodding his head even as he's being told his First Amendment right does NOT allow him to voice his opinions and facts - dude, keep nodding, we may actually get to see someone win a slander/defamation case (shouldn't it be libel since it was written/published?) Hoboy, even as MM lambast dude and awards the $500 remaining balance and $500 in defamation dude still acting like he knows all and ruling all wrong - and ordering him to take down his YELP review - shaking his head no when she says his understanding of the law is all wrong - hey, keep it up, I'm hoping the $500 defamation amount goes up cause I don't believe for a nano second this guy is going to remove his review. Ah, no more money today - MM advises D to sue again if he doesn't take down the offending post. Wasted valuable time and brain cells listening to shorty to see if he'd tell us if review was removed - no followup - maybe I'll remember to backtrack and look for yelp reviews since we have D's business name - nah, probably not. short case as time running out wedding called off - bride wants ex to pay for nonrefundable wedding expenses: hmmm, pretty much already stated P's intro - she's out $4557 for the dress and nonrefundable deposits and thinks D should pay since he called off the wedding. D doesn't deny calling off the wedding - also doesn't deny he should pay a share of the cost of the cancellation. His position is that the money used to pay those nonrefundable deposits came from their joint banking account - so he's already paid his share. Hmmm, yeah makes since. Only way I see him losing is if she can prove he never deposited money in the account. Ok, testimony starts and right away intro proves misleading. In addition to cancelled wedding costs - when she hooked up with loser D she loaned him money to catch up with back child support so he could get a city job. So - in addition to back child support and wedding cancellation, seems she also loaned him a couple grand in various other stupid lapses of judgement. Heck, are we sure he canceled the wedding? - sounds like she should have. Ok, D side - he admits she loaned him the money (well, yeah, pretty much has to since MM has just seen her proof) - but he produces proof of a lump sum deposit of 4 grand which he says was repayment and money into their account for the wedding. Hoboy - P really didn't expect him to have proof of this deposit - when MM asks what that money was for if not what he says she just says, no not for that, but I can't exactly recollect just why he deposited 4 grand into our shared account. ... looks bad for her case - but also, why the hell was he behind in child support if he can make 4 grand transfer from his personal account into their joint account - how much was this tax check that supposedly allowed him to make that transfer - who wants to bet only reason dude isn't in arrears on child support today (assuming he is current) is that the city job he was trying for takes money from his check every pay period. Ok now MM is playing at couples counseling - hey, as JJ says, this isn't not Dr Phil, time to fastforward. Surprise P comes out first - so D comes out the winner - didn't stop to listen to decision or hallterview. Edited October 5, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
Silver Raven October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 On 10/1/2018 at 3:58 PM, babs j. said: These days seems like saying "Thank you for your service" is like saying "Bless you" when somebody sneezes. And as a veteran who never saw combat, I never know how to respond. Is "You're welcome" appropriate? I tried to look up the two guys involved in the film editing fiasco, but there are too many Brian Taylors on imdb. I did find the editor, because he gave the name of the film he's working for on his own, and that's the only film under his name. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 (edited) I worked for a lot of years as a civilian for the Army, and someone from my management team came for a tour of our facility, and after he asked how long I'd been in civil service I told him, and he thanked me for my service. Fortunately, that's the only time I was in that particularly awkward situation, since I don't think coping with rush hour traffic is exactly the same as combat. I was absolutely embarrassed about the entire incident. I think it's also tacky when the person says it, and obviously doesn't mean anything to them. I had a co-worker that did that, and the look on the combat veterans faces were really amusing. For some reason he was avoided by a lot of the customers after the first interaction. Once the rest of us found out we stopped that. The cancelled wedding case was so ludicrous, that woman was desperate to land him, and was a fool from the first loan or whatever it was. She certainly didn't have any proof did she? That man is such a loser, and certainly thinks he's the universe's gift to women. However, I'm glad that p. didn't get money for her venue reservation, and her wedding dress, and is lucky she didn't actually marry him, because the divorce would have cost her a bundle. The car case was ridiculous, and I think the p. deserved a big punch in the nose. The TV case, I hope the defendant did just leave the TVs on his lawn, because I bet someone picked them up instantly, and is even now putting them in their illegal apartment, to claim with their valuable household goods when they get evicted, or when their car gets repo'd with the TVs in it. Edited October 4, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
SRTouch October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Silver Raven said: And as a veteran who never saw combat, I never know how to respond. Is "You're welcome" appropriate? Same here.... what was worse was the "hero" stuff after Desert Storm. Sure, some folks performed heroically - but most of us just did our jobs.... and were actually safer than if we had been going through training and driving around in our cars on American Highways. Heck each and every one of us came home "decorated war heroes" ... everyone in the military was awarded some nonsense medal - and those in the war zone received multiple awards for getting off the plane (Navy was there, too) The very best moment for me coming home after Desert Storm - when we landed at the Bangor Maine airport in the middle of the night ... we were met by a big crowd of well wishing strangers - and they pulled out Vietnam vets to finally be welcomed home before the rest of us - that I truly appreciated - I had a cousin come home from Vietnam, wounded on a stretcher, who was greeted by war protesters spitting in his direction when his plane landed in San Francisco. In fact, I put a bumper sticker on my truck saying something along the line of "This Desert Storm Vet Remembers the Vietnam Vets who were NEVER Welcomed Home" - actually, been awhile now... it was probably two separate stickers. .... oh, and in case folks think people learned and treat today's vets any better - over 2300 deaths (over 1800 to hostile fire) and over 20,000 wounded in action in Afghanistan in a war people seem to have forgotten is still going on Yep, "thank you for your service" means about as much as the often heard "have a blessed day" Edited October 5, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 43 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Princess Plaintiff's intro claims she had two brand new flatscreens, I hated that stupid, overly-made up, ignorant little guttersnipe. "I'm homeless because my own family can't stand me so I'm sleeping on various sofas. I thought the best thing in those circumstances was to buy two large-screen TVs. Good idea, right?" Those illiterate "texes" were disgusting, showcasing what a foul creature plaintiff is. Some old guy has the hots for you (and I truly doubt that anything could make the rode hard and put away wet plaintiff "uncomfortable)? Durrr... don't move in with him, you horrible little mooch! But yeah, we know he sold the tvs and so what? She deserved to lose them. Her mother was a nasty beast too. 48 minutes ago, SRTouch said: car sale fail: ah, rolly polly dude bought a used 'Benz What an oily, sleazy, shifty, underhanded gramatically challenged creep he was. Like so many other litigants, he wanted to be a big shot driving a Mercedes and the old beater Mercedes he stupidly bought had "numerous amounts of problems?" Ugh. No, he has no proof the inspection pass was fraudulent, but JM should take his word for it. He doesn't understand the difference between opinion and libel (I guess he graduated at the bottom of his law school class) and he made the used car salesman look good. 55 minutes ago, SRTouch said: wedding called off - bride wants ex to pay for nonrefundable wedding expenses: What a waste of time. Personally, if my betrothed didn't pay his child support and other debts and asked me to pay it all for him, I might reconsider marriage if I weren't desperate to wear a wedding dress to the point where I'd put up with anything in order to do so. Also, he put 4K into the account, but strangely she can't remember why or for what. She doesn't know why such a large sum was deposited. Just trust her - he owes her another 4K for something or other. She's trying to scam all that money from the show, but JM acts like she's a sweet, innocent, young thing (at 36!) who was duped - as IF - and can do better. Go sell the wedding gown on CL or wait til you find another loser to snag. "We was, we was, we was." Enough. 45 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: That man is such a loser, and certainly thinks he's the universe's gift to women. I really can't blame him, or any of the pathetic loser guys we see here, when they have "numerous amounts" of women competing for them or literally fighting tooth and nail in the street for the favours or breeding rights to said losers. 6 Link to comment
