The People's Court - General Discussion

[VartanFan]

40 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I actually learned something in case #3 today - if your pet cat attacks and hurts another animal, you're not liable.  I was curious about this one - I never thought about how the the laws see pet cats, and I found out that the nature of cats gives them the right to free reign and to defend themselves.  I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing, just how JM explained it.  I'm just a little surprised that someone's pet can cause bodily harm to another and the owner has no liability.  So, watch out for store cats, all you dog owner

Hated this ruling and I hate that asshole cats can just do whatever they want.  I know I’ll get flack for that but I just think cats suck.  Owners of cats should have to pay for the damage they cause.  Ugh.  

On another note - I appreciate Carlos helping the cops bring down the drug dealers but, seriously, dude.  I’m glad he had to pay the former landlords.  I believe the landlord when he talked about how he was mystified that he was sued.  I think Carlos just needed cash to pay the late fees on his NEW place.  

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

if your pet cat attacks and hurts another animal, you're not liable. 

I wondered about that one since we have seen cases before where pets, including cats, attacked other animals and damages were awarded, despite the fact leash laws for cats are not as common as for dogs.

JM's reasoning that cats never attack unless provoked was also questionable. Perhaps she secretly is a cat person, which led her to come up with an explanation  similar to the convoluted excuses pitbull owners usually get into.

I have seen cats act ferociously and attack without provocation, although thankfully those were rare instances. 

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, Taeolas said:

Sure her priorities are more than a bit twisted, but it may not have been as expensive for her as "overseas vacation" might seem. Basically, the "overseas vacation" is extra noise in the case, meant to set a particular view of her. 

Economy travel or not, it's still expensive I don't think people should be blowing money and changing their furniture all the time as long as Byrd is paying their rent. Pay your own rent and then do whatever you like.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Economy travel or not, it's still expensive I don't think people should be blowing money and changing their furniture all the time as long as Byrd is paying their rent. Pay your own rent and then do whatever you like.

And dare I say, learn to prioritize and budget. If you need assistance paying your rent, get a cheap phone (like the one I've been using for years). And unless you live out in the sticks, you can probably eliminate your cable bill and still get network TV with an antenna costing less than 1 month's basic cable bill (heck, I sometimes switch over to the antenna because I like the independent station programming). Learn to cook a few simple meals and forget fast food. Etc  etc

Edited December 4, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

I enjoyed today's first case, in which plaintiff, acting like a total clown (or maybe it's not an act) is suing the def. a dive instructor, for a ton of money because he didn't get what he paid for. Plaintiff wants to go diving on his Mexican vacation, but waits til the last minute to start his instruction. He says he completed the online class and also the swimming pool portion of the course. He claims the def didn't give him his open water testing because def "said he hit his head" and never showed up. Of course def has another story and says he couldn't take plaintiff out on the open-water portion of the course because the days he wanted were unsafe to go due to weather conditions. Def goes to Mexico and claims to the dive shop there he is certified and gives them papers with def's name forged on them. Luckily that dive place called def. who informed them in no way was plaintiff certified. JM cannot believe plaintiff stands there, admitting nonchalantly and more than once that he forged def's name, thinks it's no big deal and is actually suing def. JM is so outraged at the plaintiff's chutzpah (which she wants to bottle and sell) that she awards def 250$ for the time and trouble he endured dealing with The AssClown. I muted and FF'd but I guess Sleazy Levin was getting all the expert opinions on diving from his intellectuals out on the street.

Next case, filled with schemes and scams right down to the ol' "I need money for my sick relative in Nigeria" claim gave me a headache. Def. "Latoyette"(? I think) wanted her young son here to hear and witness her nefarious dealings with plaintiff. Both she and her son had huge, googly eyes that alarmed me and even JM commented on the kid's peepers. I really don't know what the case was exactly, since JM said she wouldn't believe either of them if their tongues came notorized, but there were used cars and pawned cars, w hich plaintiff (who says he's a used car dealer) could no longer pawn since he's "done it too many times" and and "financial problems" and title loans on borrowed cars and "Yes, we dated/no we never dated" since plaintiff apparently has some baby momma somewhere. Anyway, in the hall, scammer/liar plaintiff rants that def. is a liar. As we used to say as kids, "Takes one to know one."

I'm saving the 3rd case since I couldn't take any more.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I couldn't believe what I heard when the plaintiff admitted he forged the dive certificate.

[Florinaldo]

17 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I couldn't believe what I heard when the plaintiff admitted he forged the dive certificate.

He also was so matter-of-fact about it, as if it's common accepted behaviour in his world.

[aemom]

On 12/3/2018 at 7:17 PM, VartanFan said:

Hated this ruling and I hate that asshole cats can just do whatever they want.  I know I’ll get flack for that but I just think cats suck.  Owners of cats should have to pay for the damage they cause.  Ugh.  

On another note - I appreciate Carlos helping the cops bring down the drug dealers but, seriously, dude.  I’m glad he had to pay the former landlords.  I believe the landlord when he talked about how he was mystified that he was sued.  I think Carlos just needed cash to pay the late fees on his NEW place.  

 

I also appreciate what Carlos did and found it hard to believe that he would then turn around and behave this way to the landlord.

I am a cat person, but I agree that if my cat hurts an animal/person, I am responsible.  That ruling really surprised me.  We hear so many cases where MM loses her shit over dogs being off leash, and harming an animal/person (and rightfully so) but she seemed so nonchalant about Nancy the cat who sleeps under the gumball machine taking a chunk out of the dog's ear.  Cats will be cats, I guess.

 

Today's 3rd case was another idiot woman who was willing to sleep with some winner <sarcasm intended> who already had a wife and other girlfriends.  Someone slashed his tire (perhaps one of the many women who think they are his "one and only?) and he couldn't afford to pay for a new one - too busy wining and dining all the ladies I guess?  So she pays for his new tire to the tune of $400+.  This happened in 2014!  They are on again, off again, on again, off again... while they were on, she didn't want the money back, when they were off, she did.  He says: "It was supposed to be a gift.  Girlfriends/boyfriends do stuff for each other."  The nail in his coffin was that he did give her $50 to her daughter at some point and promised to pay the rest of the money.  Daughter sent an affidavit with all this info, and boom, he has to pay her the rest.

I never cease to be amazed at how many women are so desperate for a man that they will take ANY ONE AT ALL.

JFC - have some self respect for yourself and find someone who will treat you well.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by AEMom
Note about Carlos

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

He also was so matter-of-fact about it, as if it's common accepted behaviour in his world.

