The People's Court - General Discussion

[NYGirl]

Is it me or are these cases very boring?  I can't even focus when I'm watching.  It seems like they are all over the place and longer than usual. But man they're so boring.

[AZChristian]

7 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

Is it me or are these cases very boring?  I can't even focus when I'm watching.  It seems like they are all over the place and longer than usual. But man they're so boring.

No, it's not just you.  Maybe it's because the litigants were so boring that the producers wouldn't have paid to fly them to the studio for a real taping, and with everyone in lockdown (to one degree of another), all that's happening right now is covid-related stuff.  And we're ALL bored with that.  It's too much like real life.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Not only are they boring (except where the defendant was dating the plaintiff, her adult daughter, and plaintiff's sister, and was still married), because not only are the cases themselves kind of blah, but there's no way to get the litigants to tell the story without adding a bunch of other garbage.    They really need to pull the plug on the ones that won't shut up.   

[NYGirl]

I missed the one where the defendant was dating everyone!!  I'm so mad because I was looking forward to seeing that one 😞

When was it on?

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

another mother/daughter therapy sessions feud:

Speaking of punchable faces: Ms. Mace, you're right up there. I have a friend who had a father who took off when she was 3 and a mother who was an alcoholic. From the time my friend was 7 or 8, she had to be mother to HER mother and to her younger brother - no food in the house, (but lots of beer), drunken strangers around, utilities being shut off, etc. This had a life-long effect on both of them as being the children of alcoholics will, so understandable daughter felt she needed to check on and supervise her mother. Ms. Mace preferred to booze it up rather than make a single attempt to see her kids after they went to live their father. He said "no" and that was fine with her. He married a woman who was "rich"? How typical to think that anyone who can buy a home is rich.  I had to skip over most of the lizard kerfuffle. Yes, what these two people really needed were some exotic reptiles, who don't need anything and will sleep in your bed. Def looks them up AFTER purchasing them from the usual know-nothing idiots at some pet-peddling place, and finds out they are actual living creatures with specific needs. Who knew? Who would bother finding that out before buying them? Even after all this, daughter loans her credit for Mommy to get some place to hole up. I hate to think how that will work out. I believed def. when she stated, "Most of my family is grimy."

Anyway, I'm glad Mom still has the means to go and get truly grotesque fake nails which she must think are classy or something. I also skipped JM's family counselling session and the hallterviews.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

p says she sold hoopty for a grand that D was to pay in $200 monthly payments

OH, more of the devout and another punchable face. They met at church. They fill their texts with "God is good", Amen!" and "Have a blessed day." Didn't any of that rub off on the really disgusting, whiny, douchebag loser def, who I have a feeling was at church looking for naive marks? He's well past middle age, yet thinks some 22-year-old POS beater should be in perfect condition. Turns out it's not - what a surprise - so no way is he paying for it. He shouldn't have to fix the old heap himself, so he ditches it and leaves it for P to collect. She trusted him. Of course she did. He goes to church. Even after he stops paying and she takes the relic back, she returns it to him because he managed to scrape up 200$. She even goes so far as to give a TV to him in his group home. I don't know if we found out why he was there. What an utter douche he is. He signed a contract acknowledging the heap needs constant replacement of oil and water, but he shouldn't be held to that contract because P turned back the odometer. His proof of that? Well, he has none. Maybe he learned that through some divine interaction or a vision?

I really dislike these cases and much prefer contractors, shady lawyers, and scammy business people.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

They met at church. They fill their texts with "God is good", Amen!" and "Have a blessed day." Didn't any of that rub off on the really disgusting, whiny, douchebag loser def, who I have a feeling was at church looking for naive marks?

I figure he goes to Church as it helps foot the bills on thd group home - and they invite the residents to socials and potlucks...... probably turned down the tv cuz someone else already gave the home something with a bigger screen.

Edited November 14, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 hours ago, NYGirl said:

I missed the one where the defendant was dating everyone!!  I'm so mad because I was looking forward to seeing that one 😞

When was it on?

I didn't see it, except on the commercials for TPC, so I'm hoping next week.   It's certainly spicy enough for rating sweeps month (November).   

[SRTouch]

No recap, as once again my provider has messed up the scheduling. When I sat down to watch I found they are rerunning Friday's cases😤😤😤

I may stop recapping as I'm considering switching from satellite to streaming - not because of this scheduling issue, but other reasons. Still investigating the best streaming options.

Edited November 16, 2020 by SRTouch

[Maverick]

 Be thankful you missed today's show.  That first case was just...both parties were just awful.  Some woman meets up with a guy on Facebook book after the pandemic starts.   If you ask her they're dating, ask him she's an on call booty call.  She "loans" him money over a period of weeks (all in response to his horrible grammar/spelling laced texts) and now wants the money back.  He calls her a ho because that money was for sex.  She retorts she's pregnant and if it's a girl he'd paying child support and if it's a boy he's "getting that shit on his doorstep" (this was after she said something unintelligible about abortion).  There's other lovely bits about B&E and a 2017 misunderstanding involving bullets...all while the guy flashes his gold plated grill through the whole thing.  A fine example of humanity, these too.  It's really depressing watching this show sometimes. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

What a lovely mother this plaintiff will be, if it's a girl she's keeping the baby, but if it's a boy she's dumping him on the defendant's doorstep.   What the despicable plaintiff said was she's not paying for an abortion.  I love how this woman is the only person evicted during the pandemic.  

I hope Judge Marilyn will say that plaintiff had zero expectation of repayment, so she gets nothing.   I agree that she's just paying him for sex, and as Judge Marilyn says that prostitution.    Apparently unprotected sex too.  

How do you have a misunderstood shooting, like the defendant did in 2017?   Plaintiff loses, and I'm so glad about that. 

Boring house remodeling case.   $4,000 to the plaintiffs who are too foolish to do a remodel, and pay Mr. Do Nothing for doing nothing. 

Absurd case where a fridge was left outside on a dolly, next to assigned parking for the plaintiff.   Fridge fell over and damaged plaintiff's car, and defendant doesn't care.    What a lovely way to find out that the new neighbors are jerks.  They left the fridge out on the lawn, next to the sidewalk/parking lot overnight, and fridge falls on video.   I'm shocked no one stole the fridge since it was out overnight.      The defendant husband is a total ass, but the wife is even worse.   Plaintiff gets $1,582

 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

That first case was just...both parties were just awful.

Just the kind of case I hate the most, after dog cases. Hypersexual, stupid, pathetic woman hooks up with a revolting pig with the horrific grill on FB's "I'm Looking for an ATM" "dating" site. According to him, they wasn't dating. They was just talking. SHE showers so much money on this Adonis that she can't pay her rent. But that's okay, as long as he kept making booty calls, I mean visits in which they would 'conversate'. That he's an unemployed criminal who did a whole bunch of shooting (which he thinks is amusing) bothers her not at all, as long he can keep...err.. "talking" to her. He informs JM that she paid him for sex. So she did and that was her prerogative. Ew. Of course, she'd never dream of using birth control or protection against disease with this grifting felon she'd known a few weeks. Why would she? I get it. His romantic, Romeo-like but illiterate texts would have had me swooning and throwing money at him too:

Him: "Sup"

Her: "Can't stop thinking about U".

