The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Rental Ruckus" rerun   Both are sure to be classics, especially the second case with the concrete in the plumbing vent pipes, with lots of landlord proof. 

Classics, indeed. I enjoyed them as much this time as I did on first viewing. I was feeling rather ill all day and Mr. Jerry, squawking about dust, throwing junk over the fence, damaging D's property, fleeing and needing to be wrangled with a police helicopter cheered me up immensely. Who thinks running from the cops is a brilliant idea? Where was he planning to run that the cops would never find him? 😆 He thought all the torture he was put through at this residence is worth nearly 5K. So terrible, so unendurable were his sufferings, i.e. Def leaf-blowing at 1p.m.  that... oh - he still lives there.

I wish we had an update on this case to find out if Def took JM's advice on how to get this pain in the ass out of their lives.

The thick-headed, stoopid, thuggish plumber's denials reminded me of this:

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Tow Tussle" rerun (at least they picked a fun rerun). 

Case 1-Plaintiff Old Fart parked in a private parking lot, walked to his dentist, and was shocked that car was towed before he came back.   He claims it was a shared lot, without restricted parking signs, next to the dentist office.     

Dentist office has parking around the corner, but Old Fart couldn't find it.    The first dentist he went into their office was the wrong dental office, and he walked a block away to the correct dental office. He's suing for $19k.Old Fart claims his actual damages were $19,000.  Mr. Vagts (aka, Old Fart) parked  facing the dental office, which is the west side of the parking lot, blocking the driveway in the NW corner of the store lot, and car was in the parking lot for about 2 hours. 

Defendant Ms. D says Old Fart not only parked in front of her business, but blocked the driveway in the corner of the parking lot.    This is the only time in over 40 years in business, defendant has had to tow a car.    Tow company in Orange County, requires tow company waiting an hour before towing.   

Two or three hours later, long after the tow.     Old Fart comes back to the private parking lot, and is shocked his car is gone.   There is a tow away sign in the store window at defendant's business, on the north side of the parking lot.   Defendant needs to put signs at both entrances to the parking lot.  

Old Fart wants 3 times towing fee,  (Towing fee was $250).   Old Fart thinks he should get $1,000 for violation of the parking sign rule for having a window sign, but not one at each driveway, but that would go to the county or city, if they fined defendant.   Plaintiff thinks defendant spent two hours taping his vehicle, but they're security videos, and no human was sitting there taping.  There's more garbage from Old Fart about the towing company's actions.     Old Fart only admits to being gone from his car for two hours, but defendant says it was almost two hours before his car was towed, and it was at least two more hours before Old Fart came back.    He wants $5,000 for suborning perjury.   

Judge Marilyn goes off on Old Fart.   It was not even that he parking in the private lot, but didn't even park in a parking space.   Judge Marilyn pretty much tells Old Fart to park his car where the sun don't shine.    Judge Marilyn finds for the defendant, and Old Fart starts up again, and Doug tells Old Fart to stuff it.    

Case 2-  Plaintiff hired defendant, and paid him to work on her house, he never showed, and wants her $300 back.   Defendant says he spent three hours preping the work at plaintiff's house, she changed her mind, and wants her non-refundable deposit back.  Defendant is a Home Advisor member, and Judge Marilyn says defendant was trying to cheat Home Advisor out of their commission.   Defendant says the work was way more tasks than plaintiff told Home Advisor.   So, then plaintiff cancelled with Home Advisor, and then arranged with defendant to do the work.  

However, defendant says the $300 goes to Home Advisor, not to him, and HA refunded this to plaintiff already.    Defendant says plaintiff never contacted the electrician who had to do part of the job, so the job was cancelled.   Judge Marilyn thinks defendant is the liar, but I think the plaintiff is scamming everyone. 

Judge Marilyn gives plaintiff the $300 back, but that was refunded by Home Advisor already.  

Edited August 9, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tow Tussle" rerun (at least they picked a fun rerun). 