He seemed to think it was perfectly okay because his forgery didn't work. He's so stupid he tried to lie and say he never attempted to pass it off, but duh - obviously he did since it was detected. Dumb and amoral. Nice combo if you don't mind failing all the time.

[SRTouch]

1. exes fighting: P is ex bf - claims D wrecked multiple cars, owes for loans made during relationship,  etc etc. D intro claims she never wrecked no cars, and lawsuit is just P's pitiful attempt to see her again... can't not mention her outfit and choice of hair color - a black woman with blond hair so short it could almost be a swimming cap, wearing a red jacket that looks to be made of naugahyde. Not a riveting court TV case, biggest chuckle was D's getup. I gave up on a detailed recap of the mess as P was stating his case - met in '17 - grew feelings for her and helped her out as she was riding public transportation and he sold cars, loaned her a car - one of D's rug rats (yes, a Single Sainted Mommy) opened car door and passing car hit it - "we handled that - whatever, whatever" - loaned her a second car - she gets arrested for outstanding warrants.... dude is fool to be loaning someone he barely knows a car - especially a second car after first is damaged without a commitment to pay for repairs - and he learns she was driving around car in his name with a history of being an unlicensed driver - oh and loan was for bail money... MM asks idiot P why the hell loan her a second car when you KNOW she doesn't have a license  (oh, and what about insurance and the poor victims' property she damages)... ah, but he was "dealing" with her - sorry, sounds like dirty hands doctrine needs to be applied... anyway, SSM tells us she wasn't arrested for warrants - no she was nabbed in a random checkpoint for driving with a suspended license and no insurance - she says totally random, cops picking on her, MM tries to point out her arrest was NOT random but was in fact because she was caught breaking the law and putting the public at risk - wasted effort, in one ear out the other, SSM shouldn't be expected to obey the law. So after getting bailed out and getting second car, the great romance ends as they drift apart (P probably started asking if he'll ever be repaid.) Anyway month after the breakup - D still illegally driving around in car.... I'm not paying attention, but what's this? P is getting tickets mailed to him because car is registered to him. 'Nother part of his claim - he wants to be paid because he repo'ed the car he should have never loaned her... we're only 5 minutes into this silliness, but I've had all I can stand - zip ahead to decision - hmmmm seems P is missing key pieces of evidence, and is caught trying to enter false evidence - he gets back the bail money... and is lucky to get that because he has nothing showing what he paid to get SSM sprung from jail. Dude sued for over 3 grand, gets $860 (only because D says that's what he paid).
2. ah - P in this one is a lawyer (lawyers are almost always good for laughs): ok, P just here for the free lunch - claims he represented D in a criminal case and is here suing for whopping total of $254. D is oh so happy to be here he can't stop smiling - says he paid more than the agreed upon fee and isn't paying a penny more - especially since P lost the earlier case. He wants a refund of the $750 he paid the incompetent lawyer. Apparently D is no stranger to legal wrangling. Case that he hired P to represent him in resulted from an earlier case where neighbor's sought to get a protective order against him and failed, so D hired P to go after the neighbor for making false statements in their application. (Guess he decided on hiring a lawyer because he didn't enjoy representing himself in first case.) Ahhh, looks like this time it isn't the lawyer who looks like a fool. He has a signed retainer agreement stating D is responsible for paying any outside costs incurred by the lawyer in the earlier case. He has outside bills for 7 of those additional costs, D paid some but there are still some outstanding.  Seems awfully straight forward - if he has legitimate bills that D agreed to pay, D has to pay. Ah ha - but now lawyer slips up and proves to be normal clown lawyer appearing on these shows - dude brought in a suitcase full of crap - is searching through his papers and saying he doesn't have all seven of the contested bills with him. Not only that, but the evidence he does produce isn't clear, with it looking like D is being billed twice (for different amounts) for the same thing. P claims to have email explaining that away, and it makes sense to MM, though not exactly to a layperson like myself - MM knows what to look for and what she fimds makes sense to her. Looking like a case where lawyer is in the right, but lacked the necessary communication skills to pound it into thick head of contentious D. Now it's time for D to be missing evidence... he wants to argue he was overcharged solely based on the checks he wrote and a few of the emails from P asking for money, but doesn't have copies of the actual bills - MM asks P why D wrote a check on this date for this amount,  P replies he can't say without seeing a bill - and I ask the TV why doesn't P produce all the bills he sent and see if the check matches any of them... ah well, I was hoping for chuckles from a lawyer case, but instead these two are about to put me to sleep with 7 minutes left... zip ahead and ruling is for lawyer dude who needs a better bookkeeping system and improved communication skills talking to thick headed numbnuts (and this D is thickheaded, arguing with MM during decision after she just explains the ruling) ... ah, but remember that check nobody could show a bill for or explain being written - MM gives lawyer dude 72 hours to come up with a legitimate reason or she'll just call the case a wash (check was for $250 and he's suing for $254) - soooo, I listened to Harvey to see if he'd give us an update - nope, waste of time, Harvey tells us nada, we'll never know final outcome
3. as is boat sale fail: P bought an old boat without having it checked out, claims engine is shot, wants 5 grand for cost of new engine. D says engine was fine when he sold the boat, says buyer was happy for first month he had boat, then starts complaining engine is bad - no telling what dude may have screwed up in the month he had possession. Either way, I don't see P getting a penny without a written warranty/guarentee. (Most notable thing in this case may be tie D is wearing - dude, Google "proper length for a tie" and you'll discover that thing is 3-4" short - oh, and maybe get a shirt a couple sizes larger so you can button the collar and it will stay tucked in at the waist - hmmm, or could it be he's wearing a personal flotation device under that shirt.) Ok, testimony starts - and case ends for me right away. P is first time boat owner, doesn't really know what to look for, says seller, D, was oh-so-friendly and seemed trustworthy, but had trouble starting the engine.... uh, sounds like so many of the idiots who buy a hooptie with engine light lit up... oh, and another fool buying a boat without seeing if the thing stays on top of the water. This particular fool even had a the bill of sale that payment in full was contingent on boat being put in the water and engine running fine - but why bother, seller was so friendly and seemed honest, so idiot goes ahead and pays the full price without getting it wet or seeing if a tuneup fixed the hard to start engine. Dude had an out, was given a chance to back out before paying in full, once he paid, it's his own personal money pit (oh, yeah, this is a '93 boat, and I have yet to hear how often it was used - personally, I'd be kind of leary of a 25yo engine that floods instead of kicking right over and purring.) Anyway, dude is here saying when he finally took it to a marine mechanic (after getting some regular mechanic to do a tuneup that didn't fix the starting issue)the marine mechanic the him the previous owner had to have known the engine was toast - course, he has nothing to show that that is what he was told. He does have something saying what is wrong, just not WHEN it went wrong - so, just flapping gums and no ev-i-dence. More yakity yak, but P never had a case and is gaining speed on the downhill slope. No more chuckles, I give up and - zippety zip - case dismissed

