The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

and MM really thinks it's a hoot that spiteful old lady went to bank and got a bunch of pennies to make a payment to old lethario

I think this bothered me even more this time - such cheerleading and admiration by JM for that witch pulling that small-minded, mean-spirited little stunt. I bet said witch uses her "Traumatic brain injury" as an excuse for a multitude of things. They're not married yet she expects him to remain a celibate and loyal companion, forsaking all others until the end of their days, I guess.

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

rent deposit case:

I gave up rewatching this at the "social services ONLY allows 1500$ for our housing" as though it's some sort of entitlement. How stingy of them, when there are two mature adults living there who decided to have a bunch of kids and who should be paying their own rent.

[seacliffsal]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think this bothered me even more this time - such cheerleading and admiration by JM for that witch pulling that small-minded, mean-spirited little stunt. I bet said witch uses her "Traumatic brain injury" as an excuse for a multitude of things. They're not married yet she expects him to remain a celibate and loyal companion, forsaking all others until the end of their days, I guess.

 

I gave up rewatching this at the "social services ONLY allows 1500$ for our housing" as though it's some sort of entitlement. How stingy of them, when there are two mature adults living there who decided to have a bunch of kids and who should be paying their own rent.

This bothered me as well.  However, what really got me was the defendant's disappointment that her ex-husband just took the bag of coins to the bank and let the bank tellers take the time to reroll them rather than her husband doing it by hand.  So, her gleeful spite-filled act of paying him all in coins only meant that other people not involved in the dispute had to take the time to reroll them.  And, JM totally supported her in this.  Just like she finds it adorable when teen girls cause damage, etc.  

Oh, and I agree about the "only 1500 dollars" comment.  I sold my home because I could no longer afford the $700 mortgage after I retired (and income dropped substantially).  I don't know why I worry about being responsible when others aren't and are actually rewarded for it...

Edited December 31, 2020 by seacliffsal

[Florinaldo]

20 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

So, her gleeful spite-filled act of paying him all in coins only meant that other people not involved in the dispute had to take the time to reroll them.  And, JM totally supported her in this.  Just like she finds it adorable when teen girls cause damage, etc.  

Sometimes JM is as immature as so many of her litigants. Or rather she is more immature, since higher standards should apply to a person in her position.

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

And, JM totally supported her in this. 

I hope Judge John took note of this and remembers it if he's ever tempted to cheat on her. 😄

[CrazyInAlabama]

My bank has a big machine that counts and rolls coins.     So no teller time is involved, except in dumping the money into the funnel, and taking the rolls out after.   The machine also gives a teller the total amount of the coins, so they just deposit that. 

Edited December 31, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

skipped first case - it's case of druggies suing over some nonsense and we learn dude was having sex with daughters while living with their mommy - I joined case just as rough looking D gets up to let mommy sit down to testify - and mommy looks ROUGH (Halloween witch mask rough)........ don't remember what case was about, but gather they're fighting over title to some hoopty - I have case recorded but not going to rewind and learn particulars.......... also something about a motorcycle that somebody took a sledge hammer to......... case devolves into litigants yelling at each as MM loses control......... case dismissed........ 

oops - skipped this one too - dog pack attack......... gave up and switched to Cozi and watched 'Emergency!' rerun from the 70s

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

skipped first case

Thanks for the headsup. I remember that utterly sordid and disgusting case that is fit only for some Wilkos cesspool trash. My DVR lately has decided not to to tape this show every day and I have to keep setting it. I'll let it skip it today.

"Emergency!" was a great show!

[SRTouch]

A couple more dud reruns - didn't even check recording til just now and not going to watch......... going to go on a recap hiatus until we get new cases

First case today is landscaper who rams into customers gate, then is "going to fix it" but weeks go by with nothing done towards repairs (if I recall, woman has dogs who can no longer be secured as gate is barely standing) - finally customer goes to someone else for gate repair and now suing for the cost - as I recall landscaper thinks cost too high, and argues he would have eventually done repair -of course customer under no obligation to let landscaper do repairs, especially as he was taking forever to fix the broken gate post

tenant wants back deposit: yet another tenant who put down deposit, changed her mind, and now wants non-refundable deposit refunded.......... this time, tenant gets back the money - it seems tenant/potential renter had a list of things landlord promised to fix before she put down deposit and at least 1 item not fixed by move in date also Landlord told tenant she'd get deposit back, then jerked her around by not giving it back - now landlord doesn't want to return the money? What's up with that? Seems landlord has known tenant for a long time, and got pissed when tenant got fed up with the run around and filed suit 6 days after landlord kept stringing P along - thing was tenant needed the money to move into the apartment she found instead of this one......... D laughing and thinks it's funny as MM is reading texts of P trying to meet up to get the money, D promising to meet but not showing. ........ uh no, I'm getting kind of pissed listening to D laugh........ P gets non-refundable deposit refunded

Edited January 2, 2021 by SRTouch

[TVMovieBuff]

On 12/31/2020 at 10:23 AM, AngelaHunter said:

I hope Judge John took note of this and remembers it if he's ever tempted to cheat on her. 😄

Judge John is a silver fox. Whoo hoo!

[SRTouch]

Whoa - as soon as I say no recaps until we get new cases, the tv guides says we're getting new cases......... recaps no longer the long blow by blow accounts since the satellite DVR is gone and now watching live with minimal rewind and FF ability 

daycare feud: daycare lady(p) gets fed up with entitled/demanding mommy(d)........ P sounds much more reasonable during intro, while D just comes across as petty and - well, demanding and entitled....... after a year and a half D has a fit when P gets fed up with D's many extra demands on her time and decides to stop caring for D's 8yo daughter - ugly text exchange from both sides results in D calling State saying Daycare subpar and D complains to Internet site which results in P's ad profile being pulled........ State investigates, daycare fails (too many kids), but passes after appeal when P proves some of the kids are her kin and kinfolk don't count (though sounds like it was at times out of compliance).......... case dismissed

tenant after deposit: the usual with tenant saying they were model tenant and landlord insisting they were a nightmare - we also have the added feature of damage to door caused during burglary....... sounds like a bad match with both sides complaining about things they're not going to be compensated for - tenant wants credit because she moved out before time was up, but turns out she was there part of the month and landlord isn't required to prorate rent - landlord complains that tenant wanted to rent apartment unfurnished and D moved out the furniture - also seems tenant had a cat and was told HOA prohibits pets but nothing in lease says no pets (apparently lease has a block to say no pets but it wasn't marked)........ really, case could have been settled within 10 minutes - even after MM explains to D that she loses because she failed to provide the all important itemized list of why deposit is being withheld landlord breaks into tears about how she lost her daughter during that time - ok, so sorry, but not a legal defense and I zipped through waterworks........ tenant gets deposit, but not everything she wanted

Edited January 4, 2021 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

The "burglary" was only a theft of sex toys, nothing else was stolen.    

One thing I like about living in Alabama is they finally stepped up to the plate, and said no unlicensed daycares.   That includes the church ones, so now all daycares need proper zoning, and licenses, including background checks.     

Edited January 5, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I wasn't sure if today had new cases, or if they were from one of the many days this show gets pre-empted due to nearly anything, no matter how minor. But I saw JM managed to get her hair coloured somewhere so then figured it was new.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

daycare feud:

I never fail to be horrified at government entities telling just anyone they can take care of a whole bunch of kids (6 or 10 or 12 as long as they're all related to you) - the more the better for $$$ -  including toddlers who can't complain, and that they "don't need no license" need zero training and do no criminal background checks, etc. Is this person a felon, a child molester/abuser, a drug user? Who knows? It's all good. This business is booming due to the plethora of women who decide to be SSMs and who will hand off their kid to just anyone if the price is right. I wouldn't be so cavalier with my pets. Def, wearing a truly grotty wig, didn't give a shit about how the house was full of babies eating on the floor or how awful the food was when she left her daughter there for over a year. It was only when P gave her the boot that she got scruples and morals and suddenly cared about all these kids crammed into this little house.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant after deposit: 

So someone broke into the place just to steal the P's dildos, or whatever kind of sex toys she had? How odd. If she called the cops I wonder if she included a list of type and make of said sex toys? Maybe she even had that giant Sexinator machine another litigant had. Anyway, it's very sad D lost her daughter but her grief from that loss didn't stop her from taking pics of cat hair (which could be vacuumed up in about 25 minutes)from P's huge, giant cat and some dirt under an appliance but did stop her from sending a letter outlining why she was keeping the deposit. Her explanation that as a landlord she had no clue about the law or her responsibilities as such didn't wash. What also didn't wash was her claim that P "made" her throw out all the furniture in the place. Personally, I would never want to live with very used upholstered furniture when who knows what the hell was done on it or what's in it. Ew. If it was so valuable she could have put it into storage. I'm surprised she didn't countersue for coercion.