babs j. October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 If you were in the military it doesn't matter whether you were ever in combat or not - and especially now that there is no draft. You gave a period of time in the service of your country. My father served in the Army during WWII. He was in the Persian Gulf - his outfit made trucks that carried supplies. If there had been an invasion of Japan he would have been part of it- and I might never have been born. During Bush the Elder's Persian Gulf war my father frequently pointed how cool it was - NOT. Not everyone in the military saw combat, even during an active war. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama October 5, 2018 Share October 5, 2018 Another tow case where the idiot p. thought he was special, and didn't have to follow the rules. How does anyone like the trailer woman ever get someone to work for them? Another person that wants a lot for nothing. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo October 5, 2018 Share October 5, 2018 (edited) On 04/10/2018 at 11:33 AM, CrazyInAlabama said: Bimbo couch surfer had enough makeup to cover a small country, eyeliner all over the place, microbladed brows, and is still mooching? She looked like a porcelain doll, as if her make-up had been sprayed on in several applications. I fully expected it to crack if she attempted a smile or any facial expression. 20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The car case was ridiculous, and I think the p. deserved a big punch in the nose. Or in a more sensitive part of his body since I don't think his head is very strong on sensory perception or sensitivity. Edited October 5, 2018 by Florinaldo 6 Link to comment
zillabreeze October 5, 2018 Share October 5, 2018 On 10/2/2018 at 10:50 PM, AngelaHunter said: Maybe, but she would have ripped this snotty bitch a new one, not gazed admiringly at her and inflated her delusional ego further, while gushing how she'd love to hang out with her. JM is a 56-year old, educated woman, prosecutor and judge and she would like to schmooze with a "miserable piece of lying, irresposible, ignorant piece of shit"? What would they "conversate" about? Fake nails? Inappropriate clothes? Maybe JM was being uber-sarcastic? I would like to think so, but no doubt I'm dead wrong. I've seen JM on talk shows, etc and she fully admits to loving her botox & other procedures. My theory, fwiw, is that she is very insecure about aging and she's trying to seem hip and young by "relating" to some of these girls. Aging seems to be so much harder on women that were super attractive in the earlier days. An issue I certainly can't relate to. 2 Link to comment
babs j. October 5, 2018 Share October 5, 2018 I posted yesterday - re Silver Raven's post about my father's WWII service. What he and the others there in the Persian Gulf were doing was building trucks to take materials to drivers who took those materials to keep the Germans from getting to the Caucasus oil fields. No combat but a necessary job - and, in 1994, a very nice medal from the Russian government. 1 Link to comment
WhitneyWhit October 5, 2018 Share October 5, 2018 Today's first case was truly bizarre. Old man is suing his much younger ex girlfriend for $2500: $2000 for a loan and $500 for bail. D says those were gifts because they were dating but this is where it gets truly bizarre; in an effort to get SSI for her daughter, D signs over power of attorney of her life till 2040 to P. We've seen people go out of their to get something for free on this show, but this may take the cake. D says it wasn't for SSI, just for "legal stuff" but P disagrees. D says she was manipulated because he used his age and his "wisdom". When pressed on what exactly she means, D says he "told her what to do and she did it". P says it was for SSI and he set up numerous appointments for her to get SSI and she missed them all. MM explains to D what exactly the power of attorney means and D says she doesn't really want it so MM tears the paper up. After some more back and forth, MM agrees that the money was loans and P wins the amount he's suing for. P has a counter claim for "emotional distress" to the tune of $1,000 but it's dismissed. I haven't seen the last two cases yet due to a phone call. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 5, 2018 Share October 5, 2018 24 minutes ago, WhitneyWhit said: Today's first case was truly bizarre. "Distasteful" is what JM called it. More like disgusting, but hardly unusual. Randy old goat, maybe with a pocketful of Viagra, wants to get his liver-spotted hands on some young stuff - she was 29 and he, 69 - and doesn't care if she's a violent, ignorant and parasitic lamprey. That's okay with him and it seems he's been bankrolling her ever since. It's a business deal - sugar daddy and young thing - and I would bet no one takes advantage of the hard-bitten def, who claims she doesn't know what she signs, and agrees to be the old boy's tootsie in exchange for his "wisdom", advice and guidance concerning what's really important in life - SSI, welfare, food stamps and all that good stuff. She's disabled with a heart murmur (oh, wait - no. Her daughter is disabled and needs the SSI) but def is disabled too. They're both disabled. She may be unable to do any paying job, but her heart condition didn't prevent her from engaging in such domestic violence against her unemployed boyfriend that she got hauled off to the slammer, or "busted" as the plaintiff said. I guarantee any job she might get (as if!) wouldn't be as strenuous as the beatdown she probably administered to her hapless loverboy. She has to pay the 2500$ she agreed to repay Grandpa. In the contractor case, I really thought it was yet another underhanded person ripping off someone who did hard work. I love surprises like this! Turns out the plaintiff contractor, who looks about 80 and shouldn't be climbing on roofs, and his uber-creepy son did one of the worst jobs ever seen here, so def refused to pay him the rest of the money he claimed he was owed. Def should have told him everything was a mess and the roof edge didn't line up and allowed water to pour through it, because even though he did the job he had no idea how bad it was. Really, I think I could do a better job. Pictures say a thousand words and plaintiff gets nothing. Then we had plaintiff suing for towing costs. The senior residence in which he lives changed tow companies so all the residents had to change the stickers on their cars. Plaintiff (looking very good for 63) says the management person called him early and told him he better come get his sticker lest his car be towed. He ran down to the lobby, without even having time to shower, shave, brush his teeth and all that stuff, to get it. He doesn't bother walking a few more steps outside to actually put it on his car though, and by the time he decides to go out in his car at around 4:30, it's been towed. He claims the person who gave him the sticker told him there's no hurry and that the tow people won't be there until evening. If that were true, why would he have been asked to jump out of bed so early and run down to get the sticker? It's always someone else's fault. The whole thing is silly and he also gets nothing. 4 Link to comment
aemom October 5, 2018 Share October 5, 2018 On 10/4/2018 at 5:48 PM, AngelaHunter said: What an oily, sleazy, shifty, underhanded gramatically challenged creep he was. MM: Do you use the name Robert something as a pseudonym? OSSUGCC: "a what?" Me: *shakes head* On 10/4/2018 at 5:48 PM, AngelaHunter said: What a waste of time. Personally, if my betrothed didn't pay his child support and other debts and asked me to pay it all for him, I might reconsider marriage if I weren't desperate to wear a wedding dress to the point where I'd put up with anything in order to do so. Also, he put 4K into the account, but strangely she can't remember why or for what. She doesn't know why such a large sum was deposited. Just trust her - he owes her another 4K for something or other. She's trying to scam all that money from the show, but JM acts like she's a sweet, innocent, young thing (at 36!) who was duped - as IF - and can do better. Go sell the wedding gown on CL or wait til you find another loser to snag. "We was, we was, we was." Enough. The first words out of her mouth were "Me and him were engaged." ARGH!!!!!!!!! 3 hours ago, zillabreeze said: I've seen JM on talk shows, etc and she fully admits to loving her botox & other procedures. My theory, fwiw, is that she is very insecure about aging and she's trying to seem hip and young by "relating" to some of these girls. Aging seems to be so much harder on women that were super attractive in the earlier days. An issue I certainly can't relate to. You can tell that she loves her botox, because her face doesn't have a line on it, but you can see her age on her neck. I wish that women would stop with all the botox because I'm sure MM would be just as beautiful, just more realistic looking. I missed Wednesdays episodes because my DVR was sulking and didn't record anything that day and I had to reboot it that evening. :-( But, it doesn't sound like I missed anything terribly interesting. :-) 3 Link to comment