Yes, lots of fun! Something I forgot to mention last time is one more way that Old Fart is a big liar. He said he'd never been to the dentist where he had an appointment, which is why he was in the wrong lot. NO one goes to a dentist for the first visit and gets major work done that day. FIrst visits are for assessment, x-rays, estimate on cost, etc.,  and an appointment for the work comes later.

He probably tried to stiff the dentist too, that is, if he actually went there.

I must repost PsychoClown's excellent portrait of our P, the Old Fart:

[CrazyInAlabama]

""Nightmare Neighbor" rerun from May 17, but still hysterically bizarre.  

Warning: watch the volume level on your TV, or you might have ringing in your ears after this case. 

Case 1-Plaintiff claims neighbor slashed her tires, and sugared her gas tank.    Plaintiff wants $5,000, to pay for tires, rims, gas tank work. 

Defendant says superintendent of apartment complex has a video of a man vandalizing the car, identified as a neighbor's grandson, who defendant claims grandson sells pills to plaintiff and she owes him money.    Plaintiff claims defendant is mean to her.  First incident was slashed tires.  Plaintiff claims someone told her that the defendant Carmen did it, but won't say who 'someone' or 'somebody' is, and has no witnesses. Plaintiff says she has no idea why defendant would persecute her.   

Plaintiff keeps yelling all through the case.   I actually had to put closed captioning on, and even gave up on that.   

Defendant says she has been staying at her daughter's home for the last nine months, while her daughter has been undergoing treatment for cancer, and defendant has only come to her apartment for picking up more clothes, and her mail, and to pay her rent.   

Then the gloves come off, and defendant claims lots of people are mad at plaintiff, including some man that plaintiff owes money to for drugs (grandson of a neighbor).   Defendant says plaintiff has asked her for money, never repays anything, and wants to know where to buy Percocet, and Oxy.   Defendant says security video showed a man slashing the tires, but that was automatically erased 13 days later.    

Second incident was the gas tank getting sugared.   Plaintiff blames this on defendant too, while screaming at the camera.   Then, plaintiff keeps waving money at the camera.  Police reports say nothing about defendant.   My guess is the list of people who are sick of plaintiff is very long.  

Defendant wins, and plaintiff is a big loser.   Now plaintiff is yelling at Doug.  (I think plaintiff would be more understandable if she had all of her teeth, and if she stopped screaming). 

Today's rerun about the 19, later 20-year-old trying to buy a custom made AR-15 from a gundealer is appalling.   

JM keeps yelling at the gundealer for not selling the under 21 (legal age for purchase of that gun in Florida) gun to plaintiff's father.   Selling to the father, for the under 21 year-old plaintiff is a Strawman Purchase, and highly illegal.     JM is doing anything to favor the underage plaintiff.   I didn't watch the end, I was too disgusted by JM attitude towards the gun dealer.   

I wouldn't  sell anything to the plaintiff.   Unless the gun dealer wants to end up in federal prison, then he shouldn't deal with the plaintiff either.  

Edited August 10, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

""Nightmare Neighbor" rerun from May 17, but still hysterically bizarre. 

I watched a few minutes of that. It amazes me that this is how these screaming, demented hags choose to spend what time they have left on this earth.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Messing with an Ex" rerun 

Case 1-Peter Butler,  the plaintiff wants $3,000 for down payment to replace a Nissan Rogue.   Defendant Anna Weaver says car was put in her name because plaintiff has bad credit.    When plaintiff missed payments, defendant reported the car stolen.    Litigants met online, they met in Las Vegas, they went on the trip, got along.   So, defendant moved to Georgia with plaintiff.   Plaintiff was trying to get custody of his children, the kids were in Chicago with grandma.    

Plaintiff wanted a full time babysitter for his kids.   Defendant has an 8-year-old, and they met online in January, moved to Georgia in February.    After defendant moved to Georgia with her kid, she immediately put a car in her name for plaintiff.   Defendant claims she put the car in her name because her credit is better, and that means lower insurance rates for car plaintiff was driving.   Then, defendant went to visit friends in Texas, and plaintiff was in Chicago, and they started arguing again.   The car was bought from Carvana, and on month two, he missed the payment.   Then they split up, because of the late car payment, so she called car in as stolen.   So, defendant reports the car stolen, JM says that wasn't legal. 