[SRTouch]

gf cleaned out place when she split: good grief, how old is this girl - may just be the t-shirt she thought was good court room attire, but she doesn't look old enough for this type drama - OTOH, I know I'm a fossil who sometimes think of 20yo as kids (when asked, sure nuf she tells MM she's 20) - and actual kids are not strangers to this type drama....... P in case in bf who is suing his gf (7 years younger) because he came home to find a lot of "his" stuff gone - along with money from their joint account - apparently, when she decided to leave she didn't bother to tell bf, just waited til he was out and took off with stuff - first glance she's all kinds of wrong, but as MM gets into it she appears justified and only took what she brought to the relationship......... things begin to look bad for bf right out of the gate when he describes place being ransacked and showing pictures of what he claims she took - maybe just me but his pix of what she "stole" strike me as a wish list of what he'd like, would have been much better to see these items in background at the apartment rather than what looks like catalogs - guy losing cred with me fast......... when D gets chance she explains bf very controlling, often taking her phone and trying to block her from leaving - no physical abuse (as bf made sure to tell us) but certainly sounds like mental abuse was going on behind closed doors, but not openly in the 10 months they were living together...... ok, doesn't matter to case - but hope new bf isn't from same mold as so often seems to happen - let's see what she says about taking "his" stuff and stealing his money.......... uh huh, seems some of what she "stole" were rental items which were in her name and returned to the rental place - some is stuff she denies taking and he has no proof she took and stuff for which he has no receipts and she says dude never had....... ok, let's move onto the money - his claim is that he had 2 grand cash stashed in the closet that she helped herself to on way out - no proof cash existed....... also seems she wired $700 odd to herself from their joint account - ah, but she had designated that account for direct deposit 9f her SSI disability checks, and she took what was deposited for her and left rest of money untouched - uh huh, her SSI check is $700 a month (did he just say the money transfer he's complaining about took place weeks after she left and after her monthly check hit the bank, so it was HER money in their joint account)......... ok dude spinning his wheels here, even admits this was her money, but is upset she wired it to herself instead of asking him, and she interrupts to say she DID contact him to change the direct deposit but he wasn't having it, and she produces texts where she DID ask and he rudely refused....... she was smart enough to get screen shots of the tects because he was using snstagram and deleting messagings after sending - girl seems pretty sharp considering Social Security insists she have a payee to get her check......... case dismissed

tenant wants rent and security back: tenant pay first month rent and security and begins moving his stuff is  a couple weeks before landlord gives him ghe lease to be signed - then he finally reads lease and finds it includes stuff he disagrees with and decides to back out of lease - he wants not only money he paid, but a bunch more for travel and other nonsense....... as MM explains that since he never signed lease he was in effect a month that to month tenant who had stuff in the place for half the month - even though he never finished moving in he was renting place and owes that month's rent....... landlord probably right that guy backed up after a fight with gf, but doesn't really matter WHY he backed out - part of problem may be that it sounds like the gf was driving force behind renting place because she knew previous tenant, but it was BF and not the GF who was going to sign lease and BF only talked to landlord on phone......... tenant has 2 or 3 reasons he uses to excuse his backing out, but MM not buying it........ everything may not work out for landlord though, he still needs to show reason to keep deposit, and he does - sort of - what he shows is by time Tenant backed out it was too late to find new tenant for next month, so tenant gets stuck for not giving 30 day notice and that allows landlord to keep deposit....... case dismissed......... second unhappy plaintiff in row 

heck, thought we were done for today, but Harvey just introduced another case

bad car window tint job: no question in MM's mind that tint guy did lousy job once she sees pix - really must not be question in Tint guy's mind as he agrees to redo job - problem is customer made multiple trips to get job done, left car their time after time, and job never done satisfactorily - if it was 1 attempt that went wrong MM would have probably given business another try, but she says enough is enough and orders refund - side issue is customer wanted windshield tinted, which turns out is illegal in their jurisdiction - business was willing to break the law, but now tries to use that against customer after things go wrong......... customer gets refund and tint guy insists he did great job even after MM announces to national audience his work looks like 💩💩 and dude admits job maybe wasn't so great and he "missed a few things"........ customer swears now that he knows law says windshield can'take be tinted he won't do it, but nobody believes him......... 

Edited January 6, 2021 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

Plaintiff ex boyfriend was defendant's SSI payee, because she has depression, and anxiety.   And boyfriend was getting $707 every month, and I bet that paid the apartment rent.    So how could she work various jobs for the city?   

I totally disagree with Judge Marilyn, if someone is actually abusive, and tries to stop you from leaving, then you do what the woman did, and leave when they're not home. She took her own money from the bank account, and that's why you don't have a joint account, or put someone else on your bank account.  The ex-boyfriend is such a liar. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

gf cleaned out place when she split: good grief, how old is this girl

Well, that was both ridiculous and depressing: Ridiculous that a smarmy 27-year-old grown man and father needs to put utility bills in the name of his 20-year-old, depressed, dependant, SSI-collecting girlfriend - "Me and her is both on the account." Depressing - that this 20-year-old girl is totally dependant on various guys to house her, has no education (although she's not stupid which makes this even worse), also can't speak English properly and is collecting SSI. I felt sorry for her and I can only hope she takes stock and decides to change her life which she can do at her age, otherwise she's heading for a lifetime of failure, handouts, and crappy relationships. Does this girl have no parents, sister, aunt, or granny to help her? Sad, it is.

I loved P's downloaded pics of stuff and toys he wants to have, but I doubt ever did have. Magic Bullet! Who thinks maybe he went to a jewelry store and took the pic of the diamond earrings there but never bought them? I was on unemployment payments for about 6 months back in around 1986 so maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I never got those payments in cash and couldn't save up 2K from them to stash in a drawer. And what's with some boyfriend being named as her "payee", setting her up for predatory relationships? I was rather miffed at JM labeling this rather pathetic girl as lacking in decency for leaving while the P was out. Of course he wanted to keep her there with her guaranteed income every month. I bet if one of JM's darling girls got herself into a sordid mess like this (which of course, they wouldn't since they are perfect SJWs) she would be over there helping her "sneakily" move out in the middle of the day with no warning and not castigating her for her dishonorable leaving with no word.

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant wants rent and security back: 

Remind me again why anyone wants to be a landlord? When I rented I managed to find time to read the lease before I moved in, but I guess that's asking too much for someone as busy as the P. Kind of a boring case.

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bad car window tint job:

Another boring case. Both sides know the tinted windows are illegal, but plaintiff simply must have them, and def doesn't give a rat's ass about legalities, but does a horrible job and rather than return the lousy 200$ prefers to appear here and let everyone within driving distance of his shop know he does crappy work.

Edited January 6, 2021 by AngelaHunter
Damned fruit of the vine!

[SRTouch]

sisters squabble when mom dies: expect MM family counselor to make an appearance before this case ends - P accusing sis of stealing a lawnmower, chair and money, in their jurisdiction she gets to sue for 10 grand......... of course sis says no way, says she took care of mom, and sis is suing cuz she's broke......... guess P is claiming she's actually out around 16 grand, but Wisconsin caps claim at 10 - says when mom was admitted to hospital big sister immediately went in the house and started disbursing mom's stuff, but not letting P in - says D controlled mom's visitation, and P thinks she was cheated on time to she mom........ ah ha, MM asks and confirms that D held power of attorney......... easy to see where this is headed - as in so many families, the kids start fighting over parent's stuff even before they're dead and buried - yep, MM already playing counselor - which I hate....... zip zip........ seems these two have fought all their lives (and they ain't youngsters) - when I start listening again it's hear one of the things P wanted was a rocking horse that big sister, D, claims she received as a birthday gift when she was 3yo........ zip zip......... ok, just gave a quick listen and D is claiming these two have have already been before a judge who removed little sis (P) as a trustee in mom's trust and appointed her, big sis, to handle mom's trust......... if that's true, I don't think MM and TPC can reverse that judge who has already settled the probate....... not happy with this type case - just very thankful when these cases come on that there was none of this crappola with my 5 siblings when my parents died (without a will)