Him: "Cap cash(sic) me 15" (20, 80,100, etc)

Who could resist? Not I.

If she is knocked up (not sure if that big belly she displayed is a baby or not and she includes a pic of a postive pregnancy test she could have downloaded from Google images) she really thinks he's going to pay child support?🤣 Okay, at least I got a laugh from that. Well, she thinks he will if it's a girl. If it's a boy, she's going to toss the baby on his doorstep and that is something I believe. For sure she'll be a great baby mamma and a wonderful role model to a daughter. I am SO glad JM is now refusing to reward these pathetic, desperate booty calls. Public humiliation for nothing, that is, if she has the sense to be humiliated, which I doubt.

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Boring house remodeling case. 

The def - the "Expediter" -  was such a pompous asshole, who sat there and admitted he didn't do the work because he decided against logging on to his home computer. He just didn't feel like it I guess, since he couldn't say COVID prevented him from doing even that, but he's keeping the 4K. He did do something. What did he do? That would be nothing. I hope Plaintiffs learned not to give anyone such a huge payment up front. It's not like D had to buy a bunch of materials with the money. JM is furious at the obnoxious, laughing def and orders him to give back all the money. It's sad that he actually gets to keep it all. No wonder he was hooting like a fool.

Speaking of fools: Levin? "Expedite, Sheshpedite". What, you decided it was time for a little break from the usual, "Expediter? HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!"? Every time I think I can't hate him more, he proves me wrong.

Didn't see the third case. It was butted in to by some dire, urgent information that couldn't wait one hour or so until the news, so thanks, CrazyInAlabama.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

You're welcome AH.     

My guess is the expediter was supposed to grease the wheels at city hall to get the project and permits approved in record time, and to ignore any code violations.     I suspect the defendant was never going to do any physical work, but just be the liaison with certain building officials. 

[AngelaHunter]

26 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I suspect the defendant was never going to do any physical work, but just be the liaison with certain building officials. 

He didn't even do that, to my understanding. The architect refused to approve the plans, which included a bedroom inaccessible because of no stairs in the plan, so I'm pretty sure no zoning body would do so either. Ah, so many cases now where people do nothing for monies they are given and blame it on COVID, right down to using that as an excuse to not log on to their home computers.

[AZChristian]

16 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Ah, so many cases now where people do nothing for monies they are given and blame it on COVID, right down to using that as an excuse to not log on to their home computers.

And to have the nerve to ask the Plaintiff (a state employee) to get him MORE time on unemployment.  He just used Covid as an excuse to take a long vacation, not realizing that the pandemic would last longer than his benefits.  That's fine, but don't take the guy's $4,000 and not provide the product you promised.

[howiveaddict]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

Absurd case where a fridge was left outside on a dolly, next to assigned parking for the plaintiff.   Fridge fell over and damaged plaintiff's car, and defendant doesn't care.    What a lovely way to find out that the new neighbors are jerks.  They left the fridge out on the lawn, next to the sidewalk/parking lot overnight, and fridge falls on video.   I'm shocked no one stole the fridge since it was out overnight.      The defendant husband is a total ass, but the wife is even worse.   Plaintiff gets $1,582

 

But it was an act of God that the fridge fell over!

[Maverick]

 JM may not have awarded the heinous plantiff any of the hunnids of dollars cash apped golden grill, but she still framed it as as a "lesson learned" for her. Really JM?  You think she learned something from this?   What about her demeanor, much less the magnitude of her horrible choices, makes you think she came out the other side of this ant better or wiser?

[DoctorK]

27 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

But it was an act of God that the fridge fell over!

It was an act of God that it wasn't stolen.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

You think she learned something from this?   What about her demeanor, much less the magnitude of her horrible choices, makes you think she came out the other side of this ant better or wiser?

Look at her smiley "So what?" attitude about casually getting knocked up by some criminal grifter from the FB meat market. No biggie, right? Sounds like maybe it's not the first time - squirting out an unfortunate baby and flinging it on the sperm donor's doorstep, if she even knew the address. I don't know what it would take to teach her anything at all.

[Florinaldo]

11 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

But it was an act of God that the fridge fell over!

Is there a patron saint for pieces of furniture negligently left on the sidewalk?

 

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The defendant husband is a total ass, but the wife is even worse.

He looked uncomprehending throughout, but she was beyond annoying with her open-mouth shocked reaction to every statement she heard from JM and the plaintiff.

[AZChristian]

11 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

But it was an act of God that the fridge fell over!

Well, maybe God got tired of holding it up for all those hours.

The defendunces kept insinuating that they couldn't get it up the steps themselves, so they had every right to leave it there until help arrived.  Hypothetically . . . what if the car had already been parked there, defendunces left the fridge on the dolly there (you know that wouldn't have made a difference to them), and the fridge fell as soon as they let go of the handle.  Would they then realize that blaming God for their own stupidity wasn't a good defense?  What if the dolly started rolling ("act of God" gust of wind) and took out a car across the street instead?  

I cannot believe the stupidity of some people, especially given their lack of willingness to recognize it when it's pointed out to them and they see it ON THEIR OWN VIDEO.

I will say this, though.  Had I parked in my space and that refrigerator on a dolly was sitting there unattended, I'd have moved to another space, or at least moved all the way to the other side of my space so my car wasn't in line of where that fridge might tip over.  It looked like she had room to move, and the damage was just on the right front edge of her car.  One has to be aware of what stupid people do, and sometimes protect oneself from them.

[Katy M]

40 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

One has to be aware of what stupid people do, and sometimes protect oneself from them.

Yes, yes, and yes.  this applies to so many areas of life.  I have always said, you are always your own best first line of defense.

[AngelaHunter]

39 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Had I parked in my space and that refrigerator on a dolly was sitting there unattended, I'd have moved to another space, or at least moved all the way to the other side of my space so my car wasn't in line of where that fridge might tip over. 

Maybe she assumed the owners of the fridge would be back momentarily, perhaps not thinking anyone would be dumb enough to leave it there all night.

40 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

One has to be aware of what stupid people do, and sometimes protect oneself from them.

Agreed!

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

He looked uncomprehending throughout, but she was beyond annoying

He looked (and acted) like a real meathead or juicehead, she was just a witch or harridan.

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's rerun was the California fence case, where the nasty neighbors delayed the building so long the neighbor finally built it himself (he hired a fence crew).   That's the case where he built half of the fence facing his yard, the other half facing the neighbors' yard, and there was a gap.   The neighbors originally wanted board on board, which has on tall board facing one yard, and the next board on the other side of the fence.    