So, after car was reported stolen, plaintiff got a friend to drive the car, and he bought another one from Car Max . Person driving car was friend's girlfriend, she got caught in Elizabethtown, KY for speeding, and the car came up stolen,car was impounded,  and she got arrested.   The friend's girlfriend was killed by her boyfriend in Chicago.    It makes me want to hurt someone when plaintiff says so casually that the woman who was driving the car was murdered by her boyfriend.  

Defendant had to pay to get car out of impound.   Defendant doesn't have a license, so two friends had to drive her to Kentucky, get the car out of impound, and a month later car was totaled by her nephew.   Defendant is still paying for the original car payment. 

Defendant gets zero.   Plaintiff gets $600 for the down payment, because loser plaintiff was only a week late. 

Case 2-Air duct cleaning on plaintiff's house went wrong.    Plaintiff is a fool.  You can only use the stiff brushes on solid metal duct work, and have to use other methods on the flexible vents.    Defendant says her husband's company did their job.   Plaintiff inherited his late grandmother's house packed with furniture, and the furniture and entire house was full of mold.   This is a job for a mold remediation company, not someone who just cleans the vents. 

If plaintiff really wanted to get rid of the mold, then he should have trashed the 99% of the furniture before clean up on the ducts.    Surface remediation won't do the job.    Plaintiff has no proof of anything, including a statement from the other company.

Defendants win. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Messing with an Ex" rerun 

Luckily, this was butted into, but I wasn't going to watch it anyway. "We were banging, but we were NOT dating!"

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Air duct cleaning on plaintiff's house went wrong. 

I did rewatch that, just to enjoy hating on Serenberg again, with his whining, droning monotone and silly hearsay evidence.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Rerun-"Swindled at a Spa"

Case 1-plaintiff claims she was charged for $1062 for 12 facials at a spa.   The receipt says no refunds, and only exchanges of product instead of refunds.        Judge Marilyn's decision is that plaintiff clearly signed for the services, no money back to her.    Judge Marilyn says plaintiff should have taken one of several partial refund offers that defendant offered her.  

Case 2-Plaintiff bought a used washing machine from defendant, and is suing because the used washer stopped working.       Then, when defendant said no to a refund, and plaintiff showed up at defendant's house at 11:00 pm, blocking defendant's driveway, and banging on the front door.    So, defendant called police.    Plaintiff told to stick that washer, and he's not getting his $100 back.    

Two cases of people who don't know what "no refunds" or "as is" means. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then, when defendant said no to a refund, and plaintiff showed up at defendant's house at 11:00 pm, blocking defendant's driveway, and banging on the front door. 

This is why I don't sell anything online. I don't want some raving lunatic pounding on my door.

For what P paid for the repair of his own washer, and for the old, used, 100$ washers he keeps buying so "the wife" won't have to schlep to the laundromat every day he could have bought a brand-new one. As usual, our litigants are pennywise and pound foolish.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Door Disaster" an interesting rerun, with the world's most intelligent 1 year old. 

Case 1-Plaintiff argues with boyfriend about taking 1 year old to school, so boyfriend couldn't get into the apartment, so he kicked the door in.    Plus, boyfriend says it was an illegal lock out and eviction, but he's not on the lease.  Then, Miss Desperate, gets back with him, and a month later the same thing happened.    So, she wants the money for the door repair.   Defendant says she shouldn't have locked him out, and it's her fault for locking him out.   

(As Angela Hunter says, that wasn't just a wooden door, but one of the all metal industrial types, or insitutional type doors, I hope Defendant broke his foot, and leg breaking the door in.   It scared me to see the plaintiff hadn't had it repaired since the second time, and the family was unprotected, since it couldn't lock, or close).

To 'fix' the door, defendant kicked the door back in place from the inside, since he kicked it in from the outside.  Door still doesn't close.  

Plaintiff gets the door money.   Then Doug asks defendant why a 1-year-old is going to school, and defendant says kid is really smart.   (There is no way the son is smart if this fool is really his father. ) This makes no sense to me either. 