missing luggage after move: D helped organize little old lady P's move to new place, and P wants to hold him responsible for two missing suitcases she values at  $2500....... D says he never saw these suitcases and he isn't responsible....... as we go to first break sounds like old lady never knew these were valuable suitcases until one of the movers pointed out they were high quality stuff....... turns out D was the realtor when P moved - P says her church was going to help her move, but then D, who she thought was a pastor at his church, told her he had some men who helped him, and they'd move her for nominal fee......... I see no case, and really not that interesting so far........ not too happy with D once he starts talking (claims to be pillar of community, a teacher, and usher in church etc etc - my first impression is hold onto your wallet)......... D claiming he was just a facilitater, he referred P to someone he knew who moved people, and then he was out of picture and deal was between P and those mover people......... ok, this case is nonsense - P says she only learned she has designer luggage when one of movers told her, she doesn't know the brand of the actual value - she was downsizing from a 3 bedroom to 2 bedroom place, so what's to say luggage was stolen or just lost/tossed......... now she's saying after the move, the movers admitted they were holding her designer luggage hostage until she paid more because the move was more work than they bargained for.......... wth, if she can prove that she might have reason to sue mover, but why sue this guy, and how did she come up with $2500 value......... ok, this is funny - old lady complains that movers are holding her VERY valuable luggage hostage until she pays an extra $400, he says he intervened movers told him lady gave luggage to them because there was no room in new place, says he paid mover $50 and has the luggage, and he shows it to us - but he says his wife looked at the designer luggage and declared it's a cheap knockoff - says when he tried to give it back to P she had several other items she was claiming missing/lost/damaged and he gave up dealing with her.......... WTH MM can't figure this guy out - supposedly he paid mover day after the move and has had luggage for 6 months, knows exactly where she lives, but sent a letter, went by, and sent up smoke signals offering to give it back (he says 'to the best of his recollection' he did, but really? He gets served with a lawsuit and made no effort to resolve matter.)......... ok, silly case which would be tossed except for fact D HAS the luggage and is offering to return it........ P gets no money, but does get the 2 knockoff suitcases........... after the verdict another visit by the pup

[CrazyInAlabama]

The only interesting part is the dog's visit to see Judge Mommy and Judge Daddy.   

It's sad when someone dies, and everyone in the family takes that opportunity to fight the same squabbles they've had since childhood. 

[AngelaHunter]

SRTouch, what provider do you have that gave this show today? I knew for sure I wouldn't be seeing it.

[SRTouch]

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

SRTouch, what provider do you have that gave this show today? I knew for sure I wouldn't be seeing it.

I've cut the cord last month and now view with an antenna*......... still adjusting, no longer have Original Air dates and often have to guess if episode is new or rerun - my old DirectTv DVR was much more user friendly when it came to recording, FF and rewinding etc....... for now I have a cheap recorder I can hook to a USB drive which doesn't always record and is something of a pain to use.......

I stream some stuff, but have a data cap so don't stream much

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I've cut the cord last month and now view with an antenna*

Darn. It only occured to me when I saw your reply that maybe I could have watched with my own antenna.😡 Oh, well. As Scarlett said, "Tomorrow IS another day!"

[Bazinga]

For those who didn't get to see yesterday's episode due to events in DC, it is available, at least for the time being, here: 

People's Court Episode - January 6, 2021 (New Video)

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Bazinga said:

For those who didn't get to see yesterday's episode due to events in DC, it is available, at least for the time being, here:

Thank you for saving me searching for it!!😀

[SRTouch]

rental scam: if I have this right, some guy gets a keys to a big house (7 bedrooms), puts an ad on  CL, rents out rooms, then ghosts after collecting the deposit - P doesn't even know scammer's name - some Asian guy named Calvin - no last name - says she just trusted Calvin because he said he's from East LA same as her)........ only notable thing about case is just how gullible (STUPID) some folks are, and how many scammer's are shown on this case - P tells us when she told Calvin she wanted the room, Calvin asked her to send him a pic of the money (which she did), then when Calvin collects the cash she accepts his assertion that the pic can serve as the receipt - huh? If I have a pic of 5 grand (or 10, or 20) can I use that as proof I paid for something? - how many bills can I pay with the same pic?........ D says she was also scammed by Calvin, but is being sued by P because P gave rent money to her - when it appeared Calvin had been a scammer, says she called police and was told the renters should put utilities in their names so they wouldn't be considered squatters......... supposedly the 'tenant's' grew suspicious when the utilities were turned off, so D called cops.........  I have hard time believing cops would say that without considering the actual property owner - if the cops actually said that, than they were complacent in ripping off the property owner........ anyway, D says that's why she put utilities in her name and started collecting rent/utilities from the other tenants....... question is: what did she do with the money she collected? - I figure, assuming she admits she collected ANYthing from P, she needs to prove she didn't profit from the scam - if everything she collected went to bills, ok - but the whole group are squatting if there is no agreement from actual owners........ anyway, P suing for the $925.27 she says she gave D to give to mystery landlord......... after listening to how stupid these girls were and giving some advice on renting from CL without bothering with receipts or contracts, MM........ another red flag, Calvin only rented out 3 of the 7 bedrooms - guess only 3 people fell for scam before he decided he had enough and better vanish......... sooooooo of these fools lived rent free for 4-5 months, racking up a bunch of bills and fines from the HOA, and D is saying money she collected was used to pay the utilities and HOA fines and fees (big HOA fines for failure to maintain yard - HOA was sending notices which were ignored by the squatters)......... smug D gets on my nerves as she shouts out and seems perfectly fine when MM points out they never paid rent........ P not much better - she doesn't what to talk about it, but she says she had to 'leave her home' due to a court order (domestic abuse) and she says she was only at this place once a week - says she just rented this place as a fall back in case she needed to quarantine because of covid - not sure what any of this has to do with case and not making any sense.......... MM seems fed up and starts breaking down the damage claim and a whole other can of worms is opened - P story is that she searched for, and found, actual owners of property, was made manager, and part of her damages is because once she became manager she went after D as ringleader of squatters....... huh? need a white board and flow chart for this one......... MM wonders if P isn't just setting up her own scam - let's see, original scam was Calvin, then D sets herself up as defectors manager and starts collecting money, now P says SHE'S the one appointed by owners as manager and tried to evict D...... sounds like some of her damages is money she gave D to pay fines/utilities, and guess some in expenses to evict fellow squatter.........  I have no idea and would boot both out of the courthouse unless P comes up with compelling proof she has legal authority......... oh yeah, P's 'proof' is to tell MM owner is out of country (in China) and she has a phone number MM can call for verification. ......... yeah, hahaha rightttttt......... MM says the phone number is from US - not China - and the affidavit P is saying is from mystery owner is signed in Oregon.......... uh no, heard enough from this scammer so back to D, who, throughout is player the naive 'young' girl who is moving out of mommy's house for first time - and MM learns the girl is actually a 30yo......... last little bit - P claiming D is holding some of her belongings hostage - i stopped listening, but guess MM believed that part of her case and awarded her a couple hundred bucks......... 

breakup feud: P says when she broke up with bf (D) he was holding a couple grand of her money - doesn't, sound like he even disputes that, but he says when he went to give it back there was a big mixup......... something about how she was being transferred by her job from Texas to Florida, she tells him to give money to her mom, he says he'll wire it to her, she says no, she doesn't even have the app he wants to use, he says he sent it, she says never arrived, big silly kerfuffle with bf claiming he spent more than on her during relationship so why should he pay it back.......... sounds like a silly case with multiple defenses from D and equally silly story from P - supposedly she gave 2 grand to bf 'hold' for her 2 weeks after they met, while she has family in area......... sorry, as JJ would say, if it doesn'the make sense it's not true - and this sounds like a scam to get money from TPC.............. well, zipped through most of case as i need to go bleed for labwork - text exchange shows dude admitting he was 'holding' the money, show he says he wired it, wire didn't go through, and defense changes to he was afraid to mail it as it might get lost - but she's texting him instructing him to give money to her mom.......... P gets $2100......... after the verdict sounds like part I zipped over led judges to think D wasn't so much trying to keep the money, but was trying to force a face to face meeting so he could talk her out of breaking up

Edited January 7, 2021 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

Women? What the hell is going on? First we get Ms. Roque, who is just a sweet, naive, innocent, helpless little girl who trusts any total stranger from CL - well, if he's Asian that is. Not sure if she trusts other races as much, and believes "Calvin" with no last name when he tells her a picture of her own cash is proof she paid for the rent. She has no idea how "Calvin" sent an affidavit from China that shows it was done in Oregon. Ms. Roque is not suspicious. He's Asian! Of course, she trusted him with her whole heart. She's a Good Samaritan but I feel she was in on the scam from the start, planning to just squat in the building. Except she's not a sweet Good Samaritan. She's a violent, out-of-control beast who got arrested and thrown out of her own house for her attack on someone. Naturally, this qualifies her to be a caregiver. I am disgusted to think of helpless patients being at the mercy of the many, many violent, uneducated, scamming, lying brutes we see here. It's beyond disgraceful.