The case this afternoon is some woman suing a mechanic over the repair of her BMW, with aftermarket parts, for $2400.   The BMW is 22 years old, the defendant/mechanic fixed the steering/ rack and pinion, which cost $1250 or so.   Then she says the steering stopped working (steering wheel pump, not the same thing at all), $445.   Then the steering issue comes back, and he replaced the steering wheel pump (for free), it messed up the rack and pinion, so mechanic replaced that free also.   Then in December, (six months later) it all fails again.  The mechanic says he always gives customers the option of using after market parts, or the manufacturer parts (in this case BMW).    My guess is the plaintiff is playing stupid, and if she doesn't know the time to order 22 year old BMW parts, and the price difference, then she's lying.    Then there was an oil leak, and plaintiff wanted him to fix that free.   Plaintiff is only in Florida a couple of times a year, and that's when she fixed the car at defendant's shop.   The car is 22 years old, and lives in Florida, with salt air corrosion, I'm shocked it didn't totally rust apart by now.  Plaintiff thinks her trip back to Florida should be reimbursed, and she sued the mechanic personally, not the business (he's protected by his S corporation status), and judge dismissed the case against the mechanic personally.    So plaintiff wants her expenses to come and file the second time against the company.   

Mechanic's shop is called "Why Go to the Dealer?".     Plaintiff will get the rack and pinion repair $884, done by another mechanic. (She wants $2,600+), when she goes to the other mechanic, he will pay $500 for the part to plaintiff, and labor $753, so total $1253 (if she doesn't return the part, then she won't get $500 back).   I hope that's clear, but I'm so confused.    Why should the woman get anything on a 22 year old car?    Plaintiff still wants more money.  

Both sides are ticked about the verdict by Judge Marilyn.

Plaintiff hired defendant to move him from Massachusetts to FLorida.   Truck wasn't big enough, so plaintiff had to rent another truck, and drive that to Florida himself.   Mover says she inspects everything unloaded at the warehouse, and plaintiff never complained about any damages.   As Judge Marilyn says, clients are always under estimating the amount of stuff they're moving, and obviously plaintiff did.    Plaintiff wants $4800 for his move to Cape Coral Florida.  

Plaintiff said the company quoted him, $1500+ for the move, for the small amount of items plaintiff listed.    Defendant says when movers showed up at plaintiff's house, the items he said he had amounted to 600 cubic feet, but the movers say plaintiff had a whole lot more stuff.    Judge Marilyn stops barely short of calling the movers crooks.   Contract went from $1500 to $3800, and contract for the second price was signed by plaintiff.    The plaintiff even had more stuff than that, had to rent a U-Haul truck for the leftovers, and that was after giving away a lot of items.   

Plaintiff has no receipts for the bedroom set, giant TV, or the loveseat/ sofe (vinyl sofa/ loveseat, and bedroom set are very old, not less than a year like plaintiff says).   Plaintiff signed the inventory list stating the loveseat/sofa were already damaged.  I've had bonded leather, and it looked great even two years after I bought it, and if he's still paying for it, he has no receipt for anything.       He also claimed with the moving broker he bought the cheap insurance through, and received $110 for the damages.   His insurance was .60 a pound, and plaintiff will get $144 more.  

 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Well, heck, my provider still has the schedule messed up. Today I see the same mom suing daughter that I was shown Friday and again yesterday...... good grief, it wasn't that good the first time and now we're seeing it for the third time in a row. 😤😤😤😤

[DoctorK]

Today's last new case - the mover owes me a Bonanza! The plaintiff, no matter how he dressed up real nice for the camera was a complete hustler. He was claiming damage for a bunch of things that, trust him, he bought in the last year but has no receipts. The TV was broken, looks like mover damage, but can't set a value because with no receipt, it may have been 5 years old. What really pissed me off was his grossly inflated values (again with no evidence) for the sofa and bed. The bed set was visibly old, stained and yellowed, and looking at the legs "broken off", it was a dirt cheap piece of furniture. The sofa was a raggedy-ass mess of dried out and worn out pleather. No way was the pleather damaged by the mover, it was just worn out and peeling in the part where the pleather gets flexed every time any one sits down, stands up or shifts their weight. Fortunately, things turned out even worse for him because he signed a contract where he agreed that mover liability was severely limited (because he did not pay for better insurance coverage). I think he got exactly what the contract said ($144 - thanks AngelaHunter) which was more than he deserved. I didn't stick around for his post trial complaining, I had enough of him by then.

Edited November 17, 2020 by DoctorK
Correct dollar amount provided by the illustrious AngelaHunter

[AngelaHunter]

43 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

the mover owes me a Bonanza! The plaintiff, no matter how he dressed up real nice for the camera was a complete hustler.

I enjoyed this, just because he was such a hustler, but a really crappy one. He starts, as so many litigants suing moving companies do, by telling the def mover he only has a few things to be moved. Yeah, they all say that. He's banking that once the movers get there and see the gargantuan hoard, they'll say, "Oh, what the hell. We're here so let's just do it at the price." No, they don't do that in this case, but tell it him it will be another 2K. Plaintiff had so much crap he had to go get a second truck to move it. He signs the contract agreeing to pay double the original price he was quoted when he lied.

Now he's claiming a fortune for his old, busted up, shitty melamine furniture. JM thinks it looks a lot older than a year. Best part? He's suing for the damage done to his "leather" sofa. Oh, Mr. Madieros - who do you think you're fooling? It's old, cheap, worn-out pleather and he's trying to blame the movers for the condition of this piece of junk. "It's REAL leather!" plaintiff squawks, all in a huff. He claims all this tacky old shit is worth about 4K. Receipts? Well, no. He has none on this nearly-new, expensive furniture he bought a year ago. He also claims they smashed his one-year-old, 60" TV. For shame, Mr. Madieros, for shame. I really liked the def. She was very mouthy, but she knows what she's talking about and I'm sure she's dealt with shysters like the P before. He gets 144$ according to the contract HE (and not JM) signed which limits damages to 60 cents a pound. He's highly indignant. Why should he have to abide by the contract he signed? I mean, look at his suit and tie. You just know all his junk was high-end.

Then we got the amazing fight over the 22-year-old BMW. The plaintiff seems prepared to go the ends of the earth to prove the Def, who has a mechanic shop called, "Why Go to the Dealer?"(which JM notes should have been a clue to P), didn't put genuine BMW parts in her car. That's he's charging 1/3rd the price of BMW doesn't give her a hint that he's using after-market parts? She calls the parts "knock-offs" and claims she doesn't even know what "after-market" means.  Plaintiff starts to tell JM, "The car was in perf-" then stops because obviously it was not in perfect condition, so changes it to "The car is beautiful." Can't always judge a book, or a 22-year-old car, by its cover. She's already tried to sue the def as in an individual, but was informed she can't do that but must sue the corporation.