NYGirl October 5, 2018 Share October 5, 2018 I have nothing to add...you expressed my thoughts perfectly AngelaHunter. Thank you. 1 Link to comment
aemom October 6, 2018 Share October 6, 2018 (edited) The couch surfing girl that bought the TVs - MM threw the book at her and there was nothing there implying that she was cute and sweet, yet she wanted to be BFFs with "new license girl that crashed the car and lied to her mother about it." I would love to get into MM's head to see what exactly makes the difference between fawning over a litigant or raking them over the coals. Edited October 6, 2018 by AEMom Typo 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 6, 2018 Share October 6, 2018 2 hours ago, AEMom said: The couch surfing girl that bought the TVs - MM threw the book at her and there was nothing there implying that she was cute and sweet Yes, and even annoying and dopey as TV girl was, in no way was she as rude, obnoxious and attitude-laden as the car crasher. It's really a mystery as to why JM finds some litigants, no matter what awful things they've done and who stand there lying to her face, so appealing. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 6, 2018 Share October 6, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Yes, and even annoying and dopey as TV girl was, in no way was she as rude, obnoxious and attitude-laden as the car crasher. It's really a mystery as to why JM finds some litigants, no matter what awful things they've done and who stand there lying to her face, so appealing. Both young women acted like entitled brats. Yeah TV girl thought she was oh so special that dude found her irresistible and that everyone should go out of their way for her - even after she sent nasty texes to dude he was still expected to provide free storage.... but she wasn't hiding anything, she just believes her wants are more important than anyone else's. What bothered me most of new license girl was her dishonesty about.... everything to everybody. Not entirely her fault, either - I imagine she learned her dishonesty from her mommy, who apparently had no problem letting an unauthorized driver drive her rental.... I wanted to ask if mommy ever drove the rental, or if it was rented for brand new license girl to get some experience driving before driving mommy's ride... like I said, girl probably learned her dishonesty watching mommy. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 (edited) They have the rerun of the despicable woman who hired a handyman in Florida to watch her Snow Bird property, for the huge sum of $40 a month, and a couple of hurricanes happened, and there was a lot of damage. She blamed the handyman for everything, and with zero evidence she got a permanent restraining order against him, and his guns were all confiscated, and I hope he's petitioned a judge with a brain to get the order lifted, and his guns back. I hate people playing the little old lady card, and expecting to get everything for nothing, I hope no one in the area will watch her property ever again, and the neighborhood vandals have a permanent party in her living room. I do love the following case, where the lying taxi cab driver got towed, called the Judge "Miss", which sent her into orbit, and it turns out he lied about having a parking permit for the cab, instead of the legal one for his wife's car. Many HOAs don't allow commercial vehicle parking, so I'm betting he couldn't get a sticker for the cab anyway. Was the snow bird house near Tampa? If so, Tampa will be getting at least wind, and a bunch of rain from Hurricane Michael, and I'm hoping no one else agreed to take care of her house, or maybe she actually moved there early this year, and can experience what it's like to be on the edges of a real Florida storm. Edited October 9, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 (edited) trailer stolen out of storage lot: ???? P says his rented storage space from D to store his trailer - trailer stolen - he wants $4326.14. D doesn't deny trailer was stolen - says there was a break in - cops caught the thieves - just too bad P's trailer wasn't recovered - but, hey, right there in the contract it says "not liable" (fairly common occurrence unless you're willing to pay for a place with added security) if something goes missing. Sort of have to agree with her, otherwise ever time there is a break in her customers would want her to replace the crown jewels they had in their unit along with the rusty brand new patio furniture and broken down only used once lawnmower.... don't hold out much hope for P getting his 4 grand unless he can prove negligence on D's part - especially if there's a written contract. Predict a boring case - but who knows. Testimony starts - we learn P was storing his 22 ft enclosed, car hauler trailer there since Sept (?) 2017 - paying $90 a month. His trailer was in a locked space, when he went to pick up the trailer in Dec it was gone and his lock had been replaced. Owner of storage place was there, but when P asked about his missing property was told it could be halfway to Texas. P called cops, police report made. Ah, here's question I was waiting for - dude has this trailer worth 4 grand, was paying $90 a month to store it in a lot with a contract disclaiming any liability - but, no, had no insurance. Not only that, but he admits he signed the storage contract, just didn't read it, and they didn't give him a copy of what he signed at the time so he could read it later before he filed it away - heck, later on it sounds like contract makes a point that customers ought to insure their stuff. Not sure how he expects to win anything, and I get why storage owner didn't bother to come and sent the manager. D has already won, just based on P's own testimony and evidence. Course, this is TPC, still have 15 more minutes alloted, so no JJ yelling NEXT!!! Ah seems P threw a temper tantrum when he found his trailer missing, lots of screaming and yelling, and poor manager was scared dude was going to hit her. Ah, seems P was first to notice the break in - several other units broken into - and apparently the bad guys loaded up their loot in P's trailer - P even brought a video... maybe good for case against the crooks - but not going to help his case today - besides can't see anything on his phone video anyway. Yep, crooks caught and locked up after being nabbed with stuff from one of the other units, and later confessed to the break in. Ah, but D apparently wasn't eager to share that info that the crook was arrested with P after he flew off the handle when he found his trailer gone. MM is right to suggest D should have let all the victims know the crook had been arrested - maybe the cops could have gotten more info that would have ledone to more stuff being recovered. Ok, nothing case should be about over - but there's a twist. Seems after the trailer was stolen the storage people rented out his space before his time was up - yep, he paid for Dec, but when he went to the lot on Dec 31st his gate was locked with someone else's lock - adding insult to injury, the the new lock was using HIS chain. Ah, but he can't even testify about how long someone else's lock was on the gate - and D is saying she didn't rent it again until his rental was up. MM says he should at least the get back the 1 day ($11) he has video evidence of someone else's lock being on the gate - and suggests as good faith gesture they ought to return the Dec rent ($90). D gives in, agrees to return $90.... Guess that makes P the winner. Ah, funny hallterview - well, not the hallterview, but P's witness - who apparently witnessed nothing - takes a quick selfie with Doug. car rental nonsense: ???? yet another P rented a car for someone else, and then is shocked and dismayed when her long time friend takes advantage of her generosity by returning car damaged. (Yet another litigant planning to hit the club as soon as the gavel falls - in fact both sides failed the "dress for court" test.) This looks to be another yawner. If intro is to be believed, D's defense that she returned the car undamaged, and it took the rental company (Enterprise) a week to discover the damage. She feels P should protest the damage. Whole think sounds shady - I'm wondering if D (who can't rent her own car because of her bad credit and no bank account) was an authorized driver. Not liking either side - especially not liking D's position that nothing is her problem after her long time friend