Then we get a different kind of stupid goofball in Ms. Martinez. SHE "has never been outside" of her Mommy's house, so she doesn't know anything about anything at all. How would she know? Mommy takes care of her. She kept repeating how she'd never been away from Mommy, as though that's a defense for  a 30-year-old woman. JM thinks it's normal for a Latina woman nearing middle age to cling to Mommy and have no idea how to live in the real world. Maybe it is. How do I know? Both litigants ramble, lie, shriek, and talk over JM and I've had enough.

Then we get yet another ridiculous woman in the plaintiff who is way old enough to know better. She gives loverboy def. 2100$ to "hold" for her after their long relationship of two weeks following their hookup in the FB meat market. JM wants to know why she didn't pick her mother or other family member to hold the money, since she is too irresponsible to even hold onto it in a bank.  Plaintiff's flowing wig is doing her no favours and if she got her teeth in Colombia it was a bad deal. She can't speak proper English, is in her last stages of desperation, has zero judgment and can't have a penny without blowing it, so of course, she's a "traveling nurse." She threatens to sic her brothers on Romeo, which she denies even though it's in one of the texes. Disappointing she got her money back, but I guess she's blown it all by now.

Edited January 8, 2021 by AngelaHunter
This show is lowering my IQ

[Florinaldo]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

only notable thing about case is just how gullible (STUPID) some folks are,

I think there is a strong possibility they were both faking how stupid they really are, to elicit some sympathy and avoid being accountable for their life choices, their scams and their squatting. If so they were very convincing in their roles.

Once again, JM feels inexplicable kinship with a litigant when the defendant says that as a 30-year old she had never lived outside of her mother's house. Which is supposed to explain why she did not do any upkeep or maintenance, did not realise there are rules to follow in such buildings and they did not bother to open the mail that came in with the HOA fines.

And shouldn't that mail have come to the real owner's address, which is the one the HOA should have had on file?

Edited January 8, 2021 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Once again, JM feels inexplicable kinship with a litigant when the defendant says that as a 30-year old she had never lived outside of her mother's house.

She's just hoping her three spoiled babies will stay home with Momma until they're at least 30

[AZChristian]

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I think there is a strong possibility they were both faking how stupid they really are, to elicit some sympathy and avoid being accountable for their life choices, their scams and their squatting. If so they were very convincing in their roles.

Once again, JM feels inexplicable kinship with a litigant when the defendant says that as a 30-year old she had never lived outside of her mother's house. Which is supposed to explain why she did not do any upkeep or maintenance, did not realise there are rules to follow in such buildings and they did not bother to open the mail that came in with the HOA fines.

And shouldn't that mail have come to the real owner's address, which is the one the HOA should have had on file?

There was "iffy" behavior all over the place here. 

• How stupid would the plaintiff have to be not to know that a picture of a pile of money does not qualify as a receipt for a deposit? 
• The defendant could hardly keep the "poor innocent me" smirk off her face as she tried to con the judge into believing that she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong.  I was only 17 when I got married and left home, but I knew that I couldn't start collecting rent from other tenants and keeping it for myself.
• The HOA has a vested interest in making sure residents comply with the rules.  They won't tolerate messy tenants in a 7-bedroom property (which infers a community full of large (expensive) homes).  In most HOA communities, rentals are not permitted without prior HOA consent.  They're not going to just continue levying fines for violations.  They will start legal action against the owner of the property.  Did the case ever identify that anyone actually knew who the owner was???
• The police would not officially advise someone to get the utilities in their name to keep them from being evicted as squatters.

I think the renters and Calvin are all in this together to scam The People's Court and share whatever they could get from their appearance.

[Carolina Girl]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

There was "iffy" behavior all over the place here. 

• How stupid would the plaintiff have to be not to know that a picture of a pile of money does not qualify as a receipt for a deposit? 
• The defendant could hardly keep the "poor innocent me" smirk off her face as she tried to con the judge into believing that she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong.  I was only 17 when I got married and left home, but I knew that I couldn't start collecting rent from other tenants and keeping it for myself.
• The HOA has a vested interest in making sure residents comply with the rules.  They won't tolerate messy tenants in a 7-bedroom property (which infers a community full of large (expensive) homes).  In most HOA communities, rentals are not permitted without prior HOA consent.  They're not going to just continue levying fines for violations.  They will start legal action against the owner of the property.  Did the case ever identify that anyone actually knew who the owner was???
• The police would not officially advise someone to get the utilities in their name to keep them from being evicted as squatters.

I think the renters and Calvin are all in this together to scam The People's Court and share whatever they could get from their appearance.

That's what I thought as well.  We need money - let's scam People's Court.  

[SRTouch]

adult siblings battle over parking: oh my, daddy must be so proud of these two spoiled/entitled snowflakes - seems he owns a building which has limited parking, and when he rents out some of the space the adult siblings have a hissy fit which features (according to sis) brother snatching her iPhone and smashing it against the wall - she's suing for $500 to replace phone plus $1500 because of the horror.........

ah well, for some reason my recording of today's recap ends with beginning of testimony in first case 😢😢😢😢

[DoctorK]

7 hours ago, AZChristian said:

How stupid would the plaintiff have to be not to know that a picture of a pile of money does not qualify as a receipt for a deposit? 

Sadly, this is not the first time I have seen this "logic" claimed by litigants on a court show.

[quarkuud]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

adult siblings battle over parking: oh my, daddy must be so proud of these two spoiled/entitled snowflakes - seems he owns a building which has limited parking, and when he rents out some of the space the adult siblings have a hissy fit which features (according to sis) brother snatching her iPhone and smashing it against the wall - she's suing for $500 to replace phone plus $1500 because of the horror.........

ah well, for some reason my recording of today's recap ends with beginning of testimony in first case 😢😢😢😢

I thought this was going this way, until I saw the video. The brother is legitimately terrifying. He broke her phone and blocked in her car at 2:00 which is my worst nightmare as a woman. He was screaming curses at her, pulled open her car door, and grabbed her phone from her hand and threw it at the wall.

I hope the brother doesn't have a girlfriend, because he seems like the kind of domestic abuser who is going to kill someone in a fit of rage.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

adult siblings battle over parking:

This case got butted into, but it sounds like I didn't miss much. I have enough with my own brother who blocks me in, attacks me, smashes my phone, etc.

This show must truly be desperate for litigants now. The Cast Iron Pot Caper I thought must be the dumbest case we've ever seen but then I remembered the woman suing for 15$ for her 7.50$ earrings after small claims court told her 15$ is the minimum. Okay, so today was the second dumbest, or maybe most greedy?

This woman, who calls JM "Ms Mitchell" which is P's name, is just devastated over the loss/theft of her iconic, heirloom cast iron pot and skillet. This woman is a retired teacher who says things like "mines". JM used to get very annoyed at that and correct it, but I guess now she figures there's no use, especially if a teacher says it. Anyway, D did handyman work for plaintiff for the paltry sum of 75$. He claims she gave him only 50$ and told him he could have these precious family heirlooms, which according to him were sitting heavily rusted and filthy, (which I believe) in lieu of the other 25$ she owed him. He's a cast iron afficionado and we see a entire wall of pans behind him during his testimony and they looked so impressive JM asked him to angle the camera so she could see all of them. They are all gleaming and beautifully restored.

P claims she never gave them to him, and that he spotted them and agreed to fix them up for free after she stiffed him the 25$. Right. She saw pics of the work in progress on his FB page and decided she now wanted them back, what with all the sentimental value and memories of her grandma they had. She goes charging over to his house and demands them. He gives her two pieces, which she claims were not hers. She knows this because she put her initials in red marker on the bottoms, which of course would be indelible on cast iron. Duh. Why does she do this? Well, being an ex-teacher it's normal to mark all your possessions in red marker, even a rusted-out utensil thrown in a basement. She goes charging back, telling D these are not hers, so he gives her two other ones. I too have a very old cast iron skillet that belonged to my mother and I know that restoring them is quite a job.  She displays to JM the pot he gave her the second time and it looks identical in every way to the one she gave him. She swears it's not and she wants 3 THOUSAND dollars from him. She shows JM a listing online for an 18th century restored kettle that is big enough to hold firewood being offered on eBay or somewhere and costs something like 1700$, - although she has no idea of the sale price or if it ever sold -  so that should be the value of her treasured memories. The rest is for the skillet.

JM was very suspicious of D giving her the wrong pots the first time, but the fact that D gave her the wrong pot and and skillet, IMO, means he was telling the truth when he said she gave them to him, so he had no reason to label and keep them separate for her.  P. gets zero, which is exactly what she deserved. What a silly case and a sad attempt at a boe-nanza.