Def replaces both parts he installed, and they still don't work. I kind of lost track here, but I think he offered to get the 1700$ BMW part to swap out for the 500$ after-market part but she refuses. JM tells her if she gives back the 500$ rack-and-pinion def installed, she will order him to return the 500$. She wants to know what about her original part? It was trashed so I don't know what she thinks it's worth. JM orders D to give her back the cost of the labour, since neither repair he did worked.

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I didn't stick around for his post trial complaining, I had enough of him by then.

You missed the best part!!!!  He complained that he lost out on all the money he spent for having his furniture moved, PLUS the cost to replace his "nearly new" "LEATHER" furniture and almost new TV!!!  

So he wanted to move about $2,000 worth of crappy furniture, signed a contract to pay (I think) $3,500+ to move it, declined the better insurance coverage, and claims he was out $9,000 and only got $144!!!  "How is that fair??????"

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

"How is that fair??????"

Alas, no one ever promised us fair, Mr. Madieros. I think the 144$ was more insulting than zero would have been. 😄

I doubt even the Salvation Army would have agreed to take that wrecked pile of cheap furniture.

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Well, heck, my provider still has the schedule messed up.

SRTouch, go here. There are some of the recent cases. I don't know which ones you missed, but they may be among them.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBDzHqziwbr3w9_GmiMd_sQ/videos

[Florinaldo]

Two typical litigants yesterday.

First a car owner who does not understand how car repairs work and knows even less about automobile mechanics (she somehow thinks that the steering wheel repairs relate to every other problem in her very old car). I would have given her nothing; sometimes on these old beaters nothing can solve the problem because they are way past what can be considered as a reasonable length of useful service. I agree she may have been playing dumb to generate some sympathy in her case.

As for the other plaintiff, of course he greatly underestimated the size of his move and refused to purchase the extra insurance, but then he has the gall to sue and ask the judge to ignore his signature on the contract and for the added charges due to the excess material to move. Thankfully that moving company is well-organised and keeps excellent paperwork, which proved how much of a whiny asshole he is, incapable of accepting the consequences of the choices he himself made.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Florinaldo

[SRTouch]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

SRTouch, go here. There are some of the recent cases. I don't know which ones you missed, but they may be among them.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBDzHqziwbr3w9_GmiMd_sQ/videos

Thanks, I watched one that I had missed last night...... now I know where to look. I actually made the decision to ditch my satellite, bought a firestick, and now have to decide which streaming service is best for me.

Edited November 18, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's rerun was about a man selling golf clubs at a yard sale, or some other way, and the buyer found a better deal and wanted his money back.    Buyer did get his money back, because seller didn't specify no refunds on the bill of sale, or other receipt.   Since when does a yard sale have a refund policy?   

[AZChristian]

39 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This morning's rerun was about a man selling golf clubs at a yard sale, or some other way, and the buyer found a better deal and wanted his money back.    Buyer did get his money back, because seller didn't specify no refunds on the bill of sale, or other receipt.   Since when does a yard sale have a refund policy?   

Let's say that the item sold was a used car instead of golf clubs.  The sale is assumed to be "as-is" . . . including price.  Unless the yard sale seller said to the guy, "You won't find a better price than this anywhere," their transaction was signed, sealed and completed with the transfer of money.  The buyer was welcome to try to sell his clubs to recoup the cost, but I can't think of any legal reason that any judge (except in this case) would have forced the seller to take back the clubs.

I'd have loved to JM and Judge John discuss this one on "After the Verdict."

Edited November 18, 2020 by AZChristian
Added thought.

[Katy M]

45 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This morning's rerun was about a man selling golf clubs at a yard sale, or some other way, and the buyer found a better deal and wanted his money back.    Buyer did get his money back, because seller didn't specify no refunds on the bill of sale, or other receipt.   Since when does a yard sale have a refund policy?   

Yeah, that def sounds weird. Did they say what state? Maybe they have some weird thing on the books that says that no refunds has to be specified.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I missed the beginning of the golf clubs case, so I don't know where it was.   I'm guessing it was a yard or garage sale, because at the end the seller said something about having to put "As Is" and "No Refunds" signs up at a garage sale.   I thought the seller having to do a refund was ridiculous.  If the buyer no longer wanted the clubs, then resell them. 

I really wonder if Barry the Bear found his way home.     It's hysterical to me that someone who travels as much as defendant in the cabin rental case, claims he knows exactly when and how he caught bed bugs.      

Judge MM has her own Youtube channel, so maybe there will be an update to the case on that. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Think this is actually the RIGHT episode for today. 