Edited December 5, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

42 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

exes fighting:

Ugh. Mangled English, suspended license, no insurance, arrests, bail. And we hear about those mean cops, who, when bored, just pick names out of a hat and suspend licenses. Plaintiff is just a fool, but his ex-squeeze is a vile creature, nose-ringed and weirdly bewigged, who is sassy and sarcastic to JM. But she can't possibly take a bus to work! She's much too good for that (I took a damned bus to work every day for more than 12 years and even in snowstorms) so numbnuts plaintiff gives her a car, even though the car is also not good enough for her. It's a POS and she ain't puttin' no money in it. Anyway, plaintiff got all "bitty batty" (biddy baddy?) whatever, so she cut him off. Enough of this stupid BS. And she has kids, of course. Why didn't she call the baby daddie(s) to bail her shopworn ass out of jail?

Ooh, next case is the kind I love. A lawyer who doesn't think or know he needs evidence in a courtroom: "Why no. I never thought of bringing the invoice or email outlining the charges for which I'm suing. I don't have that! I never thought I would need it."  Take his word for it! He's a professional. Fantastic. Def, although soft-spoken and polite here, gave the impression that he makes his neighbours' lives a living hell and they all seem to detest him. Lawyer gets his money contingent on if he can provide evidence of his invoice within 72 hrs. Not sure why JM gave a lawyer leeway on that.  I have a feeling he never did. I even forced myself to listen to the Shortass Outside Troll to find out too, SRTouch, but that verbose nitwit didn't tell us. We disgusted ourselves for nothing. I am never, ever hiring a lawyer. 

54 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

as is boat sale fail:

Wow. Whoever coined the phrase, "With age comes wisdom" never watched court shows. Plaintiff appears to be around 60 or so, wants a boat, so contacts def. on FB. The damned boat is a quarter of a century old, and won't really start and the engine floods when he looks at it. Does it occur to him to have it checked out, or take on the water? Why, no! Of course not! He totally and completely trusted def, a total stranger, so agrees to buy it! Def was very friendly, you see. Well, duh, you fool. Do you think he's going to be hostile and nasty when trying to unload this old hulk for 6900$? I love how def. gave him a new contract that says "As is" and plaintiff still trusted him with all his heart, and signed it. But his mechanic told him it was a "catastrophic failure" in the engine and def must have known that. Does he have something to that effect from the mechanic? Gee, he doesn't. So glad he got zip, the idiot.

[CrazyInAlabama]

It must be pink clothes day in the first case.     Who is stupid enough to trust someone the plaintiff says has always had a rocky relationship with financially for several bus trips?     Owes over $600, and defendant is still a whiny idiot.       Defendant is a deadbeat, and plaintiff knew that all along.   Plaintiff gets $620, bet they both go on another trip after this. 

Scary looking plaintiff who wants money back for car, and apparently can't read 'as is'.     It also included tax cheating by the defendant who is a total jerk.   Moron plaintiff bought a car that had to be towed to his house, so he's a real idiot.     A 1997 car is old enough to vote, and plaintiff is a total idiot.    Plaintiff is too stupid to get any money from the court.   

House infested with bed bugs-Who wants to be that the former tenant/plaintiff brought the mice and bed bugs with her?    I don't like the landlady, but the defendant is a jerk, and I'm sure has a long history of scamming landlords.      The pictures of 'bed bugs' look more like ticks to me.   Bed bugs are super tiny dots, not something the size of a chihuahua.     The landlady did get pest control people in, and I'm guessing they're in everything they own.      The tenant also let her kids color on the walls, and left a load of trash behind, so tenant gets $450.  