[Florinaldo]

In the "cast iron treasures" case, I think the plaintiff was simply confused because she did not recognise her property once the defendant had cleaned and restored them. From the evidence we saw, they were quite rusty and crusted so that is how she is used to seeing them and she can't budge from that vision.

If they are indeed precious heirlooms, how come she let them get to such a condition? She certainly did not use them for cooking. Or if she did I, would not want to eat any of the slop coming out of these.

Cast iron pans need some maintenance; she obviously neglected hers for years.

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, AZChristian said:

How stupid would the plaintiff have to be not to know that a picture of a pile of money does not qualify as a receipt for a deposit? 

Excuse me, but I beg to differ. When my insurance company started harassing me, saying I hadn't paid my premiums, I sent this as proof I had paid them. They accepted it, of course.

 

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

They accepted it, of course.

They thought it was a little sketchy but based upon your sterling character on this blog, they let it go.

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

They thought it was a little sketchy but based upon your sterling character on this blog, they let it go.

They knew my situation as well.

[SRTouch]

time share fail: 2 NY sisterS buy a Disney World time share, 1 sister didn't pay her portion for 3 months - P sister covered the past due bill and wants to be reimbursed - wants $953.28......... D sister says she gave money to P for the payments, but P pocketed her money........ oh dear, who wants to bet there was no receipts - oh, and like a lot of these time share deals, bet nobody is really using it........ we start with D, who says she was called by the timeshare people in Jan 2020 and told no payments had been made since September '19 - but how could that be? she says, cuz she has been handing sis cash money every month for the payments - yep, never a receipt....... ah ha, over to P sis, who explains D was forever late making good those payments, which left P being charged for insufficient funds when the money was taken from P's account (automatic withdrawal) - uhhh, not sure WTH P was thinking - instead of talking to the timeshare and stopping the automatic withdrawal or changing the date of the withdrawal to later in the month, sounds like she moved her money out of the account to so that she would have it for her other bills........ ok, not sure why P is suing, she admits D gave her her share and that it was P who failed to pay the timeshare for 3 months - at most, assuming that D was paying late, all I see D owing is any late fees and bank charges for insufficient funds......... P not making sense - she admits she stopped the automa ticket payment at the bank, but somehow she thought the timeshare was still being paid! Woman not making any sense - D sister still handing her money every month for 3 months, and P doesn't wonder how the timeshare is going to get paid? Must be someone who never checks her balance......... ok, when D sister gets word that P didn'the pay the bill for those three months she has a fit, big kerfuffle, and D stops paying hefty share........ ah ha, that's where this lawsuit comes from - P isn't suing over those three months, she wants money because after D had her mad on and stopped paying, P started covering the whole bill - and of course these sisters, who didn't talk about it - D says she didn't realise she left P holding bag and that P has been paying the whole bill......... so, by time they appear in court P has paid about 6 month of D's share - but since they are no longer speaking D says she didn't know - duh, what did she think was happening? Those timeshares are a legal obligation, and they're GOING to get their money - her explanation is that after learning that 3 months worth of bills hadn't been paid she (P) refused to pay without proof of where her money was going, and P admits she never showed D proof she was making the payments.......... uh, how bout splitting the bill and sending her portion directly to the timeshare instead of relying on P to pay.......... ok, neither side making sense, I'm about to start zipping through this nonsense - seems simple enough, D owns her half for 6 months, and these two REALLY ought to see what it'll take to get out of their terrible timeshare agreement....... when MM does the math she comes up with D owing $612.23 for her portion of the timeshare, not the $900 odd P asked for (which I guess probably includes the penalties for being late when P failed to pay for three months).......... after the verdict spent with judges talking about bad experiences with timeshares

upstairs neighbor's leak: sort of a 3 party kerfuffle, with the up/downstairs neighbors feuding over damage from a leak, but also a condo association who may be on hook if leak is in a common area......... thing is, while upstairs guy and condo is fighting over who should pay to do repair, and plumbers making multiple trips to find problem, it ends up taking 4 months the before rain stops in P's bathroom - apparently, after 4 months she started getting mold and the ceiling was deteriorating, she gave up on them doing repair and got her own guy - she wants to be reimbursed for damage to ceiling....... P decided simplest way would be to sue both the upstairs guy and the condo people and let them worry about their portion of the cost - which is kind of smart, but then she ruins it by going for lotto money anc asking for 5 grand.......... didn't watch much of this one as I was back and forth doing laundry......... hmmmmmm really not liking D when MM asks why it took from Feb to Jun for P's repair and he replies asking what does it matter, he had agreed to pay for her repair once she got it done.......... then we learn the leak has still not been fixed, just slowed down, and P's ceiling still has moisture issue (which probably means mold will return)........ ok, I'm not really watching, but I totally get P being fed up - I'm fed up with these two after 20 minutes.......... hmmmm worth pointing out nobody here lives in these apartments but rent them out - so we have D theorizing maybe the upstairs tenant is taking showers without closing shower curtain, cuz the plumber never really found a leak - but, if his tenant is damaging P's property that should not be P's problem, but is a problem he needs to address with his tenant, or maybe change shower surround to something with a door - quick check shows me a shower door can be had at Home Depot for $235, sure probably doubled either installation, but may be worth it in long run........ MM has heard enough, and is ready to address this whopping 5 grand claim which isn't just for the repair, but also punitive damages for the length of time this problem has persisted - to justify her claim, P has her tenant here as a witness to explain how bad it was/is living with the leaky/molding/discolored ceiling......... MM sort of splits the baby with this one - she orders D to pay for the money P is out to this point, but says no to punitive damages now - but gives D 30 days to solve the problem or face a bigger judgement........... P awarded $170 now, maybe more later, but no update on what happened after the 30 days

Edited January 12, 2021 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

Back to reruns - custom furniture builder can't do job: P hires guy off internet to build custom living room set out of solid walnut - smart enough to have a written contract, but contract isn't specific as to completion date, just says furniture to be done "in a timely manner" - P tells us she gave guy a couple grand in October to get started, and verbally told him they wanted it by Christmas - around Thanksgiving he says it will be sometime after new years - completion date keeps getting pushed back and after awhile guy starts ghosting and ignores her requests for updates - guy really doesn't have an excuse/reason, but sounds like either his know how or his hobby shop equipment just wasn't up to the job, another possibility would be he messed up the materials/lumber and didn't have the cash to replace it - finally, six months after accepting job, he contacts customer and unilaterally tries to change the contract, he says he's going to give her the 1 completed piece (supposed to be 5 or 6 pieces total) and he'll just keep the 3 grand deposit (total commission was 5 grand)........ yeah, right, no way is that going to fly...... today he tries to deny ever saying this, but MM isn't hearing that and refers back to the texts...... P gets her money......

landlord suing longtime tenant for damages: oops, right out of the gate I'm not liking landlord - how dare this guy try to stick it to the tenant for having a cat when dude had the freaking cat for 7 years - I've been there and done that and moved when told to 'get rid' of my cats I had had for 10 years......... leaving cat issue aside, I have a couple other bones to pick with landlord - seems this was height of covid shutdowns, D and his neighbor both have medical conditions where they need to be extra cautious, landlord wanted to sell duplex/triplex and wanted to parade unmasked potential buyers through the apartments - he not only told D he needed to get rid of his cat (claims realtors said buyers may frown on landlord not enforcing no-pet clause and take a harder look for other things he might not be enforcing) but he wanted D out when he started to refuse to let all these unmasked folks inside - thing was, though, the out of work bartender tenant could have sat there without paying rent until the rent/eviction moratorium ends, but instead D went ahead and found new place for him and his kitty - seems landlord fixated on the cat - which WAS a violation of the lease - to claim tenant had breached the contract - there's more to it than that, there's a provision in the lease for allow pets, but if a tenant wants a pet they need landlords approval and will need to pay an unspecified pet charge - so, Landlord seizes on this to stick it to the tenant and gives him an ultimatum, get rid of kitty within 48 hours or come up with a pet deposit and start paying more each month in rent - tenant sort of freaks when he gets this text and starts trying to contact landlord, a man he thought was a friend, and landlord leaves him hanging - so tenant took his kitty and left, leaving the mess that landlord now wants to be paid for........ soooooooo, like I said, not liking landlord the tiniest little bit, but did Tenant just leave a message or did he trash the place?........... MM not buying landlord's position and she dismisses case and walks away ad landlord protests....... this is defendant who celebrates by pointing at the camera with both hands and says "GOTCHA"....... 