vacation house tenants helped themselves: Ps here rented their vacation house and say when Renter (D) left he reversed the payment on his credit card and helped himself to a handcarved bear statue - they want $1100...... D argues rental was a disaster, and he had to be treated for bedbugs, so he shouldn't have to pay anything - in fact he wants $1700 more for pain and suffering - and a bet? ........ wonder why he would expect P to pay for some bet........ have to wait for testimony about how long D stayed and how soon he started complaining, but no way do I see D getting pain and suffering and pament for some bet......... when testimony begins we find out these folks did not just have a landlord/tenant relationship, but were friends/acquaintenances for decades - this was not a normal rental vacation property, never rented to anyone before, it was a cabin in the Tenn woods that D asked to rent when he learned there was nobody staying there at the time - P says he thinks like house would bring $1600/week rented it out, but they gave D the friends and family discount....... seems P was at the cabin but were leaving on a trip a couple days after D arrived - D arrived from Florida as planned a couple days before P left so there WAS an overlap - but yeah was plan all along....... uh, if I heard correctly, D was there and happy for almost a week before P left him alone for respective vacations........ D paid a grand up front for a month's stay, but left a week early........ over to D who agrees he paid a grand, but is arguing that the deal was actually supposed to be $250 a week...... says he didn't know they had charged his card $1000 until he returned from his stay......... guess he was mainly there for the fall colors of the Appalachian mountains...... but that doesn't answer MM's question of when he first became dissatisfied - is he saying he was happy until he found got home and found they charged for a full month when he expected to be charged for 3 weeks?........ uh except that defense evaporates when MM asks where that was the deal in their many texts - in fact MM points to a text when they were arguing over the price and P says it's firm at $1000 and then that's exacting what D authorizes through the online money transfer app........ D also complaining about the overlap - despite the texts showing that that was always the plan......... anyway, D ate the steak, paid for it, reversed the charged (lied to CC company saying he didn't know anything about ghetto charge) and did some self help and stole the bear statue because he thinks he was overcharged - and we have yet to hear anything about any bedbugs - even if there WERE bedbugs, can he prove he didn't get them on his travels to/from Florida, he was happy there for several days during the overlap when he could have renegotiated the deal (though texts show it doubtful P would have changed price) not liking D at all - at all........ back to MM's original question - when did D decide he wasn't happy (maybe this is where the bugs come in.....) he says he sent an email 2 days after he got there - MM can't find it in what has been submitted and turns out the email was actually sent 3 weeks after date he claims when he decided to leave early - yep, he was working on an excuse not to pay for a steak after he ate 3/4th of it, he complains about a fight P's gf had with her son 3 weeks earlier, complains about the furnishings and he tries to renegotiate price down from  $1000 to $500...... uh, thought he claimed he didn't know they were charging $1000, saying it was $250/week....... ah ha, MM just found a message about Barry (or maybe it should be Beary), the bear statue, and D freely admits he took it home with him when he went back to Florida - message says he's keeping Barry unless P agrees to change price to $500....... going to commercial, still nothing about any bedbugs (which should have been his lead defense) and D caught in lie after lie........ latest lie, when we get back from commercial D is insisting he was never contacted by Sheriff about the bear - but P testifies he filed a police report and D suddenly had second thoughts and emailed that his son would return Barry unharmed......... MM ready to wrap this up (might as well, D has yet to produce a defense that isn't damned by his own words in submitted texts/emails....... MM into the yelling at another silly litigant who has no defense yet just keeps on keeping on with repeating no sense she has already shot down - she's getting ready to lower the boom (and STILL nary a bedbug - was this just intro nonsense or will he introduce bugs as proof for his $1700 counterclaim)........ AH FINALLY we get to bedbugs........ wellllllll he says he didn't realise he was being eaten by bedbugs for a couple weeks (I thought bites were obvious right away, but Google says it can take a couple weeks for bites to appear) - anyway, now we'd be back to D proving he had been bitten while at cabin weeks before D went to a doctor......... hmmmmmm after D got home with Barry the stolen bear, D raised the bedbug claim and P hired an exterminator to do an inspection - no sign bigs, but P had to pay $100 for the exterminator inspection - which explains the extra $100 in the lawsuit - $1000 reversed credit card charge + $100 for bug check + $0 upon safe return of Hostage Barry the wooden bear).......... D going down swinging with these nonsensical defenses, and just said MM is just wasting his time if she doesn't believe him - and MM laughs and says SHE'S wasting HIS time?!? - ok, D no longer funny, time's up - oh, almost forget the bet! Seems while they were having a good time P gf bet that she could climb into a boat, and instead took a dip in the water......... ok, now D says he never really wanted the money from the countersuit - he's a world traveler, ya'see and doesn't need the money yada yada - I'm not sure why I'm still watching this yahoo (must be because I missed a couple days due to scheduling problems).......... ah ha, seems when he left the Tenn cabin he was off the Mexico, then either went, or was scheduled to go to, Alaska, the Mediterranean, South American and so on - uh, could he maybe have found a buggy bed sometime before heading home and going to the doctor for his bites?........ oh my, we get the covid version of calls for security to escort litigant out when MM starts repeating "turn him off - turn him off!!"......... P gets they want - and nothing on counterclaim - MM tells us courts don't get involved when somebody welshes on a bet between friends - duh........ not much to add in after the verdict chat, but hubby does tells us that first time D mentioned bedbugs was 17 days after he left the cabin

puppy case - no recap - decided to clean litter boxes rather than watch another  "I bought a defective puppy and breeder owes for vet bills....." case......... just kidding about the litter boxes - already did that this morning........ zipped ahead - backyard breeder delivered pup at SIX WEEKS but insists from now on he'll wait until puppies are at least 8 weeks old - not sure why puppy buyer got anything, but according to Doug she walks away with $500......... over to P hallterview and I hear a great court tv summation of opposing litigant - "he was full of crap since day one" ......... after the verdict and I learn why buyer got anything - apparently in the jurisdiction  (Pennsylvania) a buyer can get back the purchase price if buyer can prove puppy was sick when sold - purchase price but nothing more even if vet bills are GI-normous -  

Edited November 19, 2020 by SRTouch

[VartanFan]

Scumbags abound on Monday's show - dummy who - instead of paying her own rent - gave money to an absolute sleaze.  A guy who took a 2/3 down payment and basically decided to steal the money without doing the work because...Covid gets him unemployment.  Idiot movers who decide to leave the fridge out on the sidewalk to screw up OTHER people's stuff.  Unbelievable.

Quote

I cannot believe the stupidity of some people, especially given their lack of willingness to recognize it when it's pointed out to them and they see it ON THEIR OWN VIDEO

Not only that, but it would have been SUPER easy for them to also prove that the refrigerator HADN'T been outside all night by also showing the proof from a mere 1/2 hour earlier when they left it there.  #liars  

Yuck!  The whole hour was just a sleaze-fest.  

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

vacation house tenants helped themselves:

I actually enjoyed hating the def. He's a pompous, disgusting, lowlife, amoral POS who had no qualms about stiffing his friends of 20 years. I had to wonder why on earth plaintiffs had this jerkoff asshole as a friend, but maybe he did not "show his true colours" until money was involved. He "ate the steak" and then didn't want to pay for it and uses every excuse under the sun to weasel out of his agreement. The furniture was tacky, the bed was uncomfortable, etc.

He gets fed up with JM 'wasting his time' with her dreary, plebian questions, but he needs to get in that there were bedbugs in this place and to prove it shows his revolting, scabby arms (that look like ringworm he picked up on his many world travels) while he condescendingly informs JM that everyone knows bedbug bites only show up a month or so afterwards. Exterminators find zero evidence of bedbugs, so maybe def brought his own and took them with him when he left. To top it off, he steals the P's carved bear and says it was a prank, like some dopey teenager. If he wants deluxe accomodations with upscale furniture, let him take his fat ass to some 5***** hotel in the future and see if he can scam his way out of paying that bill by informing them at the end of his stay that it did not meet his exacting standards. Did you see the views from the deck of that house? I would gladly pay the money to stay there. Looks heavenly.

"Turn him off!" JM orders when she can't stand one more second of this mealy-mouthed old con artist's babbling. Too bad that can't be done with all litigants who appear in person. Maybe that would involve Douglas slapping some duct tape over their flapping, lying pie holes.

[aemom]

I apologize in advance for being so far behind, but both of these cases annoyed me so because the verdict seemed to contradict how JM usually rules

 

On 10/28/2020 at 8:46 PM, zillabreeze said:

I bout fell off the couch at $1000 price tag!!!  Fair market around here is about $400 per room & It's easily a full week with a 2-3 person crew. It's all also depending on if doors and trim come into play.  That's where the real work is.

I'd prob take a pass at the too cheap bid, but dudes work looked pretty darned good.

Do people seriously just go and paint a room?  If you are going to go through the trouble of painting, don't you spackle and sand all the existing holes and dings and whatnot first, and then sand, etc.  Then prime the wall and finally paint it - with one or probably two coats?

How would anyone accomplish this in one day for one room, never mind a whole house?