went out on the limb for her - after all, she had a couple other fools friends willing to rent the car for her. Ok - bunch of nonsense with D about to put me to sleep explaining the rental deal, you know how she expected the $250 deposit to be returned at ghe end of the week, so since Enterprise is claiming $750 in damage she didn't get back the deposit, yada yada.... huh, not sure what the hell her reasoning is. Sounds like the rental was $259 with additional $250 deposit, and now Enterprise wants the damage covered - MM asks D several times why P should be on the hook for any of that, and just more circular non-logic answering nothing. Heck, it took a couple tries to get D to say how long the rental was for and why she wanted the car.... I'm losing interest fast in this one ? - and that's with having little interest to begin with ?. MM wastes some time poking fun at D and her conspiracy theory that the employees at Enterprise maybe get a cut when they make up imaginary damages - but what I get from her story just reinforces the theory she was never an authorized driver and both litigants defrauded Enterprise. Liberal use of FF button is made. Decision time - D has to pay - oh, and while she was driving around she apparently also managed to pick up tickets which get tacked on to the Enterprise bill. Hmmmm, also seems D was driving around without insurance. Not interested enough to go back and see if she would have been covered had she been an authorized driver, but sounds like P just declined the insurance. In hallterview D expresses disbelief and outrage that P didn't pay for insurance. Private iPhone sale: ??P bought a used phone - phone locks up after he has it for awhile - wants back what he paid plus. D says he buys and sells used phones. Says a couple months after he sold P the phone, it was reported stolen and locked up - says not his problem, no refunds. Ok, over can see a market for used phones - after all people seem to buy the latest and greatest and ditch phones several generations above the phone I use everyday. Only questions are where D gets his merchandise, and if P has to share the pain for buying a questionable phone. Ok, after intro we get a preview clip of MM asking D if he's selling stolen phones and dufus saying yeah ? before trying to snatch the incriminating answer back into his mouth. Ok, transaction took place off some online thing - like CL but not CL. Hmmm that may be what saves P here - since this was done online he might have texts where D assures him phone is good and proof in texts where D gives money back satisfaction guaranteed. Ok, P hard to listen to - D even more so. D admits he buys and sells phones - admits phone he sold P was reported lost or stolen by original owner... case over, only question is how much will P get. He paid $450, but has tacked on time and travel expenses he's out dealing with this mess. I say give him back the $450, but nothing for the rest. Not that interesting, I zip through rest of case at the 50 minute mark - yep, MM returns the purchase price. Edited October 8, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
aemom October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 (edited) On 10/5/2018 at 6:00 PM, AngelaHunter said: "Distasteful" is what JM called it. More like disgusting, but hardly unusual. Randy old goat, maybe with a pocketful of Viagra, wants to get his liver-spotted hands on some young stuff - she was 29 and he, 69 - and doesn't care if she's a violent, ignorant and parasitic lamprey. That was such a bizarre case along with the power of attorney until 2040. Just - wow! On 10/5/2018 at 6:00 PM, AngelaHunter said: In the contractor case, I really thought it was yet another underhanded person ripping off someone who did hard work. I love surprises like this! Turns out the plaintiff contractor, who looks about 80 and shouldn't be climbing on roofs, and his uber-creepy son did one of the worst jobs ever seen here, so def refused to pay him the rest of the money he claimed he was owed. Def should have told him everything was a mess and the roof edge didn't line up and allowed water to pour through it, because even though he did the job he had no idea how bad it was. Really, I think I could do a better job. Pictures say a thousand words and plaintiff gets nothing. I was thinking the very same thing, and it really was a very shitty job. On 10/5/2018 at 6:00 PM, AngelaHunter said: Then we had plaintiff suing for towing costs. The senior residence in which he lives changed tow companies so all the residents had to change the stickers on their cars. Plaintiff (looking very good for 63) says the management person called him early and told him he better come get his sticker lest his car be towed. He ran down to the lobby, without even having time to shower, shave, brush his teeth and all that stuff, to get it. He doesn't bother walking a few more steps outside to actually put it on his car though, and by the time he decides to go out in his car at around 4:30, it's been towed. He claims the person who gave him the sticker told him there's no hurry and that the tow people won't be there until evening. If that were true, why would he have been asked to jump out of bed so early and run down to get the sticker? It's always someone else's fault. The whole thing is silly and he also gets nothing. The P knew the jog was up. He had a very guilty smile and was grasping at straws. Today's cases were very boring and I can't do any better than SRTouch's summary. The trailer case never should have come on the air because he didn't have a leg to stand on. The P was a fool to rent a car for her creditor-avoiding-friend, and if you buy a 2nd hand phone in a gas station parking lot, I'm sorry but you get what you pay for. I'm surprised that the P got any money back at all. Edited to add: Happy Thanksgiving to all Canadian viewers! Edited October 8, 2018 by AEMom Forgot something 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 Good part of today's cases: The first two had litigants who could all speak proper English. So rare and unusual is that it made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Not so good was plaintiff in storage unit place. "Of course I didn't read the contract I signed which clearly says that tenants must get their own insurance and the company is not responsible for any losses." So, does not reading what you sign absolve you from abiding by the clauses in a contract? It does not. I also believed def. when she said plaintiff acted like a screeching maniac in her office and on the phone. His failure to insure his own property must be someone else's fault, as per usual here. Car rental. What a mess. Yeah, I'd put my credit on the line for some deadbeat who stiffs everyone she owes, to the point where she cannot have a bank account and must pay everything in cash, lest those she stiffed seize her money. Plaintiff had no problem defrauding the car rental company in aid of her weirdo buddy who says she needed the rental to go find "my own personal car" - as opposed to her corporate vehicle? There was something really "off" about the def's affect and I have no idea what the plaintiff was thinking that she would agree to all this. Of course plaintiff has no proof of anything "with me." Why would she need proof about the very thing for which she is suing? Def. in the hall:(paraphrased)"Of course I would have paid the insurance even if it were 20$/day, but how was I to know you need insurance on a vehicle you drive? Someone else's fault, for sure." And she has a kid. *sigh* The Phone Phools. Forget that. I really need the lastest and greatest phone, but can't afford it so I'll buy a used one from some anonymous stranger online who assures me it's not stolen. Whatever. Annoying morons. JM? Again with the "It's judge, not "m'am." Like, since when? When this show opens (and after I've gone off "mute" to avoid the Scumbag's stupidity) and when Douglas hands her the case files, she says, "Thank you Douglas" and he replies, "You're welcome, m'am" I'm going to be waiting for her to snap at him, "It's not M'AM." Even JJ is fine with "m'am" and even with "Sir". The only address she's ever objected to is when some lamebrain calls her "Judy." 34 minutes ago, AEMom said: Happy Thanksgiving to all Canadian viewers! Thank you!:) 3 Link to comment
aemom October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: JM? Again with the "It's judge, not "m'am." Like, since when? When this show opens (and after I've gone off "mute" to avoid the Scumbag's stupidity) and when Douglas hands her the case files, she says, "Thank you Douglas" and he replies, "You're welcome, m'am" I'm going to be waiting for her to snap at him, "It's not M'AM." That's right! I also did a double take during the episode because that's twice in a week. I watched 6 cases today (Friday's ep and today's) and there were a lot of ma'ams being said. I don't get it. When does it set her off and why? The cases are filmed and then edited into episodes out of sequence. Maybe at some point, she woke up one morning and said "that's it - no more ma'am! It's your honour, your majesty, or your highness," and we're seeing some of her "new" rules sprinkled in with the "old" ones? 2 Link to comment