Edited January 13, 2021 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

on/off again relationship breakup: on the face, not much of a case - seems these two women were on and off - P says they took turns cheating on each other, but this time when P cheats D flips out and keys her car (D admits she keyed the car) - P says it will cost $1500 to fix car - D says she doesn't owe anything because of money she put into relationship.......... defense going to fail unless there is evidence of a loan or an admission from P that she owes money - amount she'll end up paying depends on actual damage.......... ok, lesbian soap opera with these two swapping  partners around, if I heard right P visited from out of State for family funeral, at a time she had a Gf back in Connecticut, and D was, at the time, living with P's sister in Georgia - they hook up again, cheating on their respective partners - D ends up following P back to Connecticut, and when she gets there she discovers P and the other gf are in the middle of planning a wedding (they've since married)......... ok, MM has a frowny face cuz she has to listen to the mess, but I have FF and I don't care for Springer-TV......... ok, quick listen after commercial when i see D having a turn to talk - she's talking about having threesomes with P and someone else.......nah, let's talk about the car and see if D car prove any offset........ zip zip........ ok D admitts she went banging on P's door wanting a street brawl - P won't come outside and fight her - she admits to keying car (did a good job, too, big 'X' on hood and writing profanity on door......... geez, does she think that would help her in court....... ok, D leaves scene, P comes out and sees the car and calls cops, when cops arrive they end up arresting P because her then gf (now wife), had a protective order against her which P was violating - cops track down D and arrests HER for the vandalism, and when D arrives at the jail P already getting locked up......... I never heard D try to offer an 'offset' defense, so she had NO defense - P gets the cost of repairs

FB iPhone purchase scam: P says he found D on FB selling an iphone, decided to buy and paid the D, but it was a bait and switch and phone delivered not as advertised - wants $780......... D insists he shipped the advertised phone and isn't going to refund any money......... going to have to see how P figured his damages, as he's asking double what he says was the agreed upon price.......... if I ignore how foolish I think P was buying any electronic item sight unseen from an individual off FB, rest of his case seems sound - made a deposit, then waited to pay in full until he saw picture of phone in box and proof (tracking number) that box was shipped - he has switched phone, package it came in, date and times, etc here in court...... when package arrived he called immediately after he opens box, D promised to contact UPS and track package, but D ghosts and starts dodging P's attempts to contact him when P call for updates.............

and this where the recap ends as my cheap recorder cut off the last half of the case

Edited January 18, 2021 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

The good news is we got new episodes! The bad news is that I think I need to curtail my viewing, since I really fear I am going to slip and start saying things like "we was", "Janawary/Febawary" and " I don't have no job".  I'm less fearful I may get "in a rage" and go key "fuck you" on someone's car and/or wanna fight them, but you never know. I'm starting to think this is a normal reaction to annoyance or frustration and that is not a good sign. Why JM tolerated all the screaming and yelling over her (although she did seem discouraged at the threesome sex talk) I have no idea. Time to hit the FF button.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

FB iPhone purchase scam: 

I couldn't help but think that the aspiring lawyer who has to buy a used, high-end phone from some FB scammer might lower his sights and buy a less expensive NEW phone he can afford from a reputable source. But no. He needs this prestigious phone (is it? I'm not sure) and completely trusts some total stranger. Should a lawyer be so naive? He insists def send him a pic of the phone in the open box before he sends him the balance of the 380$ agreed price. Def does so - as if that proves anything! - and sends the tracking number and lawyer student accepts that as proof positive he's getting what he paid for. He sends the 180$ balance. Of course he gets screwed. Duh. Even though P is clearly winning, he feels the need to tell JM how he went all CSI proving that the sleazy def. did indeed replace his coveted iPhone with a Nokia. Def insists that someone at UPS just knew this awesome used phone was in the box, opened it, stole the phone, replaced it with an inferior brand, retaped the box and put a new delivery label on it. That someone so young as the D is already such a lying, amoral, yet stupid POS is pretty sad.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

and this where the recap ends as my cheap recorder cut off the last half of the case

The plaintiff got back not only his 380$ but double that for the fraud perpetrated by the little creep.

We also had whiny beta suing his off-again, on-again ex-girlfriend or booty call (with whom he decided making a kid was a good idea) for his cherished electronics. After the blessed event, he moves into g/f's momma's house since no one would expect two people who make a baby to actually live together or be able to provide a roof over their own heads. He can't live without a big TeeVee, so buys a 55" flatscreen, plus a soundbar and some other stuff to go with it and puts it all in g/f's mommy's house. Three years later wants it all back. He finally got a place of his own like a big, grown-up boy and is in despair over the TV and accessories. Turns out he didn't want it back until his ex-ladylove went to court to fight over custody of this very unfortunate child, who he declares is a "precocious three-and-half years old". JM rules he gets nothing. Much hand-wringing, despair, and more whining ensue. Suck it up, baby daddy.

Edited January 18, 2021 by AngelaHunter
Because "precious" and "precocious" are not the same. At all.

[AZChristian]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Def insists that someone at UPS just knew this awesome used phone was in the box, opened it, stole the phone, replaced it with an inferior brand, retaped the box and put a new delivery label on it. That someone so young as the D is already such a lying, amoral, yet stupid POS is pretty sad.

Given the tidiness of the tape/label configuration, I wondered whether (theoretically) the defendant might have mailed it via UPS at one of those Mailbox, Etc. type places.  He could have watched the clerk tape and label the box and then - after defendant left the store - clerk could have opened it (or used another box) switched the phones, and then attached a duplicate label.  Plaintiff has nothing on me when it comes to CSI investigations.  That whole no envelope/envelope thing was weird, though.  Is Plaintiff the scammer and added the envelope before taking the picture???  

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's episode about a failed baby shower, says "New" on my cable guide.   However, I swear I saw this stupid case before.    Plaintiff wanted to have a baby shower rivaling a Hollywood premiere from years ago, but then everything went south.   We're up to the confrontation at defendant/party planner's house, when plaintiff says defendant pulled a gun on her.  Why can't we get a video of this confrontation?  

I saw a little of the RV AirBnB case, and just want to know if an RV is OK for AirBnB rentals.   That defendant looked like a weasel, but I didn't like the plaintiffs either. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's episode about a failed baby shower, says "New" on my cable guide.   However, I swear I saw this stupid case before.

I thought so too, but then I realized this kind of spontaneous, lack of self-control and threats of violence and mayhem over something so minor is so common on this show it does give one a feeling of deja vu.  I was nearly put into a coma by plaintiff's endless droning and explanations about her sister, where they live, and  there was no shower for the first baby, and a shower this time and "like" "like" "like" blah blah blah. Def makes up the invitations with a date for 2029 (the date P herself had put when she sent the info to D) but fixes it and makes new invitations but she can't spell "Michael" and prints it as "Micheal" this time. P doesn't want a redo after the second mistake and wants her money back. I knew I had never seen this when we hear that def. said a bunch of females "had came" to her place, slashed her tires, "did" her windows and wanted to fight her. But it was just a little "family thing" so no big deal. Yeah, members of my family often gang up at my house wanting to fight me. So what? She says all this as though it's normal as she casually flips the long ringlets of her wig around. Yeah, she pulled a gun on the P. She had it in pocket when P also came rampaging to her house with a bunch of other people, also seeming to want to fight her. P admits it "got a little loud". I can picture it. D. requested the P wait until her kids are in bed before this confrontation/fight/gun battle. Then her baby daddy comes out and starts tussling with her, I guess trying to prevent her from shooting anyone, over a BABY SHOWER, folks! JM wants to know if either of them feel just a little shame over this disgraceful debacle or if this is just the way they normally live? "No", def answers. She feels no shame. Of course not. JM then turns on P, saying "You go to someone's house in the middle of the night to fight..." P interrupts to clarify it wasn't the middle of night, as though the time is the issue. P wanted a 5K bo-nanza. I don't know if she got it because I'd had enough and zipped to the next case.

This case involved a couple who had an RV AirBnB, which they rented to the sleazy, evasive POS def. Because of the lack of business due to the plague they decide to rent it to him month to month. They claim he moved out and stole "everything that wasn't nailed down" when he left. Plaintiffs have a security camera which showed him stealing a super-cheap broom(!) from the place yet he expects JM to believe he never took the Keurig, all the towels, sheets, kitchen stuff, etc. "Why would I"? he asks. Duh. Because you're a sleazy, petty, lowlife POS? He had some incident "behind the wheel" and was hospitalized, so how he could steal anything? The problem is that video shows him stealing the broom about 2 days after this catastrophic accident. It's amazing how many criminals are dumb as a load of bricks. JM wants to know if he was ever arrested? Why, yes, he was, but it wasn't his fault. Some friend swiped something from Walmart (of course) and he, the Good Samaritan, was just trying to put it back, or something like that. His story was so convoluted and such a pack of stupid lies, JM informs him better tell the truth or she'll have to take a recess and find out for herself. He finally admits that even though he did nothing wrong he was arrested, pled guilty and was charged with a felony, all because of his Good Samaritanism, but that was just a misunderstanding and he didn't do anything! Honest! What a pathetic loser he is. The person who cleaned up his filthy mess writes a letter outlining all the missing stuff, the filth and the rotting food left in the sink. Plaintiff's get the 140$ cleaning fee plus 500$ (I think?) for all the stolen stuff, even though they wanted the value of brand-new items but have no receipts.