I agree that he hadn't done 3/4 of the job, so why get 3/4 of the money?  It seems like JM was swayed by Cartoon Eyebrow Lady's attempt to get the work done for free.

 

On 10/28/2020 at 5:49 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Next case involved another fence fight. Plaintiffs are suing defs for the cost of a new fence after D's dogs - a pack of earth-moving Chihuahuas - dug under the fence constantly. Defs piled a bunch of crap against the fence to keep the Chis at bay, but it didn't work. There's also a palm tree that grew and now is pushing the fence out of whack. Ps agree to remove the tree if the defs will pay for the fence, or half of it or something like that. I was a little distracted because this fence truly looks as though it may have been installed just after The Great Flood.

Two years later and Ds haven't paid a single penny. Oh, well - she had a heart operation and was in a car accident so you can't expect her to go out and do demolition and dig posts, can you? JM wants to know why her husband could do absolutely nothing about getting the job done? He works every day and yadda yadda. Never did he have a moment in 2 years to arrange to get the work done. Finally P sends a text to Ds asking when they can expect the money for the fence? Snarky, smirky, nasty D wife - hated her! - answers and says they sold their house and they're moving anyway, so "fix your own fence." JM says, "Shame on you" to the deadbeats and orders a payment of over 2K to plaintiffs.

The D were horrible people and nasty and vindictive with "we're moving, see ya!"

But still - that fence was not worth the judgment that they got.  JM always talks about how you don't get replacement value, but depreciated value.

Sometimes she does give depreciated, sometimes she doesn't...

And for the condo leak-thing that happened right around the same time.  We don't get a follow up to find out if the leak was resolved in 30 days?  Come on show - you can do better.  You usually do.

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by aemom
Typo

[CrazyInAlabama]

The new episode is called "Harassing a Neighbor". Two men who live in the same subdivision have been flipping birds, at each other for years.   Plaintiff did have defendant prosecuted for assault a few years ago, and defendant pled guilty.    Plaintiff wanted an order of protection, after the assault with the guilty plea, and received one.    Plaintiff says defendant knocked him down, and used his much higher weight to smash him into the sidewalk.  .     Defendant and son are sitting there looking smug, and I'm betting the defendants do exactly what plaintiff says they did.   The current case is for $7,000, against defendant, son, and another family member.   

Part of it is keying the plaintiff's car by the son.   Plaintiff even started parking really far from his own home, and another neighbor told the defendant where plaintiff parked, and defendant son looks like a total liar, when he denies scratching the car for the second time.   The plaintiff's car needs a total repaint.     

 I agree with the plaintiff, why should he sit with mediators with the defendants?    I wouldn't go near someone who had assaulted me, keyed my car several times, and video tapes every time the plaintiff walks down a public street.    Judge Marilyn says plaintiff writes a poem about the defendants after every confrontation, but there's so much profanity in the poems, she has to censor them.   The defendant claims 'someone' slashed his tires, and I'm sure that there are thousands of suspects, and all with a motive.   

Both cases dismissed, but I absolutely believe what the plaintiff says about the defendants.   (I'm so glad I don't live in Queens where the plaintiff, and the equally awful defendants live). 

A case where plaintiff sold two Prada bags to defendant, defendant claimed they were fake and wanted a refund, received a refund from Ebay, and never returned the bags to plaintiff.     Bet defendant resold the bags, so she has her original money back, and made a big profit ripping off the plaintiff.   Defendant claims she donated the bags to a friend, and I believe nothing.   So plaintiff gets her $200 back.  

Next really boring case, plaintiff's bought a used elliptical machine, for $450, and claim they bought a 2018 model, that had a label inside saying 2011.  That may be the original model number, but still produced later.   It sounds like the patent date of the model.    Then the plaintiffs buy it, and now claim it's not the wonderful deal they thought it was, and want their money back.      Judge says return the $450 to the plaintiffs, and defendant can pick it up or it's gone in seven days.  However, plaintiffs didn't try it before they bought it, and there is nothing saying a 2011 model couldn't have been manufactured in 2018.    I think the ad said the son bought the machine in 2018, and never used it, so maybe the ad didn't say which model year it is.  

Edited November 20, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

It was the Aweful Battle of Weinstein vs Weinberg. Def and his dopey son are nearly rolling on the floor and smashing their heads on the desk with laughter and JM has to tell them to knock it off. She's astonished and revolted that grown men of their ages are behaving this way: "He gives me the finger!" "He started it!" Neither of them have a clue as to what started this stupid, childish old man war, but each is sure it's the fault of the other. JM doesn't know, and that the p admits he got into a fight with yet another neighbour means he's no innocent victim. Disgusting. Plaintiff had such a horrific dental situation, with much chewing and tongue-flicking I had to look away. D claims his battery is running out and needs to get a charger. Unfortunately when he does this we get a closeup of his face and gap-toothed grin. Ew. They both have witnesses, none of whom are here, so rank hearsay is offered as proof. "Some neighbour told me she saw..." Idiot.

I was wishing all three of them could be herded onto a plane and dropped in some war zone. Maybe that would make them stop this idiocy and figure out a better use of  what seems to be way too much idle time.  I'm glad they don't live near me.

Then we had the petty scammer who bought two Prada bags from plaintiff on eBay. Never use eBay! I did once and learned my lesson. She's very happy with the bags until a few weeks later, when she intends to travel and she notices one of the parts is broken. Plaintiff refunds her all the money and even sends her a shipping label to send the bags back. Oh, but def is "mid-travel" and didn't know about it and can't do that (even though this was months ago) plus eBay tells her she needn't send the bags back because def conveniently does not inform them she was refunded the entire price outside of eBay and not just 25$. She thinks keeping the bags and all the money is fair and reasonable. JM is rather incensed at her scam. Def sits there smiling in her janky wig and is utterly shameless. Maybe all that mid-travel mixed her up. No, it didn't and she's willing to appear here and reveal her scam for a mere 237$. She actually has the nerve to tell JM she "donated" the bags to some travel companion. Can't expect her to use a bag with a broken zipper catch, even though P offered to pay for the repar. Her upper-class demeanor slips a bit when she tells Doug, "They wuz used bags."

Judge John - maybe just to be kind - says he feels Def wasn't really trying to grift. Oh, yes, she was and JM knows it. However JJ redeems himself with his, "It's a ruling you can be Prada!"😄

The cackling old witch in the exercise equipment case was kind of annoying. Why can't her darling son sell his own old junk, but must get mommy to do it for him? And why didn't plaintiff go check out this machine herself, instead of sending her hubby, who says he couldn't test it out because he knows nothing about it? That two-headed skeleton behind def was weird. She knows very well the machine is worthless and has no intention of going to get it. P gets her 450$ back.

In addition to not buying from eBay and CL, it seems to be a good idea to also never buy from FB Marketplace.