Case 2-Plaintiff poolservice want $2821 for servicing the pool system for defendant.   Defendant claims they asked him if he wanted an automatic pool cleaning machine, and he claims he said no, but plaintiffs did it anyway.     Defendant claims he never wanted the pool cleaner, and then he sold the house, and told the pool cleaners he would no longer need the pool contract, or the cleaner.   

The pool service husband admits that they never had a contract for the cleaner to be installed, and the new owner of house won't pay them either.   Defendant cancelled the pool service before closing, and took care of the pool himself for a month. 

  Supposedly the new owner told the plaintiffs he would help them get the pool cleaning device back, so why didn't this happen? Then, plaintiffs wanted to put a lien on the new house owner's house he bought from defendant.   

Defendant told to get his payment records to JM, plaintiffs told to send JM copies of bills to her.    The pool cleaner is SOL, and the plaintiffs were paid for the unpaid pool cleaning service. 

Case 3-Plaintiff paid for private training sessions with defendant, but he put her into group training classes, and wants $966 back.   

$815 to plaintiff. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff poolservice want $2821 for servicing the pool system for defendant. 

I had to rewatch that for the amusement value. I really think if you added the IQs of both plaintiffs together it would still be a double digit. Silly hubby seems proud of their shortcomings: "We have no evidence. We're on vacation!"  - big foolish grin.

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then Doug asks defendant why a 1-year-old is going to school, and defendant says kid is really smart.   (There is no way the son is smart if this fool is really his father. )

I'm sure the genius baby daddy will be a shining example when his offspring gets older, if daddy is still in the picture. It must have taken some real effort to smash in that institutional looking door.

[CrazyInAlabama]

 "Cleaning Catastrophe" a sad rerun.   Plaintiff left her hoarder, heavy smoker mother in the mother's home, and swoops after mother dies.   Hires defendant to clean up the house, and then the bed bugs.   Two days of cleaning won't fix a house that was lived in for decades by a heavy smoker who apparently never cleaned anything.    Also, plaintiff says her mother was living with some meth head.    How was defendant supposed to clean the house up without electricity, get rid of the smoke smell, and haul all of the garbage out of the house? 

Case 1-Plaintiff hired defendant's company to clean her later mother's house.  Mother was a shut in, and heavy smoker, and the house was coated with nicotine.   Plaintiff had an early estimate of $1200.      Then, the b word was mentioned (Bed Bug) and the price went up a lot.  Then, after the two + days of cleaning, plaintiff had paid $600 up front,  (Defendant looks very familiar, maybe from another case?).    Plaintiff paid the rest of the money, and $100 tip. 

Then, a pipe in the basement burst, and insurance adjustor came to the house.   Then, plaintiff's son looked around and claims the house wasn't clean.    How could anyone clean that place up?   You can't get rid of bed bugs with regular cleaning either, it takes a specialty pest control service, and multiple visits  (I wonder if a specialty bed bug elimination company was called in.  My termite and pest control company won't deal with bed bugs, and have another company they recommend, and they're expensive.)

(I've read the best cleaning solution for nicotine stained walls is TSP Tri Sodium Phosphate, if that doesn't do it, call the bulldozer). 

Defendant says it's one of the worst houses she's ever tried to clean.   Defendant says she told the plaintiff that just cleaning wasn't going to take care of the cigarette smell either.   That the place would have to be painted, flooring pulled out, etc. 

( A friend was looking at houses, and saw a great bargain (this was years ago).   It was cheap because the former owners were chain smokers.   A home inspector he knew looked at it, and said to get rid of left over chain smoking residue and smell, you have to clean every surface, rip out rugs, and any soft surfaces, popcorn ceiling will absorb it too, and the ceiling insulation will keep the stench too.  My friend passed on the house. )

Defendant says the plaintiff's boyfriend also smoked meth there too.  If grandma was such a recluse, then why was the boyfriend living there?   I'm guessing plaintiff didn't want anything to do with her mother, until she could clean out and sell the place. 