Brattinella October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 1 hour ago, AEMom said: Happy Thanksgiving to all Canadian viewers! Do you good Canadian folks do/eat anything special on this day? Happy Thanksgiving! 2 Link to comment
aemom October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 10 minutes ago, Brattinella said: Do you good Canadian folks do/eat anything special on this day? Happy Thanksgiving! Canadians do the whole turkey thing with cranberries, stuffing, potatoes, and whatnot. Some people are into the pumpkin pie, but we had apple at our celebration. I think most of us actually do the turkey dinner on Saturday or Sunday since we're all back at work tomorrow. Today was laundry and ironing day for me - hence time to catch up on TPC. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 I did enjoy the defendant admitting the phones he sell are hot, but that was the only one. I can't believe anyone rents a car for someone else to drive who has no credit, no insurance, and probably doesn't know what a driver's license is. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I can't believe anyone rents a car for someone else to drive who has no credit, no insurance, and probably doesn't know what a driver's license is. Did we ever find out if she has a license? I have a feeling she does not. She wants to keep herself below the radar. I wonder how she supports herself and her kid. The way some people live never fails to amaze me. 58 minutes ago, Brattinella said: Do you good Canadian folks do/eat anything special on this day? Happy Thanksgiving! Thank you! Thanksgiving is very low-key, family-type and non-commercial holiday here - the only one that is. 2 Link to comment
aemom October 8, 2018 Share October 8, 2018 50 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Did we ever find out if she has a license? That question did not come up, but it's a good one. 1 Link to comment
AZChristian October 9, 2018 Share October 9, 2018 14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Did we ever find out if she has a license? I have a feeling she does not. Wait a minute . . . you mean you can't just pay a daily fee for a driver's license, like the insurance? How on EARTH could the plaintiff rent her a car and not provide insurance OR a license!!! The NERVE of some people!!!!! 2 Link to comment
SRTouch October 9, 2018 Share October 9, 2018 (edited) another late start - case #1 - silly non-case with suit filed by Bridezilla - sort of fun because of outrageous damage claim - SORRY - ran out of time. case 2# intro makes this case sound like ploy used in pending eviction. case #3 car crash - El cheapo insurance lousy wedding photos: P paid in full up front - upset that wedding photographer took too long to deliver her pics - doesn't like the pics she received - wants back every penny ($3573.22).... yeah, like that's ever going to happen.... D argues she shot pictures for 10 hours in 3 different locations - she earned the money and feels new bride is looking for free pics... what struck me when I paused intro to type - I would expect a photographer to know something about symmetry, so the way she's dressed just struck me as strange - not that there's anything wrong with her outfit, just that symmetry is off with the sweater - but hey, maybe her pics are fabulous and she doesn't waste time on dressing just right... testimony starts and right off the bat I have a problem with the bride's case. Not only is she after a full refund - even though she received the pics - but she paid $1600 and is suing for an extra 2 grand. Seems like a real bargain, but having never paid for a wedding photographer I googled "average cost of wedding pictures" and received an average of between $2,500 and $10,000 for 8 hours - yep, bargain basement price. Anyway, pictures were taken, D sent the bride some samples, time goes by - P starts reaching out to check on the progress of the wedding album - and she complains photographer is ignoring her texts and emails - says she had her wedding coordinator/friend call, and her friend was told D had been sick, but was working on it - and besides, the contract allowed for 90 days and 90 days hasn't past yet. Ah, but once the 90 day mark has arrived and gone, Bride and her friend reach out again - pics still not ready, and photographer says it will be another couple weeks. Now P is getting fed up, she wants what she wants - now (quick camera switch, and we see D scrolling down through her phone messages) P says when she heard about the two week delay she started asking for some money back since D failed to deliver on time as agreed in the contract. Ah, this is when the owner, Bill, of the photo business got involved - and guess what, Bill is actually here to answer questions. Ok, turns out she didn't purchase a printed wedding album - for her cut rate package she was to get a zip drive of pictures - which she received a couple weeks late. Contract called for 4-600 pictures, she received 475. Seems another complaint P has is that she wasn't happy with the editing. (Yep contract specifies pics were to be edited.) So, first she gets mad because she can't get her pics early, then even madder because she gets them late, now she doesn't like the way they look when viewed on screen... hey, unless photographer totally messed up composition and lighting, pretty much anything can be salvaged in editing before printing - and the final editing isn't going to be done until it goes to be printed - I wonder if the other 2 grand she's suing for is the cost she paid someone else for final editing and prints. At most I'd say give the P a rebate since both sides agree D delivered the photos late... heck, then MM gets into specifics - what didn't P like about the pictures - and we are show an email complaining about a couple pics - essentially nonsense - 1) she complains about a couple shots of makeup artists makeup... yeah, I wouldn't want it, but someone might, and she received hundreds of other pics, then 2) a group photo which shows another photographer on the edge of the frame - lady, crop them out or use any of the numerous other group shots. Bride's case going into the crapper fast, and defendant hasn't really needed to say much of anything yet. Oh my, then MM starts tearing into the list of other nonsense P is suing for. Contract called for 2 people to take pictures for at least 8 hours - ended up they were there 10 hours - and P wants a $95 deduction in the price because they took a dinner break?!? And what's this nonsense about charging the photographer the cost of the Thank You cards? P didn't have much of a case to begin with, but more we hear of this nonsense the less of a rebate I'm willing to give for not delivering on time. More nonsense and guesstimates and we get to the $3573.22 she's suing for - of course included is money for the time and mental anguish of having to wait and then needed to re-edit before getting prints. Oh, and turns out MM points out that the 90 days is subject to interpretation, since what contract states is approximately 90 days, not 90 days - anyway, P wasn't supposed to receive the the finished product at that time, but a 'first draft' where P could make comments and/or complaints and D would address any issues. Heck, she doesn't even deserve a rebate - and D still hasn't had to say much... Okkkkkkk, case cut short - case tossed without D having to say much - and poor Bill - we finally have a witness who might have actually been a witness to something, but turns out all he did was raise his hand when MM asked if he was the Bill who talked with P. Hallterview - more of the same, with Doug just finished saying how delay was caused by photographer being sick and P claiming how unprofessional D was for not delivering on time for no reason at all. tenant suing - but not over deposit this time: P claims that landlord is responsible for stuff going missing from her place - wants 5 grand because her George Foreman grill was stolen (along with a few other things). D says the stuff was stolen after there was a dryer fire and the Red Cross put her up in temporary lodging. Doesn't deny stuff was stolen, but says a neighbor was the thief - and thief was caught. Agrees he entered her place while she was in temporary lodging - but only to repair the fire damage.... this looks to be waste of time case - probably has nothing establishing value of what was stolen, and nothing showing D took anything - especially if someone else was nabbed robbing her.... oh, and possible motive for the nonsense case - D is in process of evicting P. Ah, well, running out of time - so not a full recap as I need to eat and get ready for work..... just short note.... while P is talking about the fire she mentions she tried to smother fire with flour - uh, no! Never use flour on a fire - or sugar! https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dn-tD2bfj3Is&ved=2ahUKEwi4na2_l_rdAhXDz1MKHSNZAV8QjjgwDHoECAkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1W-Fv_CrmZBBQdMnvz3vCD quick summary - D ran stop sign - P parked car damaged - P wants lottery win and had iffy filing papers - did P collect anything from insurance or not - why is he asking for 4 grand when he bought car at auction for $1500 and has already sold car for 2 grand without doing any repairs? That's it for today Edited October 9, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 9, 2018 Share October 9, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: lousy wedding photos: P paid in full up front - upset that wedding photographer took too long to deliver her pics Wow, a true Bridezilla. She wants a lottery win because she didn't like a couple of pics and didn't get them until 2 weeks past the promised delivery date. And did I hear correctly that she bitched because the photographer got dinner??? I remember my wedding photos. It took months to get them, they were nowhere near 475 pics, yet I didn't harass the photographer or decide his work should all be for free. Oh, and we even paid for his dinner! 