Edited December 6, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

1. Friends at odds after trip: familiar story - P wants D to go on some fun summer trips with her - D can't afford it - P pays D's way - P claims it was a loan but D says it was a gift - yada yada - haven't even heard all of intro and I'm already tired of these two. As a irrelevant side note, seems D - who is hobbling along in leg brace with a cane - recently lost a bunch of weight - something like 170 lbs - so in preview MM is wanting to see before and after pics. Ah, maybe not completely irrelevant, cuz while MM is doing her introductory summary of the case D's witness is fiddling around with a dress - truth is only reason I started to watch this case was to learn how the dress fits into this friend-feud. Ah, but as P starts to state her case I'm losing interest. Seems she likes to organize little getaways - she says she "gives" bus trips, but MM asks and is told P means she "organizes" these getaways and participants are expected to pay their own way - we've heard other cases like this where a litigant is acting as a travel agent, organizes a trip and expecting everyone else to pay a little extra to cover organizer'software way. Problem I see here is P's choices of words - she keeps saying she "gave" these trips. So, maybe D understood this to be a gift? Anyway, P organized 3 trips last summer and D went on two but didn't pay her way. Sounds like case may be decided on texts, as P says there were texts back and forth about money owed and even a possible payment plan. When MM turns to D to hear her side, we hear D says paying for the trips isn't really why she's getting sued, she wants to talk about the dress - says the dress was supposed to be her daughter's prom dress and she's being sued because she wouldn't say "yes to the dress." Ok, back to thinking dress is irrelevant. As we go to commercial MM is giving D hard time in the preview clip - seems D wants to excuse her debt because she was out of work for a year... woman, being out of work and short on money is a reason not to go on a trip even if someone else pays (oh, and turns out it wasn't just D going on these getaways - no she hauled along family) - ok, yet another litigant with entitlement issues... after commercial D starts out about how P begged her to go - says P doesn't have any friends, doesn't even get along with her family, so P begged D to go so she'd have someone to hang with. Sounds pretty ludicrous to me, and apparently to MM as well, since MM cuts her off to get back to the "gift" vs "loan" question. Ok - right off the bat D sinks her defense when she says their deal was P was to pay up front but D was to pay her back "whenever". Pretty loose deal - pay when she could - leaves it up to MM to determine if case is ripe... Break out the violins - time for the sob story shown in the preview about being out of work, having leg surgery etc - yeah yeah, but trips were in summer of '17, over a year ago, and P has yet to receive a penny.... now they're getting to the weight loss, the pics, borrowing clothes, yada yada - stuff I have no interest in and we're just reaching halfway point in the allotted time... zippety zip - decision time and D giving attitude, sidelooks to her posse, and interrupting MM with mumbled nonsense, as MM says a year is past a reasonable time period to start paying the $620 she freely admits owing her "good friend" of 13 odd years... ok, most of case was nonsense - but I enjoyed the last couple minutes - course D leaves feeling MM is all wrong and she should be entitled to freeloading and pay her debt "whenever" she's good and ready.
2. as is car deal: P may think he looks ok in the mirror, but may rethink his choice of haircuts after seeing camera angle on the tape, going bald fast and instead of comb over he has it sticking up all over - anyway P bought a car, now claims D knew the headgasket was blown when he sold it, so deal should be rewound - and as bonus nonsense, he not only wants deal undone, but wants money spent on registration insurance, etc etc while car in his possession. Only thing I got from D intro was that he sold extra old car he had sitting around to P, a friend's son without warranty, P had it a couple months before gasket blew, not his problem. From preview clip we hear there was also some fudging on the purchase paperwork to cheat the taxman - oh, and we get to see P dance around about why he lost his license, and why he was buying the junker now that he can get back into the drivers seat . That in a nutshell is this case - with only minor changes in the script, it's been heard a gazillion times. Oh, and I find it amazing that this idjit is shocked and dismayed that a '97 - non starting - Mercury blew a head gasket - I'd be surprised if that's the only dried out gasket about to blow - and of course idjit didn't get a mechanic to go over it before purchase even though it wouldn't start (shades of yesterday's boat case). Yes, I watched a bit - but didn't find much to write about - case tossed - MM tells him he's out of his mind if he expected to win, and joker turns to witness and says at least he got some face time... yeah, dude, you just showed you're a mental midget on national TV. Then he comes out and tells Doug this happens all the time and there ought-a-be laws to protect mental midgets like him - or maybe ya ought to take a mechanic along before forking over money for a veee-hick-cle old enough to buy booze
3. rental fail: tenant, P, claims place had bedbugs, rodents, all kinds of creepy crawlies - oh, and mold and mushrooms growing - and landlady did nothing to fix the problems. Landlady, D, says she thinks tenant brought bedbugs with her into apartment - says when P complained a professional exterminator was hired - says P moved out with only 10 day notice and isn't due any money, in fact is countersuing for rent and cleanup over and above deposit. Another old story - this one with pics of 9yo nephew all swollen up after being bitten by bugs after spending 1 night. Ok, that may entitle her to break a lease - but not leave trash when moving out. Ah, tenant's case takes big hit once we learn she lived in place almost a year - and this was actually second apartment she rented from landlady in same building. Oh, and claims she moved to SECOND apartment because FIRST apartment had mice and bedbugs. Hmmm, but D says she had never complained about bedbugs in the first apartment... so, why'd she want to move? P says she texted D about problem in first place, but has no texts to show. D has texts during part of the time in question with no mention of bugs - so now P says she verbally complained... yeah, maybe, but when you say you texted complaints maybe it would be nice if you could produce a single text. Ah, now she offers to produce a letter from a "State Worker" describing the deplorable conditions noted during weekly visits over months.... and if the reason you're claiming you moved was the horrible conditions the whole time you were there why is it you failed to give proper notice? ... yeahhhh, sure, you lived with bed bugs, mice, mold, etc in the place for a year on a month to month rental before you decide mid-month you'll be out of there on the first? couldn't be like landlady says that you decided you need a bigger place for you, your hubby and two daughters because you were about to give birth to a bouncing baby boy? Not looking good for P so far, and D has barely spoken... oh, and now that D is talking, the intro BS about Landlady ignoring the problem is torpedoed as she testifies (and has evidence) that she called the bug guy and place was treated. Oops, time for switcheroo. MM finally reads the State Worker letter, and sure enough it lists bed bugs as being one of several problems, and one of the reasons why the in house therapist was going to stop the weekly visits - and this was in first apartment where D says she was never notified there was a problem. Oops indeed - if letter is legit D lied about when she was notified. Another oops, P has detailed reason why she made partial payment the last month she was there which rings true (story of how D wanted SOMETHING towards the rent so that she could either make equity loan payment or get a loan so she could afford to pay for the bug treatments).  If you believe that, than D knew a move was a possibility before the official notice mid-month. After commercial MM announces she believes landlady knew about the bedbugs way before she admits. Given that, and that I now believe D has been bending the truth throughout case, I'm ready to say she gets nothing for any owed rent. IIIRC there wasn't a security deposit, instead P paid the last month's rent when she moved in.... so, she moved out end of July, had already paid the last month rent, paid half July's rent in July before she decided to move out. Sounds like she should at least get back the last month she paid upon move in... ah, but she left mess and buggy furniture behind when she moved. Ah, and another ah-ha moment, on June 30th P sent a text saying bed bugs are worse than ever, questioning whether the hired exterminator was legit, and baby boy due any time any day how she wasn't going to bring a newborn into the mess..... huh? This text is 12 days BEFORE landlady says she was notified P was moving. Now I say give P everything she wants and let D eat the cost of cleanup. MM is nicer, after tossing out the rent she allows D to recoup cleanup and paint cost.... P walks out with $450. 

Note: the folks renting next door have had numerous exterminator visits trying to to get rid of bugs. Seems every month or so this summer they empty daughter's bedroom, bringing everything outside sealed in plastic, and bug dude comes to spray. Looking out my window today they have storage totes on their deck - with freezing rain as a possibility this week.