Edited November 19, 2020 by AngelaHunter
The usual: wine

[SRTouch]

Hmmmmm, anyone else have trouble with Primetimer today. I wrote this recap, oh 'bout 6 hours ago, but kept getting error messages and couldn't post it. Luckily it was still sitting here in the editor when I finally came back....... anyway, today we have 3 cases and 3 recaps😉....... lots of errors in first post that were hopefully corrected now that I know I'm again able to post

Longtime neighbor feud: 2 guys old enough to know better have been feuding for years - seems 8 years ago they had a kerfuffle which landed D in hoosegow, and ever since they flip each other off when they see each other - which is common since they live within a few hundred feet of each other..... somehow or other P thinks he deserves 10 grand for harrassment and a vandalized car - we'll see, but I'm thinking 15-20yo old hoopty 😉......... of course defendants are countersuing for - you got it - $10000 worth of harrassment and false prosecution....... I'm thinking about the Grumpy old men movies, except the movie guys didn't get physical with physical beat downs and regular law enforcement calls - and the movie was entertainly and I just want these two (actually 3 since defendant's are father/son duo) gone - not going to give blow by blow recap - funny at times, but mainly just glad not to live around anywhere around these idiotic yahoos....... something new with the covid set - P has to do something because his phone battery if dieing 15 minutes into case and has to take a break and go get a charger....... yada yada zip zip........ these two really are sort of the real life version of grumpy old men, they seem to entertain themselves by irritating each other......... MM and Douglas had a few chuckles, but these two are not Walter Matthua and Jack Lemmon. ....... nobody has evidence of anything (P showed us a video of somebody - could have been anyone, walking a dog - no idea what that was supposed to be, both cases dismissed

Damaged Prada bags kerfuffle sold on ebay: according to intro, P sold a couple designer bags to D, D called to complain 1 was damaged, D says when she complained P told her to take it to nearest Prada store for repairs, but there are no Prada stores near her - she ended up complaining to ebay, and ebay refunded the money - thing is she claims ebay told her to keep the bags P now suing because she had to return money to ebay to cover refund, and D was left with two bags plus the money (she ended up giving them away) P wants the money she had to pay ebay, $207.50......... seems straight forward, D should return the bags or the money - her whole story rings false........... uh, when testimony begins P starts with how happy D was with the sell, even to posting great review on ebay, but then a week or two later D changes her mind and wants to rewind the deal - uh, not sure why ebay would even refund any money here, but then I've never bought anything from them so maybe I'm missing something - from the messages it is obvious D bought these to use, had them for 10 days or something, and her refund is based on damage not any false advertising........ I guess thing is that when D complained P quickly gave a partial refund - not sure she owed D anything, but she sent it even though D was demanding the full refund........ ah ha, refund was not from ebay with ebay then collecting from P, no, P put the money into D's PayPal and sent her a return slip so that D wouldn't even end up paying to return the merchandise - seems P maybe screwed up ebay's normal return process when she immediately sent a $25 refund towards making needed repairs followed by a later complete refund - so ebay sent D an email telling her she can keep the partial refund and the bags....... ok, that makes more sense to me - that means keep the $25 plus the bags, not keep the full refund and the merchadise......... somehow P was able to receive that $25 refund, but is still out $207 as bags sold for $232, so that's what she's asking for - $207......... who out there believes D truly donated the $200 bags - even if 1 was damaged, wouldn't the other be fine, maybe folks willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a matching set of Prada bags just toss the whole set if one has a busted strap buckle?......... anyway, MM reads ebay email same way I did - a renegotiation/reduced price between the two, and D keeps $25 and bags....... not even sure why D is trying to argue, as her interpretation (as I already said) makes no sense....... MM tells D her ruling and that she can complain to ebay about her not understanding their email........ P not faultless - she was just too fast/nice in trying to keep customer happy and should have kept ebay in loop.......... D hallterview becomes an argument for false advertising - oh, and her 'donating' these bags changes to she gave them away to some unnamed person she was traveling with on a trip........ 

ah, a 3 case day - but #3 Will have to be quick...... used exercise equipment turns out not to be as advertised: according to intro, P bought a machine advertised on FB as a 2018 model that was actually from 2011 - could be an honest mistake, they might have bought it in 2018 after it sat in a warehouse for 7 years......... want a $450 refund......... unless they have proof of actual false advertising, I say buyer beware, due diligence etc.......... anyway, they paid for it and picked machine up, then 6 hours later wanted to rewind deal........ D doesn't look like she would know what machine was - P says she was upgrading from her broken machine....... hmmm, so she supposedly knows a little and was given a chance to test the machine before she bought it, so maybe the difference here is in the software between the 2011 and 2018 models...... I know for a fact that two of these type exercise machines may LOOK the same and have way different software options - so elites even though the model numbers are the same............ still leaning towards should have done due diligence before purchase  (unless ad specified wrong year/model)........ oops, nope my theory wrong - P says it plain doesn't work - but didn't we hear they had chance to test machine before purchase......... soooooo now P realise they want out of deal, so begin looking for something to justify voiding what should be an 'as-is' purchase........ so, D actually sold this for her adult son (P picked it up from son's house - but son not here to testify) - surprise, it's going to come down to wording of ad - when P started looking for ways out of deal they did what grey should have done prior to buying  and looked up the model information on the machine's data plate - well, not so much the FB ad, but the messages exchanged where D made claims to make the sale which turned out false......... ok, P lucky to get out of deal because age of machine proved false........ MM orders return of money and gives D a week to go get machine....... D says she doesn't want it, so MM tells P they can trash it in 7 days

Edited November 20, 2020 by SRTouch

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

That may be the original model number, but still produced later.   It sounds like the patent date of the model.   

I didn't think of that, good point. This happens on antique firearms, the patent date may be decades before the manufacture date.

Edited November 20, 2020 by DoctorK
Additional info

[VartanFan]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She actually has the nerve to tell JM she "donated" the bags to some travel companion

I wanted to smack this lady right off her chair.  She still has those bags and brings them all over with her.  Then, she probably puts the bag down and says to someone ‘can you watch my bag?’, just so they see she has a Praaaaaada bag and she can fill up her ego cup.  Gross.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

The rerun is the hysterical rerun where the woman who was living illegally (not on the lease, landlord had no idea she was living there) in her boyfriend's apartment with her little kid, and she managed to burn the kitchen up with her crockpot being left on, or over loaded, or the contents weren't spaghetti, but cooking explosive items.     She claims she got out because she took two slides down from the third floor to the ground to escape.    

Why does Judge Marilyn keep talking about renter's insurance?   The woman wasn't a renter or tenant, neither was her child, just the boyfriend.   I bet the fire department report would have been very interesting, and can't believe the landlord got away with the "I can't find it right now" routine. 