JM is wrong, no one could clean that house without repeated cleanings with specific cleaners.  Plaintiff wants the entire $1500 back. 

Plaintiff loses.    She wouldn't let the defendant come back, so she loses.    

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to install security cameras at her home.   She's suing for $855 back from defendant.  Defendant says plaintiff kept adding more work, subtracting work, and also made advances to him, and he just wanted to finish the job,  and leave.  Some of the jobs she wanted was to install a bunch of chandeliers for her, ceiling fans, and other items.    The texts from plaintiff to defendant sound way beyond a work relationship.

Plaintiff gets $200, and defendant says he done dealing with plaintiff.

[AngelaHunter]

I just skimmed today's repeats but in the political/printing bozos case I just thought that no one who says, "I seen" and "I'm like" should be running for any office. Learn the rules of political campaigning, what a contract is, how to speak the most basic English, and try again.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Rerun "Swindling an Ex" 

Case 1-Plaintiff loaned some loser defendant, Gigolo,  $1,000, and defendant says it was a gift until he dumped plaintiff and found someone new, and now it's a loan.   Defendant just asked for $1,000 for person bills, or something, and plaintiff gave him the money.    Actually, plaintiff admits they met online, and never went out, and she actually went to lunch with him, once, and this 'relationship' was 9 months long. 

What a surprise, they met on Plenty of Fish.   Doug is certainly enjoying Judge Marilyn talking about how defendant fleeces women he met online.   It gets even worse, plaintiff was separated, but not divorced when all of this happened.   Plaintiff also started going to defendant's apartment to corner him about the money.  Defendant says plaintiff actually blocked in him, so he couldn't get in his car, and wouldn't let him leave. 

Judge Marilyn tries to shame defendant into paying plaintiff back, but as usual,  he has no shame.   Foolish, desperate plaintiff gets her $1,000 back, but from the court, so defendant pays nothing.  Defendant tells Doug, "it is what it is", the usual lying loser response.  

Case 2-PLaintiff says next door neighbor defendant's brother ran a car into plaintiff's fence, and plaintiff wants his $431 paid back.  Defendant says he had a cheap fence guy lined up, and plaintiff went ahead and had the fence.  Defendant says plaintiff wants too much money for the fence repair.   Plaintiff contacted another neighbor, an experienced carpenter, to fix the fence, and replace a few panels.   However, defendant wanted to replace a few slats, and nail the detached supports.   

I love how defendant says his brother called him, said he was turning around in the driveway, and 'bumped' the fence.   However, a little bump doesn't result in at least two full privacy fence panels bashed off the fence posts, and a lot of broken slats.   

 Defendant's brother didn't show up for the court case.    Defendant and brother don't really communicate, and defendant has no idea why brother was at his house that day, or where brother is now.      Defendant also claims his brother scored big at the casino, and paid plaintiff some money for the fence.   Defendant claims plaintiff spent three times what the fence should cost for the fence, and says he's not paying anything else.  

House is owned by grandfather, so that's who the plaintiff sued for $431, but didn't sue the  other brother who actually hit the fence.

I bet defendant's cheaper guy hangs out on the curb, by Home Depot, and hires out by the hour.    I think defendant's idea is to nail everything together, replace a couple of slats, and it would be very cheap.   It also wouldn't last through the winter either. 

Judge Marilyn says plaintiff should have sued the brother, not the defendant or the grandfather.   However, since defendant said he would help pay for the fence, plaintiff gets some money, $170 .   Judge also orders defendant to give the brother's contact information to plaintiff.   Leaving plaintiff short $261.   

Sorry, you sue the owner, and not the tenant.    

Edited August 19, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I'm sure Keenan's brother is not nearly the real man and "kind of person" the cherub-cheeked Keenan (who lives in his grandpappy's house probably for a song) is.🙄 Pass on this nonsense.

All these litigants were beyond annoying the first time. Such awful reruns.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Rerun, "You Stole My Cat"

Plaintiff runs a rescue to take in Egyptian Mau cats from Egypt to the U.S. for adoptions for $350 each.   She puts them in foster homes, and finds homes for them,  the adoption fee is $350 each.   JM is amazed that anyone is importing street cats from Egypt, it's not as if you can't get a bunch of strays here.   