Levin, you're on a roll here with this Wilkos garbage.

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, AZChristian said:

  Is Plaintiff the scammer and added the envelope before taking the picture??? 

I have a hard time imagining that someone who received exactly what he requested and paid for would go though all this detective stuff, but not being a scammer myself, I don't know.

[SRTouch]

1 ball puppy: P paid big bucks for z rottweiler puppy, knowing from beginning that one testicle had not descended - at time breeder told her that sometimes happens, no worries, pup should grow out of problem - but offered to replace puppy if buyer was still worried or ball did not drop......... not a Rotty expert, but different breeds develope at different rates, Google suggests not worrying until pup gets 4-6 months old, but I also see some vets say hold off neutering a rotty as long as 2 years......... anyway, buyer knew what she was buying and rolled the dice - now she wants refund of purchase price plus vets bills even though she has had puppy over 2 years - says breeder can have puppy back..... nah, not from what I've heard thus far - I see nothing breeder did wrong - but not sure pup is in a good home.......... ah, seems reason she wants to give dog back is that he's too much dog for her and after 2 years she can't train him (still not housebroken, which makes me wonder how much value an untrained, neutered rotty would be to the breeder if given back)......... over to D, and we learn first time breeder is hearing P wanted to return dog is today - MM reads texts to us, and my view not changing - breeder tried to work with buyer, and buyer doesn't sound like she should have never bought the puppy without doing more research into the breed (wish I knew what experience she has with dogs - specifically rottweilers)........ unless there's something in texts/contract where breeder offers a 2 year health guarantee P gets nada......... nope - case dismissed......... in hallterview Doug suggests a doggy psychic - and breeder says she'll be happy to take pup back - but not willing to pay for him....... oh, original price was $1800, which P wants back, but she's also tacked on an extra  $700 for total of $2500........ during after the verdict chat MM says hearing this buyer say she is willing to return puppy is a first for her - then when Judge Hubby is talking their dog (who we don't get to see) starts barking in the back ground

tenant asking for lotto money when landlord withholds part of deposit: after 4 years tenant moves out, saying during last year of tenancy landlord stopped doing required/routine maintenance - big deposit, $1925, and after move out landlord kept a couple hundred bucks...... on the face of things I gotta wonder why she's suing - especially for 4 grand - she gots some 'splaining to do........... must be a 3 case day, as MM is moving right along......... landlord is a fast talker and wants to give his rehearsed speech, but MM slows his roll and wants to follow HER script - 1 good thing, he brought along his agent/witness who did the walk through - bad thing is he failed to submit evidence of all the damages he wants money for - but says he 'can get them and send pix'...... numbers keep changing here - not sure why, but at various times litigants and MM are changing the amount of the deposit and how much was withheld.......... only thing D has pic of is a grungy/filthy/stained bathtub which he says it too $95 to clean - D says in the required letter listing why money was being withheld there were itemized charges amounting to more than he withheld, but that he was returning extra because they were long time tenants........ says itemized list brought deposit down to just over a grand but that he offered to return $1675......... ok, original letter (which was within mandated time deadline) detailing deductions say he wanted to keep the  $395, but in subsequent discussions he backed off and ended settlement talks saying he was keeping $300........ not really liking parts of landlord's case, but he seems a lot more reasonable than tenant and her 4 grand claim........ after lots of back and forth with offer/counteroffers plaintiff signs a settlement agreement - WTH? there's a signed settlement agreement?........  which she has since backed out of and now demands lotto money?......... P explanation is that after they reached the settlement she didn't receive the promised  money,  instead just unsigned emails promising to pay....... ok, check sent regular mail (MM asks why not certified) and never arrived - sounds like she blew a gasket and decided to call off the settlement when it hadn't arrived 7 days after she signed settlement - I gather settlement gave D a timeline for issuing check anc having it delivered? ........... ah, D sneaks in that P had refused two previous certified letters - not sure if regular mail was smart if P was refusing certified mail.......... now we hear from D broker, who has found and sent those missing damage pics - ok, not sure why MM needs to hear this, as I think question should shift to who breached the signed settlement agreement........... ok, these pix not really needed, but they do reflect badly on P's claim that she left place in good shape........... definitely helps D case that he has proof he purchased a cashiers check for the settlement amount within 48 hours of settlement being signed - but would have been better had it been sent certified mail......... P gets the settlement amount.......... never heard why P thought she should get 4 grand - in fact in hallterview she claims she should have received even more 

'97 PU blows after oil change: P says he took his old F-150 to QuikLube for an oil change, and after the drive home old leaking all over and engine damage - wants 5 grand for engine replacement of his ........... D says truck is old, and it took P a week before he called to complain............ course first we need to determine if shop negligence caused damage, but also need to look at the truck - value could vary by thousands depending on drivetrain, regular vs supercab, 2 or 4 wheel drive, trim, bed, etc......... OFF TOPIC - years ago I picked up my section's 2 1/2 ton truck from maintainance and started the drive back to Stuttgart, Germany - went about 2 miles, noticed oil pressure dropping like a rock, stepped on clutch and coasted to side of autobahn as engine died - thing about those deuce-n-half was that there were 2 oil drain plugs - dip stick shows oil full with lower plug in, but start it up and oil shoots out if upper plug missing - yep, mechanic forgot to install upper plug and engine ate itself........... ok, D really unprepared here - her defense is that P had truck a week before engine blew up, but she doesn't have paperwork showing when work was done......... P also just flapping his gums - he has nothing showing when work was done - thing here is that D is right, this is an old truck and this may have been its time, so P REALLY needs something - preferably expert testimony - to show shop negligence......... ok, after truck blows up he takes it to a couple mechanic's (including a dealer) - says mechanic at dealer said drain plug was loose - ok, still flapping gums without a statement from mechanic saying this - instead, printout from mechanic has totally different story, including something about a hole in the oil pan (which MM doesn't tell us, but I saw when I froze frame) ok, P has nothing showing D screwed up - case dismissed

Edited January 20, 2021 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, my understanding is that the one ball undescended dog should never be bred, and the undescended one has to be removed.   Some sites say the testicular cancer rate in dogs like this is ten times normal risk, but only if the undescended testicle is not removed, and this one was           I was floored to see that plaintiff wanted a refund, and would send the dog back to the breeder in return for her exorbitant demands.    I hope that dog gets another home, with proper care.   I'm wondering what happened to the Rottweiler after this?   Since breeder was willing to take dog back, but wasn't paying a penny, I'm worried about where the dog went, or if the dog was already gone.  

I'm getting this as a new case, but on Thursday.    I wonder how that happened?   The Judge's dog is not giving up wanting her favorite sleeping place in the living room back, that's the After the Verdict set now.    Poor puppy.    I wonder why the dog was barking?   That wasn't an "I want attention, and pets" bark, that was serious.    I bet Judge John was over to where the dog was the second that they stopped filming.  

Edited January 22, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/20/2021 at 2:58 PM, SRTouch said:

tenant asking for lotto money when landlord withholds part of deposit:

I got these eps today too.  In this one, I started by thinking the landlord was some sort of greedy slumlord - especially seeing he was charging 10$ for light bulbs (which I now believe P stole) and his claim that P somehow discoloured the bathtub because I couldn't figure out how one would do that.  My opinion changed when P admitted she signed and agreed to a settlement, but only to make the D shut up and send her the whole security deposit and that she had no intention of honouring the agreement and is here suing him. He agreed to return to her all but 350-odd dollars, I think, and sent a check which she claims she never got. Now she wants some massive bo-nanaza of a few more thousand dollars. When D's witness showed pics of the actual damage, P's goose was cooked and she gets a fat zero. In the hall, the landlord talks about what a scammer Ms. Nunez is and I believed that too.