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: and P wants a $95 deduction in the price because they took a dinner break?!? Okay, I see I did hear it. Just... wow. How dare they want to eat? 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing - but not over deposit this time: Yet more of the Great Entitled. Taxpayers shell out for the rent for her place, and the Red Cross pays for her hotel, but it's not enough. She had exactly 1000$ of jewelry and another 1000$ of canned food, paper towels etc that def landlord stole from her. Must have been one hell of a canned food and top-of-the-line sundry stockpile she had there. The chilling, reptilian glare she fixed on JM was freaking me out. I had to stop and don't know if she got any money. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: so not a full recap as I need to eat and get ready for work..... Work? Silly you - haven't you figured out yet how to get Byrd to support you? Car dealer and def whose brake pedal miraculously turned into an accelerator (or "exhilarator" in litigant-speak) was boring. And annoying. 4 Link to comment
Cobalt Stargazer October 9, 2018 Share October 9, 2018 Why does the guy who summarizes the cases sound like Mr. Moviefone? 1 Link to comment
aemom October 10, 2018 Share October 10, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: lousy wedding photos: but she paid $1600 and is suing for an extra 2 grand. Seems like a real bargain, but having never paid for a wedding photographer I googled "average cost of wedding pictures" and received an average of between $2,500 and $10,000 for 8 hours - yep, bargain basement price. When I got married back in the 90's, the photos were on film with negatives. I paid $750 for about 3-4 hours if I recall. That included an album of about 75 regular sized photos and 25 8 x 10s. I didn't have to feed him because he left before dinner. I could have had him stay for another couple of hours but that would have cost another $250 + dinner and that was out of budget. But my photos were lovely and frankly, I would have loved having a flash drive with hundreds of photos like you can get now. I have no recollection at all about how long it took me to get them. I got them when I got them. So, I think she did just fine with her $1,600. Her lawsuit was a model example of "ka-ching ka-ching." D should pay for the thank you cards and postage. Puh-lease! 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Yet more of the Great Entitled. Taxpayers shell out for the rent for her place, and the Red Cross pays for her hotel, but it's not enough. She had exactly 1000$ of jewelry and another 1000$ of canned food, paper towels etc that def landlord stole from her. Must have been one hell of a canned food and top-of-the-line sundry stockpile she had there. The chilling, reptilian glare she fixed on JM was freaking me out. I had to stop and don't know if she got any money. Let's not forget that this woman was Section-8. I'm sure that there are many honest people on Section-8, but they never seem to be the ones on TPC. Her claim for all her stuff was absurd. She got nothing! 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Work? Silly you - haven't you figured out yet how to get Byrd to support you? Ha Ha Ha! The judgement for the guy who's brakes failed and went through the stop sign: I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I think that the D's insurance should have to pay the $2,200 they originally offered and that the D would be on the hook for the other $100. Perhaps he can get the judgement back from the insurance company. I did believe the defendant. So many of these litigants are driving hoopties. I can easily see the brakes failing on these cars and I'm surprised that we don't see that more often on TPC. Apparently "ma'am" was A-OK today. ;-) Edited October 10, 2018 by AEMom Forgot something 6 Link to comment
SRTouch October 10, 2018 Share October 10, 2018 (edited) first case waste of time ?, but ends with a bang? my advice - watch first few minutes, then skip to watch MM give P the boot and the hallterview. case 2: basketball camp fail??? boring case - but hope kids had fun case 3: ???? yet another bargin basement install job bust not proofed - so lots of typos tenant sues landlord: P intro talks about illegal lockout resulting in lost property and harrassment cuz she's so young and beautiful and landlord is old, mean and ugly and stuck in bad marriage... looking at her - nope, not seeing it, but there's no accounting for taste - to each their own, etc etc... she wants $4575. No surprise, D had whole other story of events (wow, this guy got all dressed ip, and makes his entrance into court a production - pausing after coming through the doors so everyone can admire his shiny blue suit before continuing to lectern - we get quick glimpse of Douglas as he pats Defendant lectern and directs dude where to stand) - says he had her evicted for nonpayment of rent, and when marshals escorted her out she abandoned the 'lost' property (bedroom furniture) - says when evicted she owed over 5 grand. Oh dear, listening to MM intro to case we learn P was a long time tenant, and did I just hear she's suing over furniture left behind 13 years ago. (Oh, and while MM is introducing case P is standing there with zip evidence (turns out she has it on florr in a bag) and it looks like D has lots and lots of folders and papers - wonder if any of it is actually evidence from the distance past.) Yep, once P starts talking she confirms she moved out long ago - she says 2006 - geez, guess D keeps his records forEVER if all that paperwork is from back then. She tries to gloss over the whole eviction thing, but messes up when she mentions the marshals were there to put her out. Ok, couple things - first, JJ would be asking - where have you been the last 12-13 years? Unless she has something much more current, this case is a waste of airtime chosen because of the older married guy harrassing pretty young thing angle. I guess the 'over 5 grand' owed in back rent question was settled way back when during the eviction proceedings which is why there is no countersuit. Ah, 'nother chuckle - while this deadbeat tenant was being escorted out of her abode by marshals for not paying rent, she was working for a real estate agency. Ok, not believing anything she's telling us - claims she owed no back rent, never served with eviction papers - yet, as MM points out, marshals don't just come to put you out. If not for the fact that she seems very well spoken for a court TV litigants I'd stop listening and zip on through to hear landlord dude (ah, also want to hear MM's reaction to this story.) Uh oh, MM just crossed over to D, and I need CC to figure out what he's saying. So, didn't she tell us she was working for a realty agency? Then why did D just say she was on welfare? Maybe I misheard, she says she was looking for a new place - so maybe she was working 'with' a broker looking for new digs? Doesn't matter, case going nowhere fast and I'm picking up the remote. Ok, no notice of eviction is bull, oh, and dude says he has the eviction paperwork here (imagine that, not only has evidence, but brought it to court). I put the remote down as they move on to next part of her claim. Seems when she received her tax refund (again, way back in '07) $1500 was taken out of her account - yeah, sounds about right, if he received a judgement at the eviction hearing for the back rent. Ditzy beautiful young thing's response when MM points out that he had every right to use the judgement to collect $1500 of the over $5000 owed, "Yeah" Uh, guess she was actually a real estate agency employee, as she just said at the time she was a "foreclosure specialist" - really, an agency had this deadbeat welfare evicted squatter working on their foreclosures? Geez, MM is mocking P's professed ignorance of the whole eviction process, and all P's response - "Right!" Really P is proving to be the best witness D could ask for. Soooo, according to her own testimony, in '07 D received $1500, then in '15 an additional $75 towards the over 5 grand she owes - but when MM asks D says none of that is true, says he's received nothing. Ok, guess she DOES have some paperwork - when asked she starts digging through papers to prove money was taken from her account... hmmm, wonder