Edited December 6, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Friends at odds after trip: familiar story

Yeah, it stupid and boring, but I did enjoy one aspect: JM oohs and ahhs over defendant's weight loss, acting like they're besties now. I love when litigants get lulled this way, because all the friendly chitchat didn't stop JM from telling her, "You better shut your mouth!" and "Get a JOB!" Haha! I think I'm going to try def's way for my line of credit. I'll just tell the bank, "I don't work" and I'm sure they won't expect me to pay them back. I wonder how long it took def to think up the "I didn't say Yes to the Dress!" She really liked it since she repeated it numerous times. I also enjoyed Momma holding up the dress like one of the presenters on The Price is Right, while her darling daughter yammered on.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

as is car deal: P may think he looks ok in the mirror, but may rethink his choice of haircuts after seeing camera angle on the tape, going bald fast and instead of comb over he has it sticking up all over

A step up from the usual boring "As is" nonsense. Plaintiff is a 30-year old man, with his sparse, carefully oiled locks and wearing an Al Capone costume several sizes too big. He's so stupid he can't drive without getting his license suspended, even though it was all a big screwup and not his fault. Those stupid cops and courts! Anyway, his dream car is a 21-year old Mercury Sable! Bwahahhaha! He has a whole 780$ to purchase this vehicle he's watched and waited to make it his very own. Then we get all sorts of garbage, not the least of which is that both litigants admit they're tax cheats. "It's the American way!" def. exclaims. He's also a fan of "street justice" and admits he threatened to kill idiot plaintiff, who felt the need - at 30 years old - to bring his Mommy with him for moral support. She also tried to speak for her darling boy, but was told he can tell the story himself. After all, he's a big, grown-up boy. Yes, he knows he signed a paper saying the heap is "as is" but feels he's so special it shouldn't apply to him. He even got def's son's ex-squeeze to say the car is shit, cuz you can't expect a 30-year old boy to find that out on his own. It's a 21-year old Sable. It's default position is "shit", you fool. Yes, I'm sure there are people who had this model and loved it, but I wouldn't buy one.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

rental fail:

  JM needs to Google "bed bugs" because I'm pretty sure that picture plaintiff showed was a harmless beetle and looked nothing like a bed bug. We've seen this before - where any insect is automatically a bed bug when someone wants to stiff their landlord.

Edited December 6, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

The treatment for bed bugs is a heat treatment on everything in the house.    https://www.terminix.com/bed-bug-control/   Here's how Terminix treats them.

There are very few companies that do bed bug treatments.  

[Brattinella]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Looking out my window today they have storage totes on their deck - with freezing rain as a possibility this week.

I'll be praying for you for no freezing rain.  The forecast is looking a little better.

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I'll be praying for you for no freezing rain.  The forecast is looking a little better.

Yeah, though the weekend manager has already asked if I'd be willing to come in if road conditions are bad - I normally don't work Fri through Sunday... for some odd reason when all the traffic conditions are bad and reports are telling everyone to stay in and not to drive a lot of people order pizza. Most are grateful and tip well - even though times are slow (so of course I said I'd come in if called) - but there's always a few who complain if it takes a hour instead of the normal 30-45 minutes.

True story - a few years ago someone complained I took too long because I went the long way around a flooded road. Later we heard a taxi driver tried to go the way I avoided and the driver was washed into a creek and drowned.

Edited December 7, 2018 by SRTouch

[Brattinella]

Yikes!  Terrible story!  I do hope you don't have to go out driving in this weather.  I wouldn't go out for love nor money.  We have lots of non-perishables and a fireplace if it comes to that.  Hopefully, we won't lose power.  I don't know why people who KNOW it is unsafe to drive decide to order pizza!

[AngelaHunter]

Ugh. The kind of cases I dislike. Give me more lawyers!  First were the battling lovebirds. I had to turn on my CC for this, and was surprised to find out the plaintiff's name is "Bruce" when the def called him "Boos." Def's new squeeze, Mr. Hughes, was literally slack-jawed and appeared to be heavily sedated here. Anyway, fighting and brawling and busted windows/doors and smashed up apartment and a video of def beating Boo's motorbike with a shovel. That woman has staying power. She just beat the shit out of that thing, then moved on to something else.  Def says about "Boos", "He hit me all the time" but that wasn't enough for her to end the big romance. It seems that only happened when Boos came over, broke down her door and started "tusslin'" with Mr. Hughes. It's nice when middleaged people have all the impulse control of toddlers. Anyway, we did learn a new term for people gettin' it on over a period of time: "Dealing". "We wasn't dealing no more." At first I thought she was talking about drugs, but no, she meant bumping uglies. JM is disgusted at their savage behavior and awards both sides the same amount, so neither gets anything. Now piss off.

Then we had another silly, overgrown baby snowflake. This one is a 28-year old man - a elvish, pin-headed idiot -  who needs Daddy to guarantee a lease on a condo for his baby boy. I guess Baby either couldn't afford to do it himself, or he really wanted to live across the street from the beach but couldn't pay for that, and Daddy agrees he should have it. He deserves it! Daddy is here today to speak up for his moronic child and fight for his baby's security deposit. Def landlord shows damages The Boy did, and other things, like leaving a profanity-laced paper in a public area after someone stole his shoes which he left outside his door. No one should steal Baby's stuff! How dare they? JM rips him a new one for his immature stupidity, while his girlfriend, wearing skin-tight clothes that were not flattering, sits there grinning as though her darling is just too clever and cute. What does the pushing-30-Boy care? Daddy pays. I guess 28 is the new 14.

Finally, an amazingly boring case about credit card debt and a cell phone bill. Plaintiff, who speaks in slo-mo, gave his hard-rode "fiancee", here with her purse clamped to her shoulder, a CC and put her on his phone plan. She pays until they break up. He wants the money. Snooze-fest.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I've noticed the number of overgrown special snowflake man-babies seems to be increasing.     I think the parents are sick of having them underfoot, or living in their basement, and finance the room or apartment lease in the faint hope that things will get better.    

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I've noticed the number of overgrown special snowflake man-babies seems to be increasing. 

Someone referred to this phenomenon as "The Rise of the Beta Male." JM actually called this particular baby snowflake as a "kid" but luckily corrected herself to call him a "man", even if only chronologically.  I know I'm a dinosaur, but things sure have changed since I was young (when no one would ever refer to a 28-year old as a "kid") and not for the better.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Parents are not doing their kids any favors to enable, and baby them this way.     I've seen what it's like for a 50 year old man to have to learn to do everything adults have to do, and it's not pretty.     I'm sure most of these enabled man-babies will someday get their inheritance, if they haven't sucked every penny out of their parents' wallets, and squander every penny they get.  

[SRTouch]

Just saw this on FB

[AngelaHunter]

Nasty first case. Sister suing sister for a loan and a bunch of abandoned furniture. JM had to open a can of whoop ass on both of them for their attitudes, chicken-necking, sniping at each other, shouting out and finding something amusing about all this sordid crap. Funny, it was not. Sec8 and food stamps and evictions and two small children who was tooken away when plaintiff left them alone all night. Byrd now supports them. Seems he supports these sisters as well, to ensure they needn't buy their own food or pay their own rent so they have disposable income for personal accessories, like wigs, tats, jewelry, elaborate fake nails, fake eyelashes, etc. I sometimes wonder if most of the children of litigants were immaculate conceptions, since again there is no mention of any baby daddy(s) supporting the kids they helped make. Horrible, awful grammar thoughout. Cleavage alert.

