Katy M February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: And it's turned into the Great Gorilla Glue Challange. Just what hospitals need these days - a bunch of single-digit IQ morons gluing stuff on body parts for "likes" on YouTube and then needing to go to an emergency room. I guess it's marginally less unbelievably stupid than the Fire Challenge, but that's not saying much. Well, why not, when you can do something ridiculously stupid and then turn around for suing the manufacturer for not requiring an IQ test for not selling you the product and become a multimillionaire? I'm almost tempted to try myself. 2 Link to comment
AZChristian February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 4 minutes ago, Katy M said: Well, why not, when you can do something ridiculously stupid and then turn around for suing the manufacturer for not requiring an IQ test for not selling you the product and become a multimillionaire? I'm almost tempted to try myself. When we first read about the Gorilla Glue Idiot's lawsuit, I thought about what stupid things I could do and then blame the manufacturer for. Haven't come up with anything yet that would be worth the discomfort or risk to life and limb. Open to suggestions!!! 4 Link to comment
Katy M February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, AZChristian said: When we first read about the Gorilla Glue Idiot's lawsuit, I thought about what stupid things I could do and then blame the manufacturer for. Haven't come up with anything yet that would be worth the discomfort or risk to life and limb. Open to suggestions!!! No pain, no monetary gain. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 3 hours ago, Katy M said: Well, why not, when you can do something ridiculously stupid and then turn around for suing the manufacturer for not requiring an IQ test for not selling you the product and become a multimillionaire? I'm almost tempted to try myself. I just saw one knuckle dragger who put a firecracker between his teeth and lit the fuse and the ER docs had to attend to this fool with his mouth blown apart. I think he should sue the manufacturers for not putting a warning on the label to not light fireworks while holding them in your mouth. 🤔 I mean, if they don't tell you not to it must be their fault. As we've learned on this show, nothing you do is your fault. I'd love to see these cases on TPC. 3 hours ago, AZChristian said: Haven't come up with anything yet that would be worth the discomfort or risk to life and limb. Open to suggestions!!! Try pouring lighter fluid all over your body and then set it alight. The label doesn't mention not doing that so you might be rich, even if missing your ears, fingers, eyelids, most of your skin etc. afterwards. Rich, you'll be! 3 Link to comment
AZChristian February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Try pouring lighter fluid all over your body and then set it alight. The label doesn't mention not doing that so you might be rich, even if missing your ears, fingers, eyelids, most of your skin etc. afterwards. Rich, you'll be! Did you see the part where I specified not wanting to suffer any discomfort??? LOL. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 (edited) Custom boat trailer disaster: P ordered a custom trailer for her boat - was assured trailer was made to carry the weight of her 23ft boat - but axle broke when boat was loaded - she wants 10 grand...... D claims P loaded the boat full of fuel (3500 lbs) and that weight difference is cause of axle failing........ P and her whole family are big into wakeboarding (water-skiing with one beefed up ski that let's you do all kinds of tricks, sort of like snowboard compares to snow skis) - both her husband and 14yo son are professionals and this boat was purchased for them to use as well as a commercial venture to train others to do water sports........ ok, not after market custom made trailer, this trailer and boat came from dealer as a package deal - pretty much from beginning trailer gave P problems, and when they took it to be serviced and they're told trailer not up to carry this heavy a boat........ not sure I buy D's intro defense that it was the fuel weight causing the problem - I'm not into boating, but I see people stopping on the way to the water and getting fuel for their boats - and, if I heard correctly, this family have years of boating experience, so I would think they'd know if gas tanks should be empty when trailering the boat........ anyway, P shows us pix of a beat up trailer with obvious axle problems, wheel rims cracked, and torn up tires - thing not roadwork hybrid and she tells us 1 axle had to be replaced after 2 months, few months later other axle (it's dual axle) needs replacement........... ah, one of those warranty musical chair cases - dealership sold this boat & trailer, but when P goes to dealer they say not their warranty, go after the trailer manufacturer directly........ so far P has spent over 5 grand on this $10,000 trailer and neither dealer nor manufacturer will do anything - in fact all they did is tell her to contact the axle manufacturer - geez, so if I buy a car and the brakes fail, I'm supposed to sue the company who made the brakes? - if I understand correctly, P actually did contact the axle manufacturer, and their representative informed her that these axles were not made to carry this weight and should not have been used on this trailer.......... me, I'm not a confrontational person, but I think I would have towed this broken a$$ trailer back to the dealer and parked it and called the local media for an interview rather than paying thousands over a 2 year period........... over to defendant who admits he built the trailer in 2017, but just like P claimed, he telling MM that he doesn't warranty the trailer except to the dealer, then says the axles are warranted by the axle maker......... I'm thinking P should be going after the dealership with whom she had a contract, and then the dealer can go after trailer manufacturer, who can go after after axle maket, etc......... ok, if I have this right, D offered to exchange the trailer, but says he has no way to transfer boat from busted ass trailer to new one - not sure why this was a deal breaker, surely they could have met somewhere, at a marina or dealership, to play musical trailers......... more gibber jabber, but like I said I think P should be dealing with the dealer, and that's exactly what MM is telling P now........ ok, now D disputes what P said and says he wanted boat AND trailer so he could weigh them and find out why the trailer failed, and P was unwilling to surrender them (remember she uses the boat pretty much daily in her water sports school business) - and of course neither side had texts/emails/etc to support their version of events.......... ok, long drawn out case with conflicting stories, but MM, even after saying P should have gone after dealer, tells P to let D trailer guy have bought AND trailer to make the repairs......... I sort of agree, but only because I think P is suing the wrong person........ and MM does give D a 1 week deadline for fixing and returning the boat so P's business can go on........ after the verdict Has MM using similar example is did, except she uses a Honda "you bought a Honda and axle goes out, would Honda send you to axle manufacturer?" Uh, no, Honda takes care of it and then goes after axle supplier......... I still think I would have towed the busted trailer to the dealer and made a stink until they agreed to fix it tenant wants treble deposit: 1st case took up half the hour, and i think this is supposed to be a 3 case day - these next two better be quickies...... guess P is actually suing on her elderly mom's behalf - suing for $1250, so guess 1/3 of that means deposit was little over $415......... landlord says mom left a mess, so he was entitled to witholding the deposit........ but only if he followed the statues if there was a required itemized list deadline......... ahhhhhh mom was a long time tenant of this duplex, and had been lovingly caring for a flowerbed for 19 years - duplex sold last year and new landlord brought in a roofing contractor - who mom hated, and who destroyed mom's flowers - then new owners bumped up rent by almost $300 - that may be reason for mom to decide to move, but as nothing to do with case....... ok, actual deposit was $495, so guess P agrees last D lord was entitled to keep part of deposit and tripled what she feels was unjustly kept?....... hmmmm according to P she was told not to worry about getting everything out, they were planning g on gutting it and renovating unit - then 2 1/2 weeks later P contacts D and is told we sent pix of the tradh left to your sister (and yes, a bunch of crap was left for someone else to throw out) - according to P, when she contacted D he said he'd return the deposit if she had someone come throw out the 'big' stuff that weekend - but P never came because she had turned in the keys and couldn't get in unless D let her in....... not sure she tried very hard, I mean mom just moved across the street so surely P could have arranged to meet and get the keys - I think P just wasn't motivated enough (though not sure why if, as P says, mom was going to get money if they finished carrying trashy dresser out).......... MM starts reading their text exchange - D admits he dropped the ball by not responding to a text asking about P getting sccess, but says P only asked the 1 time and HD would have happily given her access via the key lock box had she followed up - I'm agreeing with landlord, he offered to grant access to save P money, which he didn't have to do since Mom had moved out 2 weeks prior, and P didn't follow up - instead jump's to threatening a lawsuit even though at that point D was being nice in offering to let them back in to finish clearing the property........ ok, weekend comes and goes and P makes no further effort to gain access to finish hauling away mom's trash - come Monday D goes to property, sees trash still there, and goes ahead and had his people do the cleanup......... forget treble damages, landlord had right to keep part of deposit and under no obligation to let P come back weeks after move out date - question is whether he's overstating cost of cleanup (especially as they were apparently going to renovate place) - actually, P seems to really be reaching here as mom apparently moved into an identical Floorplan duplex paying said rent from before the rent increase........... Decision time - landlord kept too much, and ordered to rent 150 - not the asked for $1250......... hallterview proves was why to nice to P, who still thinks she should have won - apparently ignoring fact that landlord had no duty to let her back onto property weeks after it should have been returned in broom swept condition aftermarket auto install fail: p paid $234 for aftermarket Bluetooth to be installed, but it doesn't work like he thought it would - wants his money back...... defense seems to be that shop installed device that P brought them, not their fault it doesn't do what P wanted......... could go either way - does installed device work as it should (we may need expert testimony to tell us) even if that isn't what P wanted - who picked out the device, and what representations did shop make......... testimony has MM playing dentist trying to get info from P - he was at shop to get windows tinted, noticed a display, and helpful salesman suggested he get this do dad installed.......... what caught my attention was what's in the background as P testifies, MP headgear, military certificate or award with dog tags hanging from from, etc........... ok, sounds like salesman/shop guy sold the $40 device thinking it would act as a Bluetooth to allow hands free phone functions, and after the almost $200 install fee thing doesn't work - soon as it's installed Shop everyone knows it doesn'the do what shop guy said it would, even with shop guy trying to make it work......... wonder if maybe it's phone or car model specific and it was just incompatible.......... so, before P leaves shop he is telling them that he doesn't want it if it won't work, and just take it out and give him back his money.......... ok, P is regular customer who has had several things done at shop, but D disagrees with the window tint story, says instead P was there for headlight restoration......... wouldn't matter except someone has faulty memory of the day in question......... D agrees reason dohickey gets installed is that P saw a display in shop and bought it....... thing is this was not a Bluetooth type device, but was a USB port - could you maybe plug in a Bluetooth headset - but why spend over 2 hundred bucks when you can just get a Bluetooth ear plug and charge it up at home between trips............ according to shop guy the customer already has a similar USB port in his other car, and they never really talked about what P might use this device for in this car - and yes, I get that, I use my USB port all the time when I want to charge my phone while in the car, but I know that isn't a Bluetooth device (my Hyundai has Bluetooth though the stereo, but when I had my older Altima I had an earpiece) - not sure it is shop guy's job to ask what P wanted device to do - also, according to shop guy, P bought the device and came back 10 days later to get it installed........... ah, but when we get back to P we get contradicting testimony - P says he already has a USB port in this car, and had no reason to install a second port - only reason was that he thought this device would act let him talk on the phone........ P says no to idea 10 days go by between purchase and install...... the real key here though is that this time we have 3 pieces of written evidence - 1 receipt and 2 work orders, and 2 out of 3 cal this a blue tooth - the receipt and install work order ipt for device calls it a USB port, the work order for installation says USB, but the installation WO is for a bluetooth - so, asks MM, why did installer not question why he was installing a USB port and not a Bluetooth........ oh, and it gets better says MM, when P isn't happy and they write up another work order for removing the device, the WO refers to device as a Bluetooth (really, though, before I had my back up and later dash cameras installed I read every review I could find before spending any money - had the back up camera a couple years, then upgraded to front and rear dash cams when resolution got better and price went down)......... MM decides she's seen enough, and orders complete refund Edited February 17, 2021 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 3 hours ago, AZChristian said: Did you see the part where I specified not wanting to suffer any discomfort??? LOL. Stop whining. Isn't a little suffering worth the millions you'll get? Think of all the "Likes" on various ridiculous, brain-dead social media sites. You'll even have some $$$ left over after you pay for the skin grafts and prosthetics. Maybe. Oh. Okay. "Gotcher point!"<said in Levin screech-talk> Maybe just try Gorilla Gluing your ginormous false eyelashes on. 10 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Custom boat trailer disaster: I wonder if JM was sorry after she asked Maria to explain this waterboarding or whatever it was. I know I was desperately sorry and wanted to puncture my own eardrums. It almost made me long to hear Levin screaming, "It's the case of PREMATURE WITHDRAWAL!" Yeah, I'm exaggerating. Nothing is that bad, but listening to Maria's never-ending tale was excruciating. I notice our boy Levin is looking more and more disreputable and ragged as the plague drags on, from what I could see as FF'd the tiny little dirtbag. Did this case really have to drag on as long as it did? I felt sorry for the def, Santa Claus, if he had to listen to Maria's monologues. 15 minutes ago, SRTouch said: tenant wants treble deposit: JM, in After the Verdict, said it perfectly: "This plaintiff was terrible." She was truly horrid, another "Rosemary's Baby" Minnie Castevet. We could have cut out all the trips down Memory Lane and everyone loves Mama, and her flowerbeds were wrecked. Mama, no matter how beloved, did not own this property but only rented it so if the flowerbeds are ruined by the installation of a new roof it may be unfortunate but that's the chance you take when you beautify someone else's property. When I rented, I planted some lovely spring flowers. The landlord sent someone to cut the grass and he mowed my flowers down. I was bummed, but hey - it's his property. Then Mama leaves a bunch of trash and some furniture in the place for the landlord to clean up, yet daughter still wants Mama's security deposit back. Don't think so. She acts as though the new owners raising the rent is a personal affront. He's allowed to do that. Don't like it? Move, which is what Mama did. Since terrible daughter didn't clear out the garbage when she said she would and immediately threatened a court case, let her pay Mama the 499$. I'm sure she can afford it. 25 minutes ago, SRTouch said: aftermarket auto install fail: Def twerp was an asshole and lost a good customer for 240-odd dollars. I think we all know what a USB port is. Even I have one in my car, so why would anyone want another? I do not have BT and know that is something else entirely. His BS "We would work something out...we could come to some arrangement" was such gibberish when they made the mistake and gave him something that didn't work. We got the obligatory lying loser's "WOW!" at the end from the twerp. He just had SO much more to tell the judge! Suck it up, twerp-boi. BTW, P said he wants to be able to drive and talk on his phone legally, which is why he wanted the BT. I wonder if Levin took that hint or if he still thinks he's way too important to follow laws made for the little people. 5 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 Great point about Honda going after the supplier, but fixing your vehicle. I had a Honda Element (biggest mistake Honda made was discontinuing the Element), with the killer airbags, and Honda replaced them (you wouldn't believe how much they spent doing super fast delivery for one), and then Honda could have gone after Takata (spelling?), but the airbag company is long gone. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch February 18, 2021 Share February 18, 2021 (edited) Nasty old folks breakup: not my normal blow by blow recap as I was eating and not worth the rewind..... proof that wisdom does not come with age, here two single old folks meet at the senior center and move in together a couple weeks later - dude acts about as mature as the characters in Grumpy Old Men - think he said he's about to turn 80 and he asks MM if he can get granny for elder abuse because she's 20 years younger - wasn't long after she moved in that she began replacing all his old crap with her old crap, which pisses him off and he tells her to get out - he says she took forever getting her stuff out, but she has a pretty good reason as it appears she had a heart attack and other health problem in the middle of the move out - sometime between her heart attack and other health crises, P says she came back and keyed his truck, boat and motorcycle - his problem is no evidence she did any of this, he has no evidence it was even done, and he waited over a year and a half before getting estimates for repairs.......... also, my guess is he probably has several other folks pissed at him at any one time who might have keyed it vehicles....... granny has a counterclaim because she says he owes for stuff that he got rid of after she moved out, with a fridge being the big ticket item - but fridge was there for months before old grump finally got rid of it - she's also asking for damage to a pop-up camper, but her courtroom testimony is a totally different story of how it was damaged......... in the courtroom old dude is having lots of fun laughing and smiling because old lady is so mad - I skipped over how he left one of her sex toys on their dining room table, and he thinks it's hilarious that old lady is embarrassed saying what the toy is on national TV......... what it comes down to is neither of these two have any evidence showing they should be awarded the thousands they want - both cases dismissed homeowner claims handyman damaged home: p hired dude after finding his online ad - guess hiring someone for electrical work isn't the best idea, but P seems to think high reviews on his ad and pictures of "his work" qualifies him to do wiring in his home....... course, I'm sure fact that an actual licensed electrician would charge way more had nothing to do with her decision to go cheap. ....... D intro has him claiming he did an excellent job, but P testimony is that he didn't finish the job & cut big holes in her drywall......... not sure WTH he was doing, but her video show a hole cut in the wall as well as a long section cut across the ceiling almost the width of the room........ MM asks handyman (who may not be quite so handy as ad suggested) about the holes - his explanation is that there was no way to run the wires because there was no access that space and he had to drill through roof joists - oh, and says he explained this to the customer and about how it would cost extra to patch these holes....... uh, yeah, could well be true, and MM tells us most electricians tell their customers upfront they don't do drywall really, and really, depending on ceiling there may be some texturing/painting involved that an electrician wouldn't want to try to match - still, we're to believe homeowner told him to go ahead and cut big holes in the ceilings of two rooms and leave them like that - or is the reason he never got around to installing all the lights fixtures because he was fired mid-job.......... despite what D is saying, MM has read the texts and she has already seen that patching the holes was part of this deal - with his brother to do the drywall (but bro got sent to jail on unrelated matter so wasn't available).......... in fact, we sort of know drywall WAS part of the quoted price because when bro gets arrested D originally agreed to return some of what homeowner had already paid so she could hire someone to do patches - problem there is that bro works really cheap (P says she was told bro could patch holes for $50 - good luck finding anyone else willing to do that for that amount)............ now D really looking bad, as MM reads him his own texts where he agrees to refunding some money, texts where he is coming at 8 am to finish installing a chandelier but is a no show/no call - D can't answer, instead camera shows him studying spiderwebs in corners of the room, which had MM telling him to stop rolling his eyes when she reads his words back to him......... D going to lose, but from what I'm hearing not sure what he owes - does he owes what he said he would charge for that chandelier and his brother to patches holes (think it heard $25 for light and $50 for holes) or does he pay someone else's price which will be considerably more.......... ah, but as things heat up P gives him an ultimatum - refund everything she's paid and pay for the material & do repairs - plus give her an extra $100 and I guess she'll retract her bad online review or pursue case in court - he says ok, see you tomorrow - and again a no show no call........ apparently he thinks because his texts don't count as a contract and he insists he didn't sign anything (apparently he never heard of verbal contract vizier text, & doesn't realizes how often MM accepts texts as binding........ so, a minute ago I was thinking all D might owe was $75, but here's a new contract for WAY more - MM doesn't enforce the full refund - she says that last minute verbal contract is so unfair as to be unenforceable, so she tosses it - instead she is going to make D refund the money for that remaining light fixture ($25) plus pay fair market estimate for patches (P has estimate for $275, which MM agrees sounds fair)....... P awarded $300 - i would have given more cuz I didn't like D Edited February 18, 2021 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 18, 2021 Share February 18, 2021 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Nasty old folks breakup: It was kind of fun seeing senior citizens acting like adolescents. Old guy (I must say he looked pretty good for 80) meets sweet, neat, petite little lady (who looked much older than 60) and it was love or lust at first sight. Plaintiff has no free will at all, so lets his new lady just move into his place after two weeks. She forced him to get rid of all his stuff so she could move hers in. I guess she's a dominatrix. She decreed no more religious radio stations and made him listen to hard rock in the morning! I just hate it when someone moves into my house without my consent, starts issuing orders and tossing all my stuff! Turns out she's a demon from hell, which he might have known had he waited longer than a couple weeks to let her steamroll him and move in. His rehearsed testimony in his opening monolgue was pretty funny. He's a big, bad, macho biker guy but he has a feminine side so he likes his place neat and clean. We know only feminine and/or female people dislike living in a pigsty, which he insinuates is the case in her place. His momma - or maybe his daddy? - always taught him that women are ethereal, special, fragile creatures who should be adored and worshipped and "handled with kid gloves", which is the reason he left his own house rather than "put a knife in his (new ladylove's) heart." Is there no middle ground with this guy between being a mute doormat and a violent killer? Anyway, he wants her out before he punches her. He really wanted to hit her, but his mama's teachings prevailed. She obliges but leaves a bunch of stuff, including her fridge. SHE has a different story. He's a monster who, after their dramatic breakup, goes around the senior center making snarky comments to her and all sorts of "very bad indoendoes" about her. His behavior was very inappropriate, not only towards her but towards her property. He called her a "B" and an "S" and horked a loogie on her windshield. Eww. He freely admits he did this although he lied to the center and told them it was an accident. SHE vandalized his car and his boat and his Harley (which he loves more than anything in the world and which he will be paying for until he dies) by keying them all, although he has no proof it was her. He actually chokes up when discussing his beloved Harley. She says HE took a pole and jabbed holes in the roof of her camper, although in her answer here she says he let some teens spend the night in it and they did the damage. She says he left her vibrator, or some sort of gross sex toy on the table at the center. Again - Eww! She had a heart attack! JM wants to know when she was going to get her fridge out. Well, after she had her legs and heart "unplugged" but that time never came, so she gets none of her stuff back. He gets nothing either and I can't remember what he wanted, but JM has some advice for them along the lines of life is short. At their ages it's even shorter, so stop acting like twelve-year-olds and get your shit together. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: homeowner claims handyman damaged home: P made a mistake hiring sullen, dull-eyed thug to work on her house. I do agree he had no choice but to cut those big holes in her ceiling to install what she wanted which were a bunch of pot lights, because there was no attic access to run the wires. But he was also paid to install a chandelier, which he didn't do. He told her his brother would do the drywall work for 50$(??) but oops - bro is doing a little tour of duty in the slammer. He has no idea why his brother was incarcerated but too bad. He never comes back to install the chandelier and never refunds her the money needed for her to get the ceiling repaired. She takes time to wait for him when he says he'll come back to finish the job, and he never refunds her. He only said he would to get her off his back. She has the nerve to defame his "bidness" online so why would he do what he said he would? I understand why she told him if he didn't show up he would refund double her money. I get her anger at this thief - and he is a thief since he took her money for nothing - who kept blowing her off and I really think P deserved the extra money since he is such an arrogant asshole who treated his client like an irritating joke and who rolls his eyes at JM, but that's not the law so she gets the money to fix her ceiling and install the chandelier. I bet his appearance here and P's reviews did wonders for his bidness. 4 Link to comment
Carolina Girl February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 On 2/17/2021 at 7:04 AM, AZChristian said: When we first read about the Gorilla Glue Idiot's lawsuit, I thought about what stupid things I could do and then blame the manufacturer for. Haven't come up with anything yet that would be worth the discomfort or risk to life and limb. Open to suggestions!!! When you hear about things like this, you suddenly realize WHY the shampoo bottle says "not to be taken internally." 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said: When you hear about things like this, you suddenly realize WHY the shampoo bottle says "not to be taken internally." 6 Link to comment
mtbingmom February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 The judges on Good Day NY https://www.facebook.com/ThePeoplesCourt/videos/179421006922988/ 2 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 14 hours ago, Carolina Girl said: On 2/17/2021 at 9:04 AM, AZChristian said: When we first read about the Gorilla Glue Idiot's lawsuit, I thought about what stupid things I could do and then blame the manufacturer for. Haven't come up with anything yet that would be worth the discomfort or risk to life and limb. Open to suggestions!!! When you hear about things like this, you suddenly realize WHY the shampoo bottle says "not to be taken internally." Or WHY the hair dryer I once owned said "Do not while sleeping" (?????) 2 Link to comment
AZChristian February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 Regarding written instructions: Here in Arizona, one of the decisions of our state leaders on how to deal with Covid was to use our digital highway signs to remind people to wash their hands, etc. I saw one the other day that made me laugh out loud. "Stop the spread of Covid. Stay 6 feet apart." Yeah. Is that a smart sign on a highway where people are driving at 65 miles per hour when they read the sign? We have a world where people use Gorilla Glue as a hairstyling option. Do we really not think some of them might start driving 6 feet apart at 65 miles per hour because of that sign!!!!!????? 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 12 hours ago, mtbingmom said: The judges on Good Day NY https://www.facebook.com/ThePeoplesCourt/videos/179421006922988/ Thanks. I really enjoyed that, and love how Judge John has turned into a comedian! That's great. So it seems those giant scales in the room were chosen by the production company. That's a relief to know.😄 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: Regarding written instructions: Think about living in a world where this really is necessary: 3 Link to comment