if the judgement went to a collection agency - yep, D says, it went to collections but he never received anything. So, back to P's evidence - or rather non-evidence, she hands up papers, but nothing showing this money being taken out - oh, she explains, when she tried to get the evidence her bank said records don't go back that far - so now she tries to give the judge a card, saying just call this number and the person who answers will back up my nonsense. Really!?! After waiting 12 years to file the case her evidence is to give a jydge a business card? Ok, back to thinking this is big waste of time, when it goes to commercial I don't bother to stop FF... ah, but then have to rewind a bit.... seems MM gets fed up with P shouting out and gives her standard 'why are you talking when you hear words coming out of my mouth'. P response, 'cuz you're not listening to me!' And Douglas gets to escort her out after MM gives her the boot. Ah, not going to rewind, but from the ruling - at some point, 11 years after the judgement date, P went back to court and got the original judgement set aside. Then she sent notice that the ruling had been set aside to the address D lived at a decade ago - which he never received. After giving P the boot, MM takes time to explain she doesn't understand why a judge would reverse an 11yo eviction hearing settlement - says she never would - but for today P case dismissed. Says D could look into reopening the can of worms by going back to court and trying to reverse the reversal - but why bother if she hasn't paid off the decade plus old settlement. MM leaves after commenting on the "nasty mouthed" P she gave the boot to. Meanwhile, P is out waiting to blast MM during hallterview. She's going back to civil court, MM is nothing to her, but God Bless her on her Journey. Ah, and when D comes out, he also says he's going to pursue the case til he gets paid. kids' summer camp feud: claim for ten grand involving dispute over who should pay some expenses for a summer basketball program. P wants to be reimbursed for money she spent on a van to carry kids around - D says she's a rabid soccer basketball mom who spent money because her son was involved - she volunteered the van, he's not paying. Ok, google results https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jelani_Gardner for defendant - seems he had a troubled basketball career. Involved in scandal in college basketball involving accusations of NCAA violation, not drafted to NBA because of kidney disease (eventually requiring a transplant) ended up playing in minor leagues and professional ball in France. The France bit is sort of relevant, because when he wanted to run a basketball Summer camp he brought along some players from the French league. I imagine a NBA player would have a team of advisors making all the arrangements for a camp - but D's camp was short of funds and sort of haphazard. Which is where P stepped in to help with transportation - she says she was to be paid - he says she was volunteering to help out. Her suit is for expenses- plus aggravation - lots of aggravation - bringing total to California max of 10 grand. Ok.... not exactly what I thought - seems he brought 29 French kids to the US to take part in a traveling children basketball league all over the States. Ah, but still underfunded - if I'm hearing right he was trying to operate with 20% of the needed funds up front - he says rest was supposed to be paid when kids arrived in States, but wasn't. Soooooo, P was acting as a host family, and when meany car rental place wouldn't provide a van on the promise that they would be paid - someday - P stepped in and paid for the rental of a 12 passenger van (she also drove the kids around). Sounds like D dropped the ball, here. He says he ended up losing around $18,000 - yeah, that sucks, but why should he pass some of the loss along to a lady who volunteered to front the money expecting to be repaid. He dances around that by claiming her agreement was with the deadbeat French organization, but no, she was dealing with D, not some nameless/faceless organization. Well, not exactly, leader of French organization was there, but she was loaning her friend, D, the money, not someone she barely knew. Seems to be one of those times where both D and the leader of French organization could be held liable, and P can choose who to sue. Ah, but D produces emails where French dude promises to pay. Double ah - seems P only agreed to pay the initial portion of the rental - but then when it came time to pay again (extend the rental?) Her account was the one rental company had on file, so she was charged over and above what she agreed to loan anybody. When it came time to sign, D signed the rental agreement (but nobody brought agreement to court). Ok, like I thought, P gets to choose who to sue - and obviously she chose to sue the native Californian she knows - not someone from France she doesn't - and D's recourse us to add this bill to the rest of the money the French organization owes him and sue them. So, she gets the money for the rental - not the rest - she gets $3486.65 of the asked for 10 grand cheap becomes expensive (again): P paid to have custom lights installed on her ride, and D duct taped them in place - oops, they fell off - guess she shows the car, and car doesn't show too well when stuff keeps falling off. Ok, not exactly cheap - she's suing for $1130, and according to D intro it was supposed to be a $1500 job, and she only paid $200. There's a biggy - she says $200 was payment for everything, way different than his claim of a $1500 job. He claims he did a good enough job that she placed second out of 100 cars at a show - course he wants an inflated amount in a countersuit - asking for $2500. Oh, and D is not just another pretend car handyman - sounds like he's the owner of a not-to-be-mentioned installation company. Ok, testimony starts - and I just can not listen to P - seems every sentence or multi-syllable word requires her annoyingly accented voice to end in a high pitched inflection - think nail on a chalkboard. Ah, and she earns a warning in the preview as she has a bobble head going shaking her rainbow colored ponytail. Anyway, having only had two cups of coffee this morning, I zip through most her her testimony - just have to pause to marvel at her (also multi-colored) talons as she points to - whatever it is she's pointing at. When I see D start testifying I bring it back to normal speed - nope, must be low on caffeine, this dude's voice is also annoying, just not as bad. He starts out defending the use of tape, saying it was just supposed to be hold the lights temporarily while the adhesive on the lights had a chance to set/cure. I get what he's saying, and have done the same thing. Use tape (or a pair of vicegrips or clamps) to hold something while it dries. Ok, yet again, a litigant yakking away as da'judge talks. Dude says he told her tape got be removed after 24 hours, and now we get the bobble head warning. Says P left his shop, and returned with cops demanding her money back. He says he countered with he wasn't returning money unless he got to remove the lights - which he says she had yet to pay for. Ok, now they're arguing on who supplied what lights - I'm done with it when MM asks for receipts and dude says nope, don't have any. Actually not believing either of them. Ignoring the vastly inflated damage claim, she claims dude was going to detail her show car for a show the next day, supply some of the lighting, install said lighting plus some she was providing - all for $200. Dude - I really have no idea what those lights cost to get installed, and while $1500 sounds like way more than I'd pay, I know when I shopped for a backup camera I was quoted some outrageous amount for installation (I decided the rear view mirror was good enough). Ah, but maybe the $1500 was just intro nonsense. Dude just said he supplied 4 rolls of lights at $75 apiece. MM asks how he expects us to believe he spent $300 on lights (remember, dude has no receipts) on a $200 job. Dude says "exactly!" - which I took to mean this was never a $200 job - but MM acts like she accepts P statement that that was all she was to pay. Ok, never got into this one - but here's shorty on the street so it's almost Rough Justice time. When we come back in D gets out that the job was originally $1200, but he discounted it to a grand - but when asked, of course has no written estimates "on me." Ah, but P shouts out she does - then starts running her mouth as Douglas comes to get her papers and MM tells her to shut it. Ok, that does in D, because she has the work order, with receipt of $200, with nary a word that she owes anything more - and it doesn't help D to claim the employee who wrote the work order has since been fired. Ok, think his countersuit is out - but now her nonsense claim. Oh, and back to cheap being expensive. If what MM just read truly reflects the full price of detail, engine wash and installation etc and car won a trophy the next day, she got a real bargain (or there were a lot of sub par cars at the show.) I figure she got what she paid for, so should get nothing... and MM actually goes "ching ching let the cash register ring" and claps her hands talking about getting a bo-NAN-za. Mr "not with me" evidence countersuit likewise dismiss. MM doesn't agree - oh she tosses countersuit, but also gives back the $200... not sure why, maybe she provided proof that she paid someone to redo the install - but even then she would be getting the detailing done free. Hmmmm, maybe the difference is that P actually brought pictures and receipts - you evidence - even if some things were inflated or not something D should pay for. While D - you know, the business owner and professional - had nothing but inflated claims. Did I hear he wanted two employees' wages for 4 days? Uh, I thought everything happened on 1 Saturday - must have been something I zipped past. Edited October 10, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 10, 2018 Share October 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant sues landlord: P intro talks about illegal lockout resulting in lost property and harrassment cuz she's so young and beautiful and landlord is old, mean and ugly and stuck in bad marriage.. I don't listen to Hall-Clown intros but I saw nothing beautiful in plaintiff, unless she were going to be judged on her gall and chutzpah, which would be rated as a "10". Wow. She always paid her rent! She was never evicted! Turns out all those are incredibly nervy and blatant lies from the bulgy-eyed Shakira. I want to know how someone who was collecting welfare can live in a 1300$/month place. When I was her age and working full-time I couldn't afford that much rent. I should have gone on welfare so I could have upgraded my accomodations. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: as she just said at the time she was a "foreclosure specialist." Okay, I missed something here. My take is that she "specializes" in finding places in foreclosure to rent so in the ensuing chaos she can live for free for awhile until she gets thrown out? Or is there a company who would hire a squatting scammer? I don't know. Anyway, she wants the very high value of a bedroom set she left in def's property in circa 2007? So obnoxious, so vile and such a liar was Shakira that JM had to throw her out. "The judge is nothing to me," announces scamming squatter in the hall. She may be nothing, but she bounced your shoddy ass out of there. Doug was not impressed. I had to turn on my CC for her after her "beyroom" and love how it faithfully shows what's being said, including the "I brung" and "we was." 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: cheap becomes expensive (again): Talk about "cheap" - that describes the plaintiff perfectly. The Vegas-style black chiffon, the bulging cleavage, the low-rent accent, the 3-inch long, fake blue talons (who is telling women that this is a hot, chic look?) the tats all over - omg. It must be some competition where she took 2nd prize. She was even tackier than her pimped-out Honda. Def was an idiotic liar. He doesn't have the receipts with him today! He fired the employee who charged her only 200$! He wanted 1000$ minumum but of course has no evidence with him. Everyone uses highly-visible duct tape to jazz up cars with strings of LED lights. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: kids' summer camp feud: Def is someone who needs to go take a business course and then come back. He's not responsible for any expenses incurred in his business. It's not his fault! Let plaintiff go to France to collect the money she laid out. Jelani's repetitions of how he wanted to "intertwine" the kids made him sound weird, or like he doesn't know the meaning of the word, because I don't think it can be applied to human beings. ETA: So "Ma'm" was okay today. If I were to appear on this show, I'd be desperately asking everyone in earshot, "Is today a "m'am" day, or am I going to get screamed at for using it?" 20 hours ago, AEMom said: I can easily see the brakes failing on these cars and I'm surprised that we don't see that more often on TPC. Brakes can and do fail all the time, but when they do, do they actually make a car go faster when depressed? I'm no mechanic so have no idea. Edited October 10, 2018 by AngelaHunter 3 Link to comment
aemom October 11, 2018 Share October 11, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Brakes can and do fail all the time, but when they do, do they actually make a car go faster when depressed? I'm no mechanic so have no idea. I don't recall anyone saying that the car sped up. He was approaching a T intersection and the car wash was at the T. When the car didn't stop, he just kept going and crashed through the fence. If he was going downhill, that would also make things worse. Hubby is not a mechanic, but knows a lot about cars. He said no, if your brakes fail, your car won't speed up, unless you're going downhill. 1 Link to comment
DoctorK October 11, 2018 Share October 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: the 3-inch long, fake blue talons (who is telling women that this is a hot, chic look? Just my point of view but I don't want long sharp things near any sensitive parts of my body. I don't even like having a barber I don't know well to give me a shave. Quote Brakes can and do fail all the time, Actually since the advent of dual master cylinders this is pretty rare. I think 90% of people claiming their brakes failed are just dodging responsibilty for their mistake. In the pre-dual cylinder days I did have my brakes fail (the master cylinder cracked) but I figured this out quickly and used the parking brake to get stopped before I ran into the Potomac River. Edited October 11, 2018 by DoctorK 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 11, 2018 Share October 11, 2018 28 minutes ago, AEMom said: I don't recall anyone saying that the car sped up. Because my memory is so faulty I had to look again. Mr. Flournoy was not on a hill. The property he crashed into was straight ahead at a T-shaped intersection and he said, "I pushed my brakes and the car wouldn't stop. I pushed harder and (the car) just went faster." JM disregarded that since she knew it was BS. 19 minutes ago, DoctorK said: I think 90% of people claiming their brakes failed are just dodging responsibilty for their mistake. In all my years driving I've never had it happen. I don't buy 16 year old beaters on CL so maybe that's why, but I've never known anyone who had brake failure and even if they had I'm pretty sure that failure doesn't make the car accelerate. I agree it's a convenient excuse for smashing into other cars, even when they are stationary. 1 1 Link to comment
aemom October 11, 2018 Share October 11, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Because my memory is so faulty I had to look again. Mr. Flournoy was not on a hill. The property he crashed into was straight ahead at a T-shaped intersection and he said, "I pushed my brakes and the car wouldn't stop. I pushed harder and (the car) just went faster." JM disregarded that since she knew it was BS. My hearing must be faulty, because I remember him saying that, but missed the "just went faster" part. :-) 1 1 Link to comment
PrincessPurrsALot October 11, 2018 Share October 11, 2018 18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Because my memory is so faulty I had to look again. Mr. Flournoy was not on a hill. The property he crashed into was straight ahead at a T-shaped intersection and he said, "I pushed my brakes and the car wouldn't stop. I pushed harder and (the car) just went faster." JM disregarded that since she knew it was BS. In all my years driving I've never had it happen. I don't buy 16 year old beaters on CL so maybe that's why, but I've never known anyone who had brake failure and even if they had I'm pretty sure that failure doesn't make the car accelerate. I agree it's a convenient excuse for smashing into other cars, even when they are stationary. Then again if "I pushed on the brakes" really meant "my foot was on the accelerator and I thought it was the brakes", that'll make him go faster. 1 4 Link to comment
Broderbits October 11, 2018 Share October 11, 2018 My on-screen guide lists a new episode, but they're showing a repeat of the recent suit against a tree-trimming company for ruining the neighbor's driveway. No way am I watching that a-hole defendant again! 4 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz October 11, 2018 Share October 11, 2018 48 minutes ago, Broderbits said: My on-screen guide lists a new episode, but they're showing a repeat of the recent suit against a tree-trimming company for ruining the neighbor's driveway. No way am I watching that a-hole defendant again! I got the same rerun. What a bite. Did anyone get the new episode? 1 Link to comment
DoctorK October 12, 2018 Share October 12, 2018 3 hours ago, Broderbits said: they're showing a repeat of the recent suit against a tree-trimming company for ruining the neighbor's driveway Same here, not a new show. There have been a bunch lately of "new" episodes that I could swear I have already seen, but that may be because after years of watching, we have seen everything before, just with different names. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.