 

On 1/20/2021 at 2:58 PM, SRTouch said:

'97 PU blows after oil change:

Once again we have litigants who bring not a stitch of proof of anything, but they might be able to get some another time. P thinks all he has  to say is something like, "I brought the ancient car to my mechanic and he was like, this is done all wrong and, like, the oil cap isn't on right," and all that crap. He adds that his SON was in the truck when it crapped out, to bring a note of pathos to his argument. Did he get any of the mechanic's findings in writing? Why, no. Of course not but take my word for it. Yes, rank hearsay will win a case. The def. doesn't know anything about anything at all, but her boss sent her here and I have no idea why. But since the burden is on the plaintiff and he produced nothing, he loses. A real waste of time case.

 

[Carolina Girl]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I got these eps today too.  In this one, I started by thinking the landlord was some sort of greedy slumlord - especially seeing he was charging 10$ for light bulbs (which I now believe P stole) and his claim that P somehow discoloured the bathtub because I couldn't figure out how one would do that.  My opinion changed when P admitted she signed and agreed to a settlement, but only to make the D shut up and send her the whole security deposit and that she had no intention of honouring the agreement and is here suing him. He agreed to return to her all but 350-odd dollars, I think, and sent a check which she claims she never got. Now she wants some massive bo-nanaza of a few more thousand dollars. When D's witness showed pics of the actual damage, P's goose was cooked and she gets a fat zero. In the hall, the landlord talks about what a scammer Ms. Nunez is and I believed that too.

 

Once again we have litigants who bring not a stitch of proof of anything, but they might be able to get some another time. P thinks all he has  to say is something like, "I brought the ancient car to my mechanic and he was like, this is done all wrong and, like, the oil cap isn't on right," and all that crap. He adds that his SON was in the truck when it crapped out, to bring a note of pathos to his argument. Did he get any of the mechanic's findings in writing? Why, no. Of course not but take my word for it. Yes, rank hearsay will win a case. The def. doesn't know anything about anything at all, but her boss sent her here and I have no idea why. But since the burden is on the plaintiff and he produced nothing, he loses. A real waste of time case.

 

I'm starting to think some of these ridiculous no-evidence-to-speak-of cases are a personal plan for a "pandemic stimulus check."  Like the idiot who wanted their coffee purchases paid back.  Get a judgment, split the money and then split the judgment money so that everyone comes out ahead.

I think that since there are no additional expenses being paid to bring litigants to the court, maybe they should eliminate the splitting of the residual pot and just pay out what judgment, if any is awarded.  That way if plaintiff loses, no one gets ANYTHING.

[CrazyInAlabama]

If that tenant was washing out hair or clothing dye in the tub, then it would be a stain like they showed.  

[SRTouch]

something different: P is truck driver/amateur photographer - seems he sometimes submits photos of different locations online(?), and one day while waiting for a load he visited the coffee/sandwich shop across the street and took some pix - says he asked for, and was given, permission by the employees, but management wasn't happy and nixed the idea when some of employees felt weirded out - he stuck around in shop for awhile, but was asked to leave as manager said he was making employees uncomfortable - after he leaves manager calls cops and makes report in case he comes back........ part of his case is manager didn't make a big deal about it - hey, to me it's a big deal to be a booted from a business - in case you wonder why bother to make the report, in many places a business needs multiple reports for this kind of annoying customer before a stay away order will be issued - here manager wanted it on recond that he had been asked to leave in case he came back - which he did........ a week later he's back with another load and again walks across street for a sandwich while his trailer is being unloaded - different manager calls cops and dude ends up being arrested......... all this is from P viewpoint, dude sounds reasonable but I suspect he wasn't nearly as reasonable at the time - gotta wonder why several cops came to arrest him if things went as he says........... over to defendant's witness, who happens to be the second manager who called cops on his second visit - says when dude came in 1 of the employees who had been there on the first visit got upset and came to tell her the guy who had been booted from establishment a week before was back......... probably should say dude's pix seemed focused on attractive female employees - the pic he shows MM doesn't seem to show uncomfortable employees, but who knows what followed that pic........ so, on that second day, when shift manager is told dude is back she calls her boss the manager who gave him boot and is told to just call cops if dude is acting weird or making her or other employees uncomfortable - she says guy ordered his sandwich, opened his laptop and then seemed to set up a camera or something focused on area where female employees were working, then he leaves and sits at a different table on other side of store - whoa, sort of freaks her out and she hits panic button and whatever she told dispatch had cops come doubletime......... when cops get there they confront P - he says he didn't even know first manager made a police report, and this second manager didn't speak to him before calling cops, so cops arriving was a big shock......... may just be me, but watching dude I'm thinking he was up to something - he's got that shifty eye thing going, I already question why cops would arrest him rather than ask him to leave and never come back - and definitely don't like hearing him admit he set up his camera pointed at employees while he sat elsewhere to eat, especially as the first manager, who he says identified herself as being from corporate, told him not to take pictures......... more dude talks, more I dislike his story - as MM said, if a business asked me to leave the previous week for taking pictures I wouldn't go back the next week with a camera (he claims he 'thought' about taking a picture that second day, but didn't and actually picked up the camera after a few seconds,  and D witness says she freaked when she saw camera and doesn't know if he picked it up and took it with him when he went to sit down) - as far as cops and the arrest, I'm sort of getting that more - they know they had been called here because of this guy the previous week - but when they confront him he says this is first time - then he argues with them that he doesn't need to show his identification (his story is he leaves his drivers license in the truck - so, he takes camera to the business where he was told not to take pictures but left ID in truck?) - something tells me he mouthed off to cops and talked himself into handcuffs......... yep, that's how MM views case and she tells dude how creepy he was acting - says business within rights to call cops, it was his mouth that got him arrested, and no way is she ordering business to pay him 7 grand for his arrest/travel to defend charges/emotional distress, etc - it's funny, as MM is telling him how creepy it was to aim his camera at employees on his second visit after being asked to leave the 1st time dude tripping all over the place arguing with the judge - hmmmmmm I see why cops may have ended up arresting him if he argued this way when he was confronted - not the cops best hour, but more and more I think now this guy is/was an ass.........

'nother covid cancellation case: mommy scheduled daughter's sweet 16 bash DJ, then covid, wants refund of deposit - D willing to reschedule like he's done for dozens of other cancelled events, but deposits are nonrefundable.......... these cases are quickly becoming among my least favorite - MM is bound to commiserate with mommy, but contract will decide things........... yakkety yak -150 guests invited - kept hoping for shutdown to end - eventually realization that sweet 16 can not be celebrated even close to May birthday - mommy decides to cancel rather than reschedule........ seems the suit is about size of refund - total price for DJ was to be $1600 - according to P she's willing to agree to DJ keeping the $600 deposit, but she wants the other grand she paid in installments........ sounds reasonable, though I think the lawsuit is for full $1600.......... listening to D it sounds like he has been arguing/negotiating with all his clients as to amount of refunds - some agreed to reschedule, so D walked away, some accepted partial refund, etc - dude something odd a salesman who is even interrupting judge to make his point - may be fine to some people, but I hate that kind of pushy people so understand P getting fed up and filing papers asking for full refund....... ok, actual amount of deposit differs and my numbers were wrong - as MM examines papers it turns out that actual deposit was $1000, but D let P put down $600 and rest to be paid in installments - P maintains deposit was $600, but MM agrees with D that it was actually a grand........ D wanted to keep the full grand that P eventually paid, but then offered to settle for $800......... ok, says MM, it will really be settled by how the contract is written........ more yakkety yak that could go either way depending on judge - which is why I don't care for these cases as neither side caused the breach......... MM ponders the 'act of God' clause - also, this time there's also the fact that P made decision to cancel the party 2 months prior to scheduled event which bolsters D claim for keeping the full $1000.......... I give up on case as MM starts commiserate get with both sides......... zippedty zip zip......... never really understood the numbers or why P sued for $1600, and not going to try to figure it out - apparently the wording of the 'act of God' clause in this contract is enough for MM to decide for D in this case for full $1600, but she suggests D follow through on his settlement offer and return the $800 he offered, but that she can't compel........... also, the way this contract is written MM's ruling still leaves a $1600 credit for some future event if P decides to go ahead and reschedule......... soooooo MM doesn't settle anything except to leave it up to litigants to get together and work out a compromise - D not ordered to return any money, but MM suggests he settle - P told she's not legally entitled to a money refund, and told her options are to reschedule or accept whatever offer D makes........ in hallterview P agrees to accept $600 and tells us she wants nothing further to do with D........ D agrees to return the $600 and leave the other grand on the books if she changes her mind.......... after the verdict has me (and MM) wondering if P actually listened to ruling when said D could keep all her money, but he is still offering to return $600 - like MM said, maybe P should hold off badmouthing D until she has whatever D is willing to return

Edited January 23, 2021 by SRTouch