AZChristian February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said: Think about living in a world where this really is necessary: They probably posted that sign after Gorilla Glue dumbass tried to wash the glue out of her hair in one of these washing machines. LOL. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 9 minutes ago, AZChristian said: They probably posted that sign after Gorilla Glue dumbass tried to wash the glue out of her hair in one of these washing machines. LOL. I think they may have added that warning after this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGgi4PVIHhA Link to comment
SRTouch February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 (edited) copyright infringement: P says D posted his independent film to D's late-night internet channel without permission - wants 10 grand....... D admits he never got permission from film maker, but that P has no proof this was his film........ been years, but in early internet days I had a couple Web sites where I posted nature/National Park pix - whenever I came across copyrighted pix I either got permission or didn't post the material - when I could find the copyright holder I never had anyone refuse permission as long as I gave them credit and didn't try to make money off their work - so I wonder what this video pirate's deal is........ film not P's original film - seems he owns a company that buys the rights to low budget horror/slasher films and remarkets them, sometimes after reediting - P started this business at 17yo and has been in business 13 years - ok, so, he says his company spent money buying the rights to film, and he's protecting that investment with this lawsuit......... sounds good, but what about D claim that P has no proof he owns the rights? not so sure this is a $10,000 case, but it sounds like an interesting/different case....... ah, seems copy that D had on his channel was not the original, but was an edited version sold by P - once P knew about the post, he got the video yanked off YouTube after he filed a complaint citing the appropriate laws - and he explains the legalities to us.............. over to D who is using the Sgt Schultz defense - he didn't know anyone owned the rights, it's an old movie, yada yada - his excuses are pretty lame, especially the bit about leaving lists of movies he's going to use online and waiting to see if anyone complains......... ah, more legal Schooling, as MM tells us that since 1978 the presumption is that films are copyrighted - this film is from the 88....... D argues that he remastered the film, but MM immediately comes back to fact he did little to find the owner of the rights to the film, then when P caught him using the film he argues back demanding proof P's company owns the rights - uh, no dude, if the presumption is that 'someone' owns the rights, you stop using it........ I'm not sure what the process is - when you protest content on YouTube, does YT make you prove you own the rights, or do they just pull the movie unless the poster proves you don't?...... really have a growing dislike for D as he mouths off to MM, and I'm finding P entertaining........... oh my, despite D's claim that the original producer/director is dead and the original film company is long out of business, P has the original producer/director ready to testify - and he testifies that he owned the rights until he sold them to P........ not that it sounded like P needed the original owner, but his testimony is the final nail in the coffin - but is it a $10,000 nail......... ok amazon sells physical companies for $30 apiece and you can stream it through Amazon Prime.......... more copyright schooling - apparently, the rules/law requires P to file this case to force D to stop using it because D filed a formal protest saying P doesn't own the rights and the law then requires a court ruling saying yes he does - D even went so far as to say he would keep using the film even if P proved his company owned the rights ...... so, yeah this probably isn't a $10,000 case but both sides had lawyers involved......... ah, side note not first time P has had copyright fight even fought over name of his channel which belonged to someone else way back when ........ MM rules for P, but trims the damages back a bit - P gets $2,500 (not enough in my opinion - I really didn't like D)......landlord in Hallterview D says honest mistake, but P tells us that once he filed this case D's list of films dropped from 70 to 4 - and P is happy...... wrong color bathroom tile: shades of recent zen garden rocks P ordered tiles, but says color is wrong and wants over $1274......... D (cash and carry store that supplied tiles) doesn't deny that 2 different lots were delivered - officially the same color, but sometimes different batches are a little different - says he tried working with P, but P wouldn't hear anything besides a full refund......... gotta wonder how these two ended up in court - I'm betting on super picky customer who doesn't listen cuz he knows everything, but that could be my experience with some customers when I did landscaping........... well, problem was P gave a cursory inspection, looking at 1 tile in the box of 36 out of the dozen boxes, said good'nuf, then once he opens rest of the boxes says whoa, these aren'the all the same, they're pulling a fast one....... another problem, guy was doing work himself over time, and I guess using 1 box at a time - should have immediately opened all the boxes, then he could have maybe maybe mixed tile from different boxes to make slight color difference less noticeable - oh, and these are imported tiles from Italy......... actually, turns out store went to great lengths trying to help P, but he was never satisfied - most of the tile was completed, but a few of the bull nose used to finish the edge of tile was off color - a tile guy from the store came out and concluded only way to make it look right would be to start over (I'm assuming that meant replacing all the bull nose tiles, not the whole shower surround)......... not sure what D meant during intro about trying to work with P over and above what was done - sounds like this business normally installs the tile they sell, and had 1 of the if i stalkers installed this shower the work would have been completed in a much shorter timeframe, and color variations would have been noticed and adjusted by the installer - here P was doing thd work, took way longer than normal, and the factory in Italy probably made several batches before color variation was caught...... oh, and the store policy and receipt warns that colors vary and that store does NOT guarantee a match, and P signed agreeing to the policy....... at most I'm thinking store would be on hook for the dozen or so mismatched bull nose tiles - but not really if the receipt really warns that the colors is not guaranteed, all sales final, no returns - again, as already noted, fault lies with P for not laying out tile and inspecting it before putting it on wall - just about impossible to do anything going now without tearing everything out and starting over (I suppose since he already has a couple different colors they could just replace all the bullnose - speaking of different colors, anybody else see that brown and immediately call it 💩brown)....... ah ha, now store guy is saying his store didn't want to do the install because it required a permit and P was doing job unpermited and job is a code violation........ uh, I would have ruled against P before D said anything going just based on P's testimony, now not even close......... ok, MM now goes back to P and asks, "did you read the contract before signing?" I gather that means D is right about the no guarantee, all sales final etc........ dude still arguing with MM and she's about to bust out laughing at the nonsense spewing from P........ quick decision - case dismissed........ quick look at time, must be a three case day tenant wants refund of nonrefundable deposit after finding better place: seen this one many times - and expect a quick dismissal - ah, but this one has a couple twists - first, P was looking to sublet a couple bedrooms from a neighbor, but neighbor already had tenants in the rooms with 30 days rentals - seems P takes care of elderly clients and she wanted to move clients to into neighbor'she place so they'd be next door - so, P comes to D and asks about renting the 2 bedrooms, he's agreeable, but says he already has tenants, but if she comes up with more eyes he'll give current tenants notice and rent to her (guess he thought easier renting both to 1 renter then dealing with 2 tenants)........ so, she gives him the deposit, he gives current tenants notice, they leave, P changes her mind, and rooms sit vacant two months before new tenants are found......... and she's actually suing him?!?........ another side issue - deposit is a cashiers check from someone else, not P, so. MM says, even if D is ordered to return deposit (which won't be happening) why would MM order D to give it to P when someone else's name is on the check......... now I guess P is arguing that she is entitled to refund because D's tenants never actually moved out, so even if she hadn't backed out the rooms would not have been available - D says tenants did so move out, P says did not, MM tells P to prove her claim - D says let me phone a witness, but clock is ticking and no time for call a friend...... case quickly dismissed Edited February 20, 2021 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: copyright infringement: I need to know: Is there anyone who would pay 29.95$ for that movie? Yes? Maybe it's just me, then. But that is not the point. Def, a cut-rate Truman Capote, goes sniffing around for movies he thinks he can post on his YT channel, and just hopes whoever owns the movie is not looking or can't be bothered fighting with him about it. Even when caught red-handed stealing someone else's property and P phones him to complain, he "disunderstands" ( I do like that some litigants give us new words for expediency - "Disinterested + Misunderstands = Disunderstands) and is an arrogant jerk. He already got in trouble for stealing the name "Creature Feature" but he figures getting nabbed now and then is worth it in the long run. I'm no expert on "Public Domain" but I found a site filled with public domain films, free for the taking/viewing and they can be there for a number of reasons, not only just because D thinks they're "old". It's like these litigants who think Grandma's sofa from 1985 is a rare antique. "Escape from Sobibor" aired in 1987 and is there on PD, but that doesn't mean all films from the 80s are public domain. D knows this but pretends he doesn't and claims his theft is just a "mistake". P has a witness - the person who actually sold him the rights to this particular movie and who states that he makes an income from this and doesn't want some YT yahoo stealing it. I wish JM had awarded P half of his claim of 10K. At least that way D wouldn't have profited by the show paying him anything for his underhanded stunt. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: wrong color bathroom tile: shades of recent zen garden rocks If P had read the contract or done the least bit of research he would have learned what all of us who have done or had tile work done learned. There is no expectation that various boxes of tiles will totally match. What you must do when getting a number of cartons of tiles which are all to go in the same room is open them all at the store, or take them home and then mix them all up because if you get a large number of cartons they are often different dye lots and they will never match perfectly. Mixing them up will at least make it appear that the slight variations in colour will look deliberate. It's not humanly possible to have exact matches on items that are hand-dyed. I had the same thing happen when getting my bathroom redone. Tiles from the same store, with the same name, didn't match exactly. My installer saw this and mixed them together to make the variations in tone unnoticeable. It sounds like the tile store went above and beyond to try and make P happy. He gripes he had to wait so long because Italy was being ravaged by COVID, but his bathroom is top priority! Of course the store wouldn't pay to have them redone and include installation. What a jerk. His chocolate tiles were ugly anyway, IMO. "After the Verdict" was pretty good. I can picture Judge John at the tile store, walking around and trying to pretend he doesn't know his wife who is ransacking every box of tiles to make sure they match. 😄 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant wants refund of nonrefundable deposit finding better place: seen this one many times Yeah, we've seen this lots of times, but this P had more chutzpah than most of the others, I think. SHE tells D she wants to rent his rooms, and she must have offered a better rental rate than the previous tenants, since the landlord D gave them the boot. Then P finds a cheaper place, although she lies here and says one of the elderly people can't move in for some reason, not that it matters, so tells D to just give her back her 2500$ deposit. Hey, she changed her mind! What's the problem? So now D has no rent and no tenants but the laws about deposits can't possibly be directed at her. She just does not get it at all and insists that deposits should be refundable if one changes one's mind. 6 Link to comment
rcc February 19, 2021 Share February 19, 2021 I like the After the Verdict with the judges. Good idea to get the retired Judge John added to the show. 5 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 20, 2021 Share February 20, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: copyright infringement: Leeches like the defendant abound in certain sections of the Web. They pirate contents, hoping that no one notices and they plead ignorance or public-domain until litigation is brought in. This is exactly what happened here with that guy caving in so quickly. However, someone should inform JM that even relatively recent movies or other creative works can fall into public domain; they do not have to date back to the 1920's as she stated. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: wrong color bathroom tile: + tenant wants refund of nonrefundable deposit finding better place: Plaintiffs are garden-variety specimens of two frequent types of litigants. First the stupid customer who does not bother to check the product he's buying and then wants the supplier to pay for his foolishness. After that we had the prospective tenant who does not understand the meaning of "deposit" (or professes not to know). At least she was honest enough to admit it was because she changed her mind and did not try to find excuses like so many in her situation do. I am glad JM did not allow her to call her so-called witness; I bet it would have been more hearsay without any concrete proof that the previous tenants never left. Edited February 20, 2021 by Florinaldo 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 20, 2021 Share February 20, 2021 19 hours ago, SRTouch said: speaking of different colors, anybody else see that brown ancient immediately call it 💩brown)...... *raises hand* 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 20, 2021 Share February 20, 2021 21 hours ago, Florinaldo said: Leeches like the defendant abound in certain sections of the Web. They pirate contents, hoping that no one notices and they plead ignorance or public-domain until litigation is brought in. To balance my earlier harsh pronouncement, I must add that there are people who do good work in unearthing contents that has been forgotten in order to bring it to an appreciative public, in due respect of intellectual property rights. Contrary to the defendant in that case, they perform the necessary due diligence to make sure these works have really fallen into the public domain for whatever reason. 4 Link to comment
patty1h February 22, 2021 Share February 22, 2021 (edited) Today was another case of a woman suing her ex-BF for unpaid loans. The case was the typical loan/gift debate, but what made it memorable was how much Doug roasted the defendant after the case. The D was a middle-aged biker looking musician, (JM said she researched him before the case, found some of his music on Spotify and he had a great voice) who didn't pay back some loans and blamed it on non-employment due to Covid. The D lost the case and was ordered to repay, but got one last dig in to the P by saying she saw his value as a performer and she was going to be losing out on the potential his musical talent could bring in. During the hallterview, Doug asked the D his age - the answer was either 55 or 65 (I was listening from another room). Doug went right IN on the guy, asking him at this age, how much longer does he think he has to achieve real fame in the music industry. OUCH! Edited February 22, 2021 by patty1h 4 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 22, 2021 Share February 22, 2021 That was a hoot. "Big executive woman" (Def's description) suing ex-loverboy def for a bunch of loans, OF COURSE. I was not at all surprised that JM fairly fawned over D, as she always does with any litigant who says he's in a band, no matter how marginal that career might be. To her, he's a big bad rocker/biker boy, but to me there's nothing particularly swoon-worthy over someone his age - 55 - who is still hitting up his elderly Momma and ridiculous girlfriends to pay his bills because he can't. Ooh, very rough and macho guy! Sex-ay! Rocker Boy uses the P fool as an ATM which she is only too happy to be, getting amounts of money from her pretty much non-stop because he figured it would give his Momma a break from subsidizing him. The plaintiff is mature, looks reasonable, speaks intelligently, and seems to have a very good job but for some reason she continued to fork over money to this moocher. I don't get it and I never will, I guess. Def decided not to pay her back because...I forget, but maybe because she said mean things about him or something. JM listened to his whole sob story sympathetically instead of saying "Get a job and pay your own damned bills". I was fearful she might ask him to sing something, but thank goodness she restrained herself for once. the Rappin' Rabbi still haunts my dreams. P gets back the thousands she showered on D but is this public humiliation worth it? I guess it was to her. 1 hour ago, patty1h said: During the hallterview, Doug asked the D his age - the answer was either 55 or 65 (I was listening from another room). Doug went right IN on the guy, asking him at this age, how much longer does he think he has to achieve real fame in the music industry. OUCH! Thank you Doug! I love you for asking the very question I was itching for someone to ask. Yes, Def is some day going to be another Elvis, maybe when he's 65 or 70. You'll see, and then P will be sorry. 😆 Then we had another COVID case. Baby shower for 80 people(?) canceled. P gave D a huge deposit and upon being asked by JM why she did this has a convoluted reason for doing so - that if she gives most of it now, she won't have to pay so much later, which makes no sense to me since the amount is the same no matter in what increments it's paid. P gets 230$, I think. I lost interest. Best case was the P who has his mid-life crisis, 30-year-old Corvette with a blown head gasket. He knew this was the problem, since the car started spewing white smoke. He takes it to D's shop to be replaced. This is done, P is happy and takes his car home. Eleven months later, the same problem occurs and It seems P kept driving the thing with this problem and feels D should do another head gasket job for free, as per his one-year warranty. He calls D multiple times and is told D has no time for that right now, so P takes the car and dumps it at D's shop. Finally P lumbers in to the shop and D tells him he's "not touching this car again". The car is never worked on so P wants something like 5K, IIRC. D says he did the job the first time, and there is a 90 day warranty, which is written right on the bill that P has. P says that's not the case, because D verbally told him there was a one-year warranty. Yes, he has proof! Some guy at another shop or someplace told him that this work should be guaranteed for a year. Shouldn't vague hearsay take precedence over a written contract? P gets zero. Sorry, but you'll have to find other means to continue being a chick magnet. There's lots of litigants who would be pleased to sell you a 25-year-old convertible BMW, maybe? 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 22, 2021 Share February 22, 2021 I had to laugh at the blown head gasket Corvette case. The plaintiff was delusional. No one guarantees a head gasket. Yes, the Covid baby shower was for 80 people. Apparently, grandma thought she would invite everyone she had ever had to give a baby gift to over the years. I think plaintiff did get some money, but she also overpaid for her own stupid reason. 3 Link to comment