If the landlord had insurance, then someone cooking illegal substances will void any payout.    I find it hysterical that she's suing for $10k, for items she can't prove, and have zero receipts for, in an apartment where she was an illegal tenant.   My guess is landlord didn't have insurance, and maybe apartment rentals weren't legal, but either way, I wonder why plaintiff's boyfriend isn't testifying?     

Edited November 20, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Keeping it in the family: ok, finally getting to the case shown in previews with rough little dude who was dating mother and daughter at same time - I swear it seems more and more of these litigants can go straight to Dr Phil once their case is over - or maybe Jerry........ as intro clown is spouting his nonsense P is staring into the camera, uncombed bushy hair and for some reason I'm reminded of some of Charlie Manson 'crazy eye' pix..... dude suing ex-gf (the daughter) saying she forged papers to get possession of his veeHICKle and ripped out the wiring harness on his motorcycle and then played the drums on it using a hammer as a drum stick - dude wants $3040.66.......... ex-gf, Defendant, says P sold her the car for a hundred bucks an the reason for the lawsuit if P still in LUV and wants her back - oh, and he is using this to get back at ex-gf mommy - she wants a grand for slander....... testimony - of course, MM wants the juicy details of this weird relationship so that's where she starts her questioning - me, I'm not interested and go to kitchen to warm up my coffee....... from what I heard, granted not interested enough to really pay attention, dude lived with mom-gf about 8 years and had a 'brief affair' with daughter-gf-defendant 6 years ago while still living with mom-gf - when MM asks D if she was really sleeping with mom's live in bf D goes off on a tangent about how she had 3 kids at the time, was a drug addict, she was 'in survivor mode' and sleeping around for money to support herself and kids - oh, and claims mom-gf also on drugs and prince charming not only sleeping with her and mom, but was also sleeping with her sister....... when asked D says she's 6 years clean and a new mommy (yep, presently 4 kids) says she left her abusive husband 4 years ago and now in a domestic violence shelter - sounds like she wants to talk about her countersuit for slander as she starts talking about how P has been saying she's she using and got her booted from some of her assistance programs........ not really interested in this train wreck and pick up the remote to start zipping but not just yet........ ok, mom-gf did some time in lock up and this was when D says they started hooking up - yuk, can we just get to case........ yep, MM must have heard me, as she moves back to P and asks about the forged title that P claims she used to steal his ride......... but, oh my, then P wants to rebut D's story and talks about the husband D says she split from still being in picture and how he recently had to get a restraining order against hubby........ NUF! turn these people away and send them to Springer - I'll let MM wade through this sewage to see if either have any evidence while I zip ahead....... judgement - guess neither had any evidence as both leave with nada'dam thing........ 1 thing from judgement is that apparently at some point mom-gf joins daughter-gf (defendant-gf, not sure if sister-gf ever appears), maybe as a witness, but obvious enough that MM tells her to stop yakking while she announces decision  (MM actually tells all 3 to zippit)......... 

dog case - P walking leashed dog and D's 4 dog pack atracked resulting in almost a grand in vet bills........... Skipped

Edited November 21, 2020 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Keeping it in the family: ok, finally getting to the case shown in previews with rough little dude who was dating mother and daughter at same time - I swear it seems more and more of these litigants can go straight to Dr Phil once their case is over - or maybe Jerry.

What a bunch of meth head madness - mother and daughter heroin addicts hooking up with some old hippie looking dude and trading cars.  That mom was a rough looking biddy, trying to keep it cute with the blonde hair.  Old Loni Anderson.   Yoiks.

I bet the judge was cursing the universe for bring this foolishness to her court.   I guess addicts deserve justice like anyone else, but the way they handle their business is asking too much of the most patient person.  Who can trust the words of a person who was messed up on heroin, etc. to not be janky.

Edited November 20, 2020 by patty1h

[Florinaldo]

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Keeping it in the family:

JM seemed to inexplicably enjoy finding herself in the middle of what looked like a drive-in movie born from an unlikely collaboration between John Waters and Tod Browning.

I am under the impression that recent cases have sunk closer to a "Jerry Springer" level of sordid lives. Perhaps it's just me, but it may be due to how cases come to them in this unusual period or because litigants act with even less decorum now that they testify from home.

On the other hand, my initial reservations regarding the "After the Verdict" segments have evaporated. The two judges have found their groove, he is more relaxed and they make good down-to-earth points. As long as they keep the family anecdotes to the necessary minimum, the discussions are interesting.

Also, now that he is free from the peanut gallery HL can respond to specific legal questions with more time than previously; his answers are usually useful and practical, assuming the people who asked the questions actually follow through on what he says.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

Jesus. Levin, just when I'm postive you can't stick your big snout any deeper into the cesspool, you always surprise me. Congrats.  I just bet your panties were all a-tingle over this sordid, disgusting mess. Did you ask Steve Wilkos to shovel some of his surplus dregs your way?

Screeching, hunky plaintiff has so many women wanting him, and I see why. "So much rhythm, grace and debonaire in ONE man?" Oh, you smooth-talking Casanova. OTOH when you see the type of women he can get, maybe not so much. I guess he's pretty proud he was banging mom and both daughters. Maybe the granddaughter too, who has had such shining examples to keep her on the straight and narrow.

"I wasn't raised that way(by my drug-addicted, criminal, jail-bird mother)!" defendant announces, with great indignation. She was NOT having an affair with the irresistible plaintiff. She was merely a prostitute, screwing him for a few dollars here and there. What's wrong with that? Momma knew about it, but was fine with it, between arrests. Hard-rode Def had 3 kids in this disgusting, deplorable situation, but that wasn't quite enough. She needed to get her freak on,  plowed some other loser and shat out another poor, unfortunate baby last year! Of course her own daughter followed in her footsteps to become another SSM. How cute! New baby and grandbaby are nearly the same age. I didn't think I could be any more horrified, until I saw Momma, the Crypt Keeper's girlfriend. Holy shit. Lean away from the camera, you horror movie reject.

But oh, Ms. Bridie has such a shocking, sad tale she bursts into crocodile tears as she relates how perv P pulled a gun on her daughter and daughter's boyfriend! Her daughter was SIXTEEN years old! How dare he?

At this point JM has to ask her, "How old was your daughter when you were strung out on drugs and HOOKING with your mother's live-in boyfriend, just to get more drugs"?

I'm pretty sure there's not much her kids haven't seen, heard, or experienced. I would have found this all amusing, in a trashy novel kind of way, but thinking about children deliberately being brought into and raised in this filth makes me furious.

Ms. Bridie said she worked in home care. Of course she does, or did. Seems she's now sucking up gov. assistance. What with her new blessed event and all, the taxpayers - who are stretched to the limit -  should be happy to pony up the funds to support her.  Plaintiff slandered her? How is that possible? What could he say about her that was any worse than what she admitted to here?

Even Judge John commented that they are "shameless".

I think I've had enough TeeVee for today.

Edited November 20, 2020 by AngelaHunter