Second case of lemon car purchase was a relief, and actually was kind of funny. Plaintiff buys a 14-year old Nissan with 135K miles, decides she doesn't like it because it's got stuff wrong with it - who would guess? - and even though def car dealer fixed some stuff on it which he had no obligation to do, plaintiff takes it back and dumps it on his lot and walks away, feeling that relieves her of her 4000$ she owes to the finance company. She's quite surprised to learn it does not. She takes it to another mechanic, who not surprisingly finds a whole bunch of things wrong with it, leaky oil pans, etc. JM asks her what she thinks "As is" means. Big smile; "As is?" Yeah, that's what  it means. Go pick up your car, lady, and pay for the damned thing.

Finally, a woman and her boy (actually only Mom, since she wrote the check) suing the slimy, smirking, underhanded creep, Jesus, for a room the boy rented in his place. Def. says he had to move because his lease was up. Oh, wait - No, it was because of a "lifestyle change" which landlord didn't like. JM wants to know what that means. Slimeball answers, "Gee, I dunno. I never asked." It comes out that the lifestyle change means def illegally subletting his place because he's broke and can't afford it. He's keeping the 1400$ security deposit Mom gave him because the boy damaged the walls and the floors in his room and did all this in only the 25 days he lived there. "How do you know he damaged it?" JM asks. "I dunno," Jesus says. "I wasn't there." But he's sure it was the boy. Okay then. Why else is he keeping the money? It's because the boy didn't move Jesus' furniture out when he left. Apparently, whenever you stay somewhere, you must take all the furniture with you when you leave, even if it's not yours. JM awards plaintiff more than she was requesting, just because def is such a lowlife, lying asshole.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"I haven't never loaned her this much money before."

Sis did get a promissory note, but I love this wench saying she "took care of" the kids who were tooken away from her by CPS because she was out all night. She must be able to be in two places at once. Or teleport.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The case with the two sisters was bizarre.    It's amazing to think that people live this way, and the one sister didn't even care that her neglected children were taken away.    The other sister who had her foot 'accidentally' run over was so matter of fact about that.      I'm just glad neither one of the sisters live near me, because I bet the neighbors hate both of them.     At least we found out you can get the boot from Section 8 (I hope this is the right case, I'm not sure anymore since they seem to blend together).     I've never understood how people can leave their kids alone and defenseless like that.  

There was a case in D.C. I heard about years ago, where there was an anonymous call to 911 from a pay phone (it tells you how long ago it was that we still had pay phones everywhere) about a bunch of children left alone in an apartment, with locked window bars.      The police went, and found a bunch of little kids locked into an apartment, no supervision.    It turns out that the only way someone could have known about the kids being in there was if they looked in from the fire escape, and they decided that it was a potential burglar who saw the kids and called it in.      

Edited December 11, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Rerun from mid-March (recap around pg 99) first 2 cases not worth a second viewing. #1 was older guy suing young heroin addict over a Playstation - #2 the old "let ex put car in my name, she racked up a gazillion tickets" sob story - again, nothing new and only watched a few seconds before zipping ahead - only thing noteworthy is D, a sainted single mother and the one racking up tickets - decided this was perfect opportunity for kid to see daddy, yep, mommy and darling daughter got all dressed up to come visit baby daddy and air dirty laundry on national tv - no surprise, mommy has to pay her own tickets

#3 is only case I watched more than a few minutes. P in this case rented from D - lived there til lease expired - now a month to month tenant - place foreclosed - new owner, the bank, issues 30day notice - somehow tenant thinks he ought to get back all the rent he ever paid, plus the security even though he's still living there, plus plus for a total of 5 grand. Both litigants come across as dimwits, and act so clueless you just have to laugh. Oh, and when tenant learned from D's partner that place was in foreclosure, he stopped paying rent - SQUATTER! - and might well be reason bank is giving him the boot - after all, nothing sells a rental property like a holdover non-paying tenant. Not that any rent he might have paid was ever put towards the mortgage - no, D admits he didn't make a mortgage payment in years - nobody gets anything.

Edited December 12, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

#1 was older guy suing young heroin addict over a Playstation

Reruns, yes, but that one again left me all "Duhhh?". Elmer Fudd wants a good buddy, and figures he's found one in the lowlife, heroin-addicted goofball, half his age (or less) with a mouthful of rotted stumps. Elmer never made a pass at the creep. Okay, we believe you, grandpa. You're just a benefactor, looking to better the creep's life with a PlayStation. How he could tell this ridiculous story with a straight face, I'll never know.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

only thing noteworthy is D, a sainted single mother and the one racking up tickets

That amoral, slimy "Aren't I cute?" viper came to the wrong venue when she expected sympathy from JM after informing her that she's only 38, so how would SHE know what you're supposed to do with parking tickets? *Ear to ear grin*. Using her kid against the baby daddy was simply vile.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

3 is only case I watched more than a few minutes. P in this case rented from D

Another opportunistic bloodsucker, looking for a 5K lottery win. No one should have to pay rent on the place in which they park their butts unless conditions are ideal. Get lost, dimwit.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The third case with the squatter plaintiff was bizarre.     Did that idiot really think he was getting $5k for squatting in someone else's property?   They should have given $5k to the new owner for having to put up with that nut.    Another reason on the long list of reasons I would never be a landlord.  

 

Today's 8 a.m. rerun is the now classic recent funeral fight of the two relatives at the funeral arrangement meeting at the aunt / grandmother was being buried, and the daughter or whatever she was, supposedly ripped out a big chunk of the aunt's hair, and bit her arm, which leads to surgery and a huge homemade looking brace on her left arm, and a carpel tunnel brace on her right wrist.   My guess, is the woman needed surgery for something else, and is ramping up the drama. 

There's are also no witnesses in court, even though they could get a free trip to Chicago or where ever they film this, and apparently this was the biggest funeral arrangement group since Cleopatra kicked.      There are two letters from relatives that back what the defendant said, but the two litigants should be ashamed of themselves.  Both litigants are wearing animal print, including tiger pattern flowy pants on the alleged chomper, and some kind of blue animal print on the human entree.      This is the one where the chomper claims her mother is still haunting her, so she has to move, but she's still staying for now.   I wonder if the daughter got a deal on the rent, and that's why she's staying?     This is the case where they both admit everyone in the family physically fight constantly.    The chomper admits when an uncle tried to separate them, she stabbed him with a pen, and thinks it's funny.     The chomper has two statements from witnesses, an aunt, who says there were chairs thrown.    The huge bandage from elbow to the end of the fingers is because of a finger bite?    Total garbage.         