DoctorK February 22, 2021 Share February 22, 2021 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: the Rappin' Rabbi still haunts my dreams Are you sure you didn't mean your nightmares? He was really awful. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 22, 2021 Share February 22, 2021 1 minute ago, DoctorK said: Are you sure you didn't mean your nightmares? He was really awful. For anyone needing a little refresher: 1 3 Link to comment
AZChristian February 23, 2021 Share February 23, 2021 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Thank you Doug! I love you for asking the very question I was itching for someone to ask. Yes, Def is some day going to be another Elvis, maybe when he's 65 or 70. Sadly, I doubt Elvis at 65 or 70 would still have been as good as Elvis in his prime. And this guy was WAY past whatever prime he ever enjoyed. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 23, 2021 Share February 23, 2021 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: Sadly, I doubt Elvis at 65 or 70 would still have been as good as Elvis in his prime. And this guy was WAY past whatever prime he ever enjoyed. At least Elvis paid his own bills and I bet even at 65 would have been better than this mooching lump. 4 Link to comment
Maverick February 23, 2021 Share February 23, 2021 I've been meaning to comment for a while on how much shade Doug throws in the hallterviews. I mean they should give him a top hat and cane so he looks like The Shade from DC Comics. But I thought he was a little harsh even for him today. Sure the musician was your typical rocker loser who has the "career" he does because of the joy it brings him even if it doesn't bring him dollars but he's far from the most heinous of these types of defendants we've seen. Asking how old he was was and basically retorting with, ''maybe you just suck' was a little ouch. My entertainment from the case was MM calling the plaintiff 'Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm'. I know opposites attract and all and there's nothing wrong with a paring like that, but if I saw those two on a date looking like that--ain't going to lie, it'd draw a second look. There seem to be a lot of litigants lately who are tied to an alternate audio feed. Today's was "where does it say you have a 1 year warranty?" "Well you see judge, the problem was with the head gasket." "How does that answer my question." "Well there was this white smoke." "That doesn't answer my question about how are you going to prove you have a warranty." Have to deal with shit like this on a regular basis is why I can sorta give her some slack when she gets short with litigants. See if it were me, I couldn't be professional enough to be a judge. I would always have this queued up and hit play when I ran into a moron who totally ignored my question: 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 23, 2021 Share February 23, 2021 Today's new episode is "TV Trauma", where the plaintiffs are suing the moving company for damaging their 3 or 4 TVs. Plaintiffs have no receipts, model numbers, and at first claimed three TVs were damaged, and then said four TVs. The plaintiffs only had that tiny amount of basic insurance too, so now they're trying to claim a fortune for the TVs. The plaintiffs still hadn't tried the 4th TV until the son came back from school, and claimed it was bad too. Sorry, but if the TV isn't in a box (I keep the TV box, and the styrofoam or whatever it's packed in), or have crates built for it, and mover says plaintiff told him that they would move the TV's and not the movers, then the mover tells them that the TV's have to be crated or boxed, and he wouldn't have moved the TV's if he had been at the loading site the whole time. If Judge Marilyn gives the plaintiffs a penny, I'm going to be angry. Then, plaintiff puts bad reviews online about mover. Plaintiff gets $250 for one TV, and the rest are dismissed. I wouldn't have paid them a penny. Another wedding case, where the venue won't refund their money for the deposit. Defendant/venue owner says that she's happy to reschedule, but not refund the $2700 (plaintiffs say deposit was misleading, and was actually the total venue cost). The plaintiffs paid in full, because they could get a discount if they paid the entire amount. The did have a ceremony only with the officiant, and the couple. So adding that plantiff bride's grandmother was to attend, but she has passed on since the wedding date. Defendant gave them half off for pre-paying, and also did some improvements (the venue is trying to get more expensive weddings), and the payment was non-refundable. Defendant has offered to reschedule, and even give some money back. Defendant says the main issue was that bride was bringing in many people from Canada, and a few other countries. Contract says that wedding could be up to 150, but that means "up to" it doesn't say you have to have that many guests, just that you can have that number. I think Judge Marilyn is still going back to cancelling two graduation parties for her daughters, and is taking the plaintiff's side. Defendant says she rescheduled every other event, except plaintiff's. Plaintiffs get $2700. 5 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 23, 2021 Share February 23, 2021 (edited) 15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: If Judge Marilyn gives the plaintiffs a penny, I'm going to be angry. Judge John said that they were lucky to get the 250 $ she awarded them. This may be the furthest he can go to openly disagree with a ruling of hers. 15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I think Judge Marilyn is still going back to cancelling two graduation parties for her daughters, and is taking the plaintiff's side. I totally disagreed with that ruling. Then again, I rarely sympathise with people who feel the strange need to organise a big pretentious wedding with every person they know in attendance. Edited February 24, 2021 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 23, 2021 Share February 23, 2021 (edited) We got "Moving Day: Clown World Version". I was confused as to why Plaintiffs didn't just claim mover busted all seven of the TVs? I guess they talked it over and decided not to be too greedy or push their luck and just to try "get" D for 3. Or 4(?) and thought they'd clean up plenty for that. And why didn't TPC inform defendant he might need a contract as evidence? Who would know it might be needed? Not him. Well, he had one, but not one signed by plaintiffs. Not his fault. The best part was P, declaring there was no price agreed upon before the move. How would he know how much to pay? Well, he would just let def. decide at the end how much it was worth. "What if he decided it was 3K?" JM asks. "Then that's what we would pay", P answers. 🙄 All these broken TVs need to be paid for. No, he has no receipts and doesn't know how old they were and didn't bother checking most of this massive collection of RCAs and old Emersons right after the move. Who knows if they had any value at all? They just went on line and picked out what they wanted and he just knows they're valuable. But that's not all, folks! He and his dopey wife want 3,149.17$ exactly for their mental anguish over these cherished TeeVees. I would have more sympathy for def if he had bothered to use a contract. He couldn't possibly have presented one to be signed when showing up for the job. All those guns scared him and asking for a signature might have gotten him shot. Maybe it would. I dunno. Instead of 5K, Ps get 250$ and I agree that was generous. And JM, stop saying "Plugged IN". The proper term is "Plugged UP". "It is what it is", declares hustling P in the hall. These people may as well say, "I tried a scam but it didn't work." *shrug* I wish we could get more After the Verdict and less of shortass Levin. Judge John is a hoot, with his "It's the case of the Tennesee TV Massacre!" 😆 Wedding COVID case: These are getting very tedious. The venue was gorgeous, and this couple could have rescheduled their big, international blowout affair until able to hold it, but maybe they figured that they were saving many thousands of dollars so decided they were happy to skip the whole thing. Edited February 23, 2021 by AngelaHunter 1 3 Link to comment
DoctorK February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Wedding COVID case: These are getting very tedious. I agree, a lot of these cases (like dog bites dog) are getting boring, makes me switch over to Dr. Phil, some of which is interesting. 3 Link to comment
AZChristian February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: And JM, stop saying "Plugged IN". The proper term is "Plugged UP". I laughed at this, too. If plumbing is plugged UP, it's bad. If TVs work when they are plugged IN, it's good. And what's weird is that BOTH of the plaintiffs though "plugged UP" was a real thing when applied to electricity. Huh? 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: If plumbing is plugged UP, it's bad. If TVs work when they are plugged IN, it's good. But if your boat springs a leak and you plug it UP, it's good! 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: And what's weird is that BOTH of the plaintiffs though "plugged UP" was a real thing when applied to electricity. A match made in TV-lover Heaven. Excuse me. It's time for refreshment. I have to go and plug UP my coffee maker. 2 Link to comment
AZChristian February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Excuse me. It's time for refreshment. I have to go and plug UP my coffee maker. If you plug UP your coffee maker, you may not get any coffee out of it. LOL. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 (edited) Today's new episode is called "Suing Your Son", apparently another story of family togetherness. (one tooth top middle, and nothing on the bottom, except past the canines, but no hint of how many teeth are left). So mostly toothless Mommy Milliner rented a U-Haul for son, and it costs her $2,143. Son was blackballed by U-Haul, for keeping a previous U-Haul way too long, and then Mommy rents a U-Haul in her name for son, Plaintiff claims it was rented for one day, then a few days later U-Haul told her trailer was actually in Kissimee Florida, and many days overdue, and in Florida (it had been rented for a local, one day rental). Son says mother knew he was moving to Long Island to Kissimee. Son used U-Haul as storage, instead of getting a storage unit. Mother claims son told her he was moving on Long Island, and putting his items in storage. Mother claims son also owes Aaron's (old scam, get rent-to-own, then move far away), and his barber. $2149 to plaintiff. (A few commercials later, the local denture/implant practice is advertising, great timing). I'm so tired of the Covid shut down my party cases. I suspect that if the vendor would have agreed to still have the event, no matter the state laws, and how many people would get sick, that a lot of the plaintiffs would have continued on. In this case plaintiff was doing a combined B'nai Mitzvah (for daughter and son at the same time), in CT, for 125 guests (I bet that number would have actually been much bigger). She hired defendant to DJ. She actually was thinking about cancelling, and not because of Covid, and paid another part of the deposit after this. Then, plaintiff tried to cancel, and get a full refund (this was to happen in November 2020, in Connecticut), defendant said no. Plaintiff could have a small party, but she wanted a big blow out. On the date, they had 10 people at the synagogue. The kids don't want the party, so it's another case of Mommy wanting a party. So Judge Marilyn rips the vendors a new one for not having an Act of God clause, and in this case where the the defendant did, she rips him for that. I'm guessing MM gave the money to plaintiff. Plaintiff's car hit and run on her parked car, by defendant's truck. Melinda, defendant claims her truck was stolen by minors joyriding, so it's not her fault. Defendant left her keys in the truck, and I bet she knew exactly who 'stole' her truck. Defendant says the arena didn't allow bags, so she locked the purse in the truck, and left the keys too. Compounding the damages, instead of getting a tow truck, defendant shows up at the accident scene, backs her truck out of the plaintiff's car, and plaintiff says that made the damages worse. Plaintiff took her insurance coverage from comprehensive, to liability only, off of her car the same day at the accident (what a liar). Defendant says the three culprits were caught, and being tried. Plaintiff is told to sue the thief (actually his parents). Plaintiff can forget it, she'll never get a penny from the parents of the thief. (There was actually a case, I think on Judge Judy, where the wedding just switched venues, from one outdoor venue to another one, and was way bigger than state laws, but the plaintiffs were still given back their money by JJ. I wonder how many people got sick from that one?) Judge Marilyn says the law says stolen means that plaintiff won't get a penny. Edited February 24, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
patty1h February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 (edited) Everyone cannot be blessed with perfect teeth, but MY god, the "Suing Your Son" mother's mouth was nasty. One tooth there and one over there and one in the middle... ewwww. It was almost funny that she started her statement saying that her son called her as she was on her way to the dentist. For what? This is catty, but her mouth made me turn away whenever she spoke and I thought that mouth is made to be covered by a mask. Edited February 24, 2021 by patty1h 3 Link to comment
NYGirl February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 (edited) 46 minutes ago, patty1h said: Everyone cannot be blessed with perfect teeth, but MY god, the "Suing Your Son" mother's mouth was nasty. One tooth there and one over there and one in the middle... ewwww. It was almost funny that she started her statement saying that her son called her as she was on her way to the dentist. For what? This is catty, but her mouth made me turn away whenever she spoke and I thought that mouth is made to be covered by a mask. OMG me too! No teeth is on the top of my "do not look at screen list". I watched a competition on Netflix where they carved bushes into designs and I swear there was one guy with 1 top tooth missing...right in front. When he won I was so happy for him because now I figured he could buy a tooth. I hated the DJ in the Bar Mitzvah case. All these vendors keep thinking they could keep deposits when parties were canceled by the government...not even by the people. He was just nasty. Edited February 24, 2021 by NYGirl 5 Link to comment
rcc February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 54 minutes ago, patty1h said: Everyone cannot be blessed with perfect teeth, but MY god, the "Suing Your Son" mother's mouth was nasty. One tooth there and one over there and one in the middle... ewwww. It was almost funny that she started her statement saying that her son called her as she was on her way to the dentist. For what? This is catty, but her mouth made me turn away whenever she spoke and I thought that mouth is made to be covered by a mask. I see what you mean! 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 2 hours ago, patty1h said: Everyone cannot be blessed with perfect teeth, but MY god, the "Suing Your Son" mother's mouth was nasty. There's a huge gap (no pun intended) between perfect teeth and what we saw (in ghastly closeup) here. I couldn't deal with it - not any of it, but especially not the dental situation with the big egg tooth in the middle of the Jack o'Lantern mouth, not the screaming "grimy" sonny-boy, not the glimpse of the nasty"texes" or any of it so kept skipping ahead. JM, I know when you asked Momma why her boy couldn't rent the "uhale" in his own name, you already knew the answer. I did love seeing the wall hanging behind Def, filled with Hallmark platitudes like, "love/hugs/live your dreams" or whatever nonsense. It seems his dreams all center around getting stuff he doesn't pay for and sticking someone else with the bill, in this case his "miserable" momma. JM announces that she's not Dr. Phil with all this "Mom always loved him/her best" whining. Since when? Maybe she's given up trying to reunite family members who seem to detest each other. I don't know what the judgment was. 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I'm so tired of the Covid shut down my party cases. Me too. But instead of having a massive blowout party, Mommy could have had 10 close family members to the house for the party. But no - it's either 125 people or nothing, I guess. What's the point in showing off for only a few guests? OTOH, I agree that the DJ did no work, since DJs needn't buy supplies or do anything at all until just before the party, and he was kind of a jerk, so the ruling seemed fair. I doubt any kids are really looking forward to being displayed at these parties, other than the "125 gifts" as JM said. 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff's car hit and run on her parked car, by defendant's truck. Very surprising that a sporting venue doesn't allow spectators to take purses or car keys in with them. I guess everyone is frisked at the gate, their handbags searched and they're ordered to leave keys and purses with credit cards, cash, IDs, etc., in their vehicles? Around here - and I'm sure it's the case in many places - leaving keys in an unattended car can get you fined. P got a stray bullet in the head? She canceled her comprehensive coverage the very day of the incident? JM took that as 100% truth. I always find it suspicious when someone gives a very long detailed, elaborate reply that sounds rehearsed in reponse to a very simple question, so I'm not so sure, but P is out of luck. The parents of those vile little monsters will never pay her a dime. I would have thought D leaving her keys where felonious little creeps could get them might be some negligence on her part for which she should pay P at least something, but I guess not. 3 Link to comment
AZChristian February 24, 2021 Share February 24, 2021 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff took her insurance coverage from comprehensive, to liability only, off of her car the same day at the accident (what a liar). I'd love to know exactly what time the accident happened. The plaintiff said the cops knocked on her door at midnight. If she cancelled that comprehensive coverage any time that day, she would still have the full coverage until 12:01 AM the next day. So if she cancelled on Tuesday and the accident happened at 11:59 on Tuesday, she would be covered as part of her comprehensive policy. If it happened at 12:02 on Wednesday, she's out of luck. I'd love to see a letter from her insurance company stating the cause they declined the coverage. Like . . . oh, I don't know . . . failure to pay premiums and policy was no longer in effect. (Hubby was a car insurance manager for many years and is my expert resource for all things related to auto insurance.) 6 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 25, 2021 Share February 25, 2021 I certainly hope we've reached the zenith of stupid, pathetic, desperate women in this case of the Queen looking for her King. Sadly, I doubt it. Ms. Queen (her first name is "Queen") meets the magnetic "Johnny" with the silly beard, somewhere or other. It's love at first sight. It must be, because Queen really wants to get a marriage license after a couple of days. She pays for it, because Johnny wasn't ponying up any dough, but she figures that during their upcoming life of wedded bliss it would be give and take. Unfortunately for Queen the mad love they share is all "give" on her part. So Johnny has a job, but he decides to quit that "to leave the place where he was at to be closer to where I was at", Queen explains. But he needs money. He wants a car, so Queen thinks she should not only give him a down payment of 1K but put her name on the loan because of course Johnny can't. No job, remember? Queen states she is so dopey (deliberately so?) that she feels that once this man of hers gets a great job she can take her name off the loan. That's not the way it works, and this is a 40-year-old woman, by the way. The lovebirds get an apartment together in "a drug-infested neighbourhood". The lease is in her name only, naturally, since at this point Johnny doesn't have enough credit to qualify him to buy a pack of crayons. I'm sure it was a shock when Johnny stopped making the car payments. He promised her he would as he was going to get some mythical great job and have gobs of money! Queen is informed the car payments are behind by about 700$. One night after undressing Johnny and giving him a major rubdown and massage for his backache (I guess not working all day takes its toll) - no, he means he had a neckache, and tucking him into bed, that sneaky Queen tells Johnny she's going to go to the store in the car, then takes it and stashes it at some friend's house and she doesn't even come home! Oh, BTW, they had already started having huge fights, with him calling her names, screaming, etc which shocked her because she was sure she knew her soulmate so perfectly after their lengthy courtship of a couple of weeks. Anyway, here's Johnny, left without a car on Thanksgiving, of all days! Since the car "had been tooking away" he couldn't figure out any other way at all to get to his family. He starts listing all he missed out on, due to his cruel Queen: "Not a bite of Thanksgiving dinner. Not a bean, not a macaroni and cheese portion" and for sure no turkey. 