Edited December 12, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[dshgr]

The end of the first case today was very Jerry Springer.  I can do without that.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I hated that ending.   I was really worried that Doug was going to get knocked over when he tried to interview the man in the hallway.    

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I hated that ending.   I was really worried that Doug was going to get knocked over when he tried to interview the man in the hallway.    

I seriously thought the daughter was going to break free of her mom's grasp and charge the guy or something. And they've got a daughter together, because why not? Though I did enjoy JM yelling at the guy to shut up, because it's always entertaining to see her get pissed when she's usually so conciliatory.

[CrazyInAlabama]

They had the rerun with the woman who was babysitting the  eight year old girl (I think she's nine when the show was filmed), and the father failed to mention her nasty pathological habit of starting fires (at least two fires).      Then in the middle of the night, the couch the girl was sleeping on, was on fire, along with the rest of the living room.     The girl said she was looking for deodorant and the couch fire was an accident.    She didn't really mention that the house was on fire either, and apparently a BBQ lighter was used, and it was in a drawer in the kitchen.    The father's allegation that the lighter was out where a kid could get to it is ridiculous, because it was stuffed in a kitchen drawer.      Personally, I've never used a BBQ lighter to hunt under the living room furniture for anything, so I'm guessing she's used to lying and getting away with it, and thinks everyone else is stupid enough to believe her.    I hope landlords write down the dad's name, and don't let him move in with her, because they'll be risking other tenant's lives if they do.    That kid doesn't care if someone dies, and I bet she's set a lot more fires than she admits, and it's only a matter of time until she kills someone.   

Her father was full of excuses, still blames the babysitter because she told how the fire happened, and who started it, and wants money for her couch and damages.      Judge Marilyn tossed the father and daughter, and the kid was even worse than her dad.       I'm sure we'll be seeing the father on the news explaining why his daughter the serial killer, and serial arsonist shouldn't be in jail, because she's not going to stop this.       The trinity of potential serial killers, is fire starting, abusing and killing animals, and bed wetting much later than other kids, with no physical reason, and I'm betting the daughter has all three characteristics.       I'm betting the little arsonist will be showing up on the I.D. channel one of these days.   

Edited December 14, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

They had the rerun with the woman who was babysitting the pre-teen (didn't catch her age, but about 10 or so?)

She was nine. What nine-year old need deodorant?? I wonder where that kid is now. Dead-eyed, insolent and unrepentant, she fixed her unblinking gaze on JM and lied to her face. Scary kid, but really, I don't blame her and I felt sorry for her. She's just a child and her only parent (because she who bore her "do what she do" and wants no part of her own hell spawn) is a foul-tempered, incomprehensible Orc who is so out of control he had to be thrown out. Yeah, he's a "single black father" which I guess makes him special as opposed to single fathers of any other race or creed, but carelessly impregnating someone doesn't automatically make a man a father (just as giving birth doesn't always make a woman a mother) other than in the biological sense of the word.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Even scarier, she was nine in court, but eight when the fire happened, and I've never heard of an eight year old that used deodorant.      The father should have been ashamed of himself, and if anything had happened to the woman, and her kids, or the neighbors, it would have entirely been his fault.      I wonder how many other fires there have been before, if the delusional father only admitted to two others?     The father's excuse for not telling the babysitter was that the kid hadn't set any fires in three or so years was lame.    I'm wondering if there have been others, but she kept them smaller, and put them out in time, and didn't realize how a couch can flame up?    Watching Judge Marilyn's face when the little girl flipped her arms at her was amazing.     

I wonder if Mom was afraid to have the girl around, so she dumped her on her father?    I hope the landlord at the apartment evicted the father and daughter, before she decides to play with fire again, and burns the place down.  

Edited December 14, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

6 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I've never heard of an eight year old that used deodorant. 

I didn't even know what it was at that age. I bet if that woman and her kids had been hurt or killed Daddy would still be defensive and deny any wrongdoing. He's a loudmouthed, ignorant meathead and that kid, who stood there lying cool as a cucumber, is headed for big trouble.

[aemom]

I finally had a chance to crash on the couch and catch up and they're all repeats.  :-(

I did watch snippets of some of them including the sisters suing each other which involved leaving toddlers home alone and arrests.

I remember the little pyromaniac discussed above. That whole case was very disturbing. 

Edited to add: The case where the woman beat her ex's boyfriend"s bike with a shovel - that was new. She went back and forth between boyfriends - I felt like I was watching a tennis match.

The scary looking woman who got the meek guy to get her a phone - she was just a hustler.

Edited December 14, 2018 by AEMom
Forgot something

[AngelaHunter]

A Christmas present from TPC. I enjoyed this.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's early rerun (where I live we get Judge Mathis, TPC rerun, Judge Mathis, and then TPC new or another rerun this week) with the woman who met a new partner moved in immediately, had a big blow up, moved out, and then the ex- brings her new girlfriend of about 10 minutes with her to court.      The ex is the one Judge M called evil.    And when Doug mentions that she had a very quick move-in with the first woman, and should she consider waiting, she mentions the new one is a quick move-in, but "it's all different this time".     Poor new girlfriend.

Then there's the woman who worked for a pet rescue with a contract requiring returning to the rescue if you don't keep the puppy.     I have to wonder if this is a 501 c3 rescue, or a puppy reselling ring?     The man reverses the charges on Paypal to the woman's personal account, and when she calls the man about returning the puppy, he claims he gave the dog to a fictitious cousin.   Then Judge M makes the screaming boo-boo, where she says the return to the rescue is unenforceable, but it is if both sides signed it.       I distinctly remember that when Ellen de Generes rehomed a dog named Iggy, and the rescue sued, had the dog returned, and they rehomed (there was a no small kids clause in the contract, and the staffer of Ellen's had kids under the age limit).         The man in this case loses, and he should be ashamed, but isn't.    I'm sure he sold that dog for a lot more money, and I hope he gets listed by all of the rescues, and humane societies on their non-adopt lists, if they exist.       I still wonder if there's proof that the organization is a real rescue?        I bet this man pulls this a lot.   

[SRTouch]

Hmmmm....