😕 It was devastating to Johnny. As dearly as I love JM, I was very annoyed during this case. Johnny whines he needed to see his kids on Thanksgiving, and JM is more than sympathetic and scolds the Queen for depriving Johnny of wheels on this most important day. Couldn't she have tooking the car back another day? I was waiting for her to ask J how he was paying his child support after he just up and quit his job to move in with his new ATM. How far from his kids did he move, anyway, that there was no way on earth he could get to where they were "at" for the holiday? JM never asked, but felt really sorry for Johnny the Moocher who can't buy his own car, can't pay half for a marriage license and can't figure out how to see the fruit of his loins. Johnny is left alone in the apartment he can't pay for and with no keys, so he leaves. Queen says he stole her TV and iMac on his way out, but he says he couldn't lock the door and someone in this drug-infested neighbourhood probably stole them Oh, wait - no. He did take them but returned them the next day. He doesn't need her crummy 27-inch TV because his mommy already bought him a 55"! Somehow he then managed to get himself someplace else to squat, even without his new car. Anyway, Queen gets back the 2 car payments she made on behalf of her paramour and 100$ for the TV but not the 3500$ she dished out during this whirlwind courtship. She also gets 1,000$ for the iMac (which Johnny admitted in a text that he stole) with no receipt or indication of the age of the thing. What has Johnny learned , Doug in the Hall wants to know? Well, he learned - this mature man and father - to "Get things for myself and not depend on anyone to do it for me." I assume he means after his Momma bought him the big screen TV. He doesn't care since he informed JM he's now making 18.50 per hour/day/week/month? so doesn't need anyone to subsidize him. And what has Queen learned? "Not to trust or help anyone." Better late than never, I guess, so maybe this comedic debacle was not a total loss. 1 6 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 26, 2021 Share February 26, 2021 (edited) Why do I think that Momma is what he calls his next desperate woman? On the hit-and-run accident, why do I bet that the plaintiff didn't have insurance for a lot longer than one day? Edited February 26, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
AZChristian February 26, 2021 Share February 26, 2021 Did anyone else notice JM's robe in "After the Verdict" on that last case? She had her legs crossed, and it looked like she might have been in her swimsuit under the robe . . . quite a bit of thigh showing. Then, all of a sudden, the robe was pulled way down in the next shot. It just cracked me up. 1 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 26, 2021 Share February 26, 2021 (edited) Today's new one is called "Bitter Bride", please tell me it's not another Covid ruined my giant wedding case. Event planner/decorator suing bride for not paying $370, and as usual, Bride/defendantclaims she paid $260 in cash, but claims she only owes $110. Plaintiff never paid the event/decorator, DJ, photographer, etc. Plaintiff has the usual Giant Woolly Bear Caterpillar eyelashes, and can barely open her eyes. Note to bride, if all of the vendors find out you stiffed them by talking to each other about it, it's not gossiping, it's fraud by the bride. Defendant/bride claims the cameras in her house will show that plaintiff received the $260, but as usual, no video footage. Then the rented Champagne glasses were missing from the reception venue (the VFW), plaintiff was blamed for the theft, and claims she didn't do it. However, when defendant filed a police report about the theft, plaintiff returned the glasses the same day to the rental vendor. Plaintiff says bride's mother called her about the missing glasses, and plaintiff says they were at plaintiff's sister, and only found out after the mother's call. Lying plaintiff gets her money, and deadbeat defendant doesn't get anything. (Personal observation, I've never seen one of these suing bride and groom cases on any TV judge show where the marriage looks like it will last). Plaintiffs suing over car damage to wife's car from defendant's parking lot. Defendant says plaintiff hit the parking stop, and dislodged it from the rebar sticking up. So it was plaintiff's fault. The photo of the parking concrete stop shows rebar sticking above the concrete, and defendant claims the plaintiff hit the concrete so hard it pushed the rebar up. The ground clearance on her model of car is notoriously low, and she hit it on the way out of the parking space, not when pulling in. So, the rebar couldn't have been sticking up until she hit the concrete stop while parking. So she pushed the rebar up, and it grabbed the bumper when she backed up. Defendant fixed the rebar sticking up with a sledge hammer, and that was the only parking slot with that issue. The picture of the salon parking lot shows a lot of the parking lot, and there is no rebar sticking up. Defendant did research online, and plaintiffs have filed seven other lawsuits in the past two years, including one against Elon Musk for something about a Tesla. They sued Chase Bank for a similar parking lot incident. They sued their marriage counselor for giving bad advise. They sued a friend (actually former friend I'm betting) over something on a boat. $1281 to plaintiffs, what a joke. I wouldn't have given the plaintiffs a penny. Edited February 26, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 26, 2021 Share February 26, 2021 21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Event planner/decorator suing bride for not paying $370, and as usual, Bride/defendantclaims she paid $260 in cash, but claims she only owes $110. Plaintiff never paid the event/decorator, DJ, photographer, etc Ah, this brought back happy memories of my own wedding, when my husband and I stiffed and tried to stiff all the people we'd hired, including the VFW, a veteran's non-profit organization which I assume is like our Canadian Legion. Stiffing them is tres class-ay! Good times and sweet memories! Def Chantaye told P Tamika that she had a video showing that she paid the money. Where is this video? Chantaye, rough-looking recent blushing bride in a seriously rachet wig has no idea where it could be, nor has she ever looked at it. She had a stroke last week. Just trust her, this deadbeat hustler, that it exists. Excuses fly fast and thick. Tamika is even trying to blame the fact that she didn't bother getting a contract signed by D, who was a stranger to her, on COVID. She couldn't possibly get a signature by email. COVID prevented the email, but not attending the wedding itself. Oh, but they "bonded" over medical discussions, so who needs a contract? Anyway, D claims Tamika, after being stiffed, stole all the rented champagne glasses that Chantaye's mother paid for, to hold hostage. Tamika claims she knows nothing about any "champlagne" glasses (I love that my CC spelled it this way). She never took the champlagne glasses and has no idea where they went. But then she admits her sister is a thief who stole all the glasses, and Tamika never saw her or knew her sister swiped 400$ worth of champlagne glasses. How is this possible? Is sister a magician? OH, well - JM knows the answer. Tamika is a big liar, who took the glasses back the next day after Def sends her nasty, vaguely threatening texts. JM has all the trouble in the world making Tamika, batting her giant fake lashes, STFU and stop yakking over her. She gets her 260-whatever dollars. No lawyer fees. Chantaye, who says she had no problem paying P, except she never did, really should have said "NO" to that dress! I couldn't bear to listen to them flapping their gums in the hall, so skipped to After the Verdict, which was adorable. JM recalls at THEIR wedding, John just had to bring his "stupid" sports car, which apparently took off on its own during the reception and he wanted to excuse himself to go to the 7-11 or something for some fluid. JM grabbed him by his coattails and slammed him back into his seat, which according to her set the tone for their marriage. I bet. 😆JJ then sweetly takes her hand and holds it. I squeed. I see why she thought he was a keeper and wasn't about to let him get away. ❤️ 41 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiffs suing over car damage to wife's car from defendant's parking lot. It seems plaintiffs supplement their income by suing people - at least 7 others, according to Def - everyone from a friend of theirs to Elon Musk, who somehow dented their garage door with a Tesla? I dunno. Ms. Koch... oh my goodness. Not only was her voice enough to peel paint, but she decided everyone country-wide needed to see her large, sagging, exposed and unfettered breasts, hanging and pointing east and west like two large and badly grown eggplants. I held my breath in dread anticipation when she leaned forward that we might actually see her nips. I think instead of fake eyelashes, facials, dyejobs, and eyebrows, she might want to invest in a good foundation garment. Her man announces that he's a Leo and as JM and all of us should know, Leos don't take kindly to being damaged and not paid, so watch out. Def says that they are vexatious litigants and that whatever happened to the scratched-up Chrysler 300 beater isn't his fault. Ms. Koch (who is backed up by her Leo who wasn't even there) says she had the music blasting so loud in her car she didn't hear the sound of her bumper hitting the rebar when she drove up and didn't feel it either. She only heard the awful, terrible, horrible sound as she pulled out. I have no idea why that rebar was sticking out so far and don't really care. I was very disappointed that JM awarded these two 1200$. I guess they're glad that was cleared up, and now on to their next lawsuit. 1 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.