REAL PURPOSE OF POST is to see if I get a notification if anyone replies or likes this post

Wonder if anyone is having similar problems with this new and improved forum.... first, I had a tough time even getting here. I always seem to experience a few hiccups when there is a system change, and this time is no different.  As of now, TPC  is no longer listed as a forum on my 'FOLLOWED' list

Good thing about the new combined forum - we won't get our hands spanked when we stray off topic and start chatting in wrong forum 😊

No real worries - they always get it straight eventually, and since we're currently in rerun hell, there isn't much traffic anywho.

Edited December 20, 2018 by SRTouch

[Broderbits]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

REAL PURPOSE OF POST is to see if I get a notification if anyone replies or likes this post

How did you get here? I had to search my notifications for a link to the forum since it isn't listed under "P" anymore, and I can't figure out where they moved it. Is there a generic forum for court shows now?

[SRTouch]

8 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

How did you get here? I had to search my notifications for a link to the forum since it isn't listed under "P" anymore, and I can't figure out where they moved it. Is there a generic forum for court shows now?

Short answer - went to site info and looked under questions - hmmm, maybe things would be smoother if I read the site announcements every so often

here's the thread link if you want to follow my head scratching/meandering to eventually find this forum  LOL

[PrincessPurrsALot]

The forums are currently being reindexed and some shows are being moved into single threads.  There is more work being done, so things will look a bit strange for a while.  This is all part of transferring the entire forum to a new format.  The Mods will be struggling along with you as we navigate the new format.  The People's Court is now a "Topic" rather than a "Forum".  In this case, it's more than semantics. 

There will be more leeway given about going off topic.  In general we have allowed up to ten off topic posts in a row; we tend to cut in when we aren't heading back to show talk.  This will still be a discussion thread for The People's Court TV show.  All other rules are still in place.  We have plenty to chat about with the horror that is Levin. 

[Pepper the Cat]

Found you!!

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Hmmmm....

REAL PURPOSE OF POST is to see if I get a notification if anyone replies or likes this post

Wonder if anyone is having similar problems with this new and improved forum.... first, I had a tough time even getting here. I always seem to experience a few hiccups when there is a system change, and this time is no different.  As of now, TPC  is no longer listed as a forum on my 'FOLLOWED' list

Good thing about the new combined forum - we won't get our hands spanked when we stray off topic and start chatting in wrong forum 😊

No real worries - they always get it straight eventually, and since we're currently in rerun hell, there isn't much traffic anywho.

Gave you a like and quoted you too. Just to see what happens

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Broderbits said:

How did you get here?

I had to go to my own "activity" and click on a post of mine because the listing for this forum was not clickable. Anyway, we're all together again, we're here, we're here! Silly old song...

I enjoy reruns like the ones today. Short, portly douchebag suing his girlfriend for vet bills: Why, yes - it's normal after a breakup to rush to social media and post how your former partner had sex with over 200 men, yet is lousy in bed and refuses to give head. That's what anyone who is "upset" would do, is it not? It's the manly way to handle things.  Her lack of skill in the bedroom seemed not to bother DoucheBoy at all, until she dumped his porky ass. That anyone would want him for anything at all is astonishing.

ETA: BTW, best part of Douchebag case was Doug in the Hall giving him a hard time. "How could you do that?" I love Doug.

Edited December 20, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Litigants,

Helpful tips for addressing the forum reorganization are now posted as an announcement on the home page.  Here the updated tips for finding shows that have moved to single topics: 

When you are on the Forums home page, you can select the letter category the show would fall in.  For example, for  The People's Court, this is PQ.  
You will be taken to a list of all shows in that category.  Those with Forums will still be shown.  There is also a catch all topic for other shows; e.g., Other PQ Shows.  Select this forum and you'll see the list of single topic shows.   

Can't find your show there?  Try Ctrl+F and type part of the title.  This will help you scan through the list on that page only.  Also check for a second or third page in that letter category. 

Really, really, really can't find it? Check the list of archived shows, ask a Mod for help or add a question here. 

How to find it again? Topics won't show on the Forums homepage, so, when you are on the Topic, select the Follow this Content button.  You will be shown a popup screen on which you can choose to be informed of new content or not.  If you don't want emails, select the last choice, "Don't send notifications, just add to my Followed Content".  

You can see your Followed Content by selecting Followed Content button on the Forums home page.  If there is new content in the Topic, it will be shown in red text. 

Edited December 21, 2018 by PrincessPurrsALot
Updated to match revised process

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today was the fun rerun of woman who rents houses, has no signed leases with tenants, lets tenant get rid of ancient shed, and put up a huge above ground pool.   Then when the hurricane hits, and water and electricity are off, she gets mad when tenant moves out.     Then when tenant moves back in with no water, and no electricity, gets upset when she's moving elsewhere, and sues for the ancient shed.   Then the tenant is suing for plumber bills, and inflates the bill to over twice what she paid.     I'm surprised Judge M didn't chase both litigants with her gavel, screaming "Receipts you idiots!"     Neither party has proof of anything, so they both get the same amount that cancels everything out.    I wish the landlord would get her many missing teeth replaced, and maybe I could have understood her a lot easier. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[aemom]

Finally found all of you!

To those of you who celebrate Christmas, I hope that you had a merry one.

Happy Boxing Day for those of you who dare to shop in the actual stores. I admire your bravery!  I'll be checking online for deals.

New episodes only come back on Jan 7. 😔

http://peoplescourt.com/schedule/

[AngelaHunter]

A  little Boxing Day Special: If anyone here, like me, never saw the full case of "Benedict" the arrogant, pompous asshole lawyer (the best kind, who doesn't know he needs evidence or feels he's too important to get documents signed ) we have it here for your viewing pleasure:

 

[Zahdii]

Wow!  What an ass!  I think he knew he was going to lose so he went in with the idea that he'd just be the biggest jerk possible.  He probably figured that if he couldn't intimidate the judge like he'd been trying to intimidate the plaintiff, at least he'd be able to snicker that he'd only lost because the little lady on the bench couldn't control her emotions.  See, these Little Lady pistols get so upset when dealing with smart men like himself, they just lose all perspective.  Luckily, Dr./Counselor what's his name is so wealthy and busy working 120 hrs a week doing pro bono work for more worthy folks, he felt showing up in court was more like a vacation than a serious need to defend his business practices.

I wonder, did Benedict the Jerk decide to reduce the rent of two of his tenants when he decided to sell the building to the third tenant hoping to eat up their deposits so he wouldn't have to turn them over to the new owner?  Could it be he's not as wealthy as he would like to appear and he didn't have those deposits available to pass on?

Has anyone checked to see if this guy has been disbarred yet?