The cats are flown into Canada, picked up by defendant, and board them until plaintiff adopts them out.   

 The foster refuses to pay, when she decided to keep two cats.   She also couldn't find Niagara Falls on a map, and since it was further than defendant thought it was, she stayed in a hotel.  She wants $200 more for the trip expenses.   Plaintiff gets the adoption fees, defendant gets told to stuff her claim, and I still wonder why anyone would pay $350 for some imported stray cat.    If anyone wants a stray cat, the subdivision over from me has tons running loose, I'll give you directions.

The dog fight case is only amusing because the defendant's last name is Safari.   I never heard that before.    The dog fight happened with all of the dogs leashed, Plaintiff's dog decided to fight the defendant's Akita, and plaintiff's dog lost big time.  Defendant says plaintiff's dog snatched the Akita's favorite stick, and the fight was on.     The plaintiff's dog was on a retractable leash, but she denies that.    My view is dogs being dogs no one will have to pay, and I was right. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

Rerun "Cat Attack"

Case 1-Plaintiff claims defendant (Mr. DeLuca) cats attack her cat, Athena, several times, on her yard.   Defendant also has binoculars, and has been seen trespassing on plaintiff's yard, carrying binoculars, claiming he wants to see the plaintiff's cat.    Plaintiff claims there have been several attacks, all in her yard, by defendant's animal on her cat, requiring multiple vet visits. 

On the day in question, plaintiff heard a cat fight, saw defendant's cat Princess, leaving after beating the kitty litter out of plaintiff's cat, in plaintiff's yard.    Then plaintiff took the cat to the vet.  The next morning cat wasn't doing any better, and so at vet visit cat had to be shaved down on half of her body.    Plaintiff says she never wanted to talk to defendant, but did present him with a bill for this attack on Athena.   After the previous attack on Athena, plaintiff did tell defendant about Princess, and the other cats owned by defendant attacking her cat.   So, defendant said plaintiff should call him every time before her cat goes outside.   

Defendant says his cat (after the third attack) never would attack another cat.   Defendant paid the first bill after this attack, but refuses to pay subsequent vet bills from the same attack.     Defendant says since he's not allowed on plaintiff's property, he watched his cat Princess stalking Julia's cat Athena with his binoculars.   Now, defendant says plaintiff is a bad cat owner because she doesn't leave her door wide open, and blaming the attacks on plaintiff not protecting her cat.   

Defendant says plaintiff's next door neighbor gave him permission to be on her property, so he roams the next door neighbor's yard with his binoculars.   I agree with plaintiff, defendant is definitely creepy.     

JM could not care less about the cat attacks, or the fact that defendant's cat is coming on plaintiff's property stalking and attacking her cat.  No money to plaintiff, and JM says plaintiff should go outside with her cat, or call defendant every time she wants to put her cat out in her own back yard.        Plaintiff is getting nothing, and defendant isn't getting a refund.    (I have several ways to tell Princess to stay off of plaintiff's property, and none of them are nice.    From motion activated sprinklers, to scat mats.    I don't think someone's cat coming on your property and attacking your animal on a bunch of occasions is right. ).

I found JM's attitude in this case to be despicable.     Defendant takes the ruling as a triumph for bizarre neighbors everywhere. By the way, if a coyote decides to eat your cat, it won't be escaping back into your house before it's killed. 

Case 2- Plaintiff, was driving down the street when defendant, who was parked,  opened his door and hit her car.   Defendant says his car door was already open, and plaintiff hit his car door.     Plaintiff claims after the crash that defendant tried to take off, and when she stopped him he was walking around with a six pack in hand. 

As usual, defendant had failed to pay his insurance bill, so plaintiff gets $3,000+

24 August 2022 Rerun-

"Catering Catastrophe"

Case 1-Newly married couple hired defendant to cater their wedding.   (Don't look at pictures of the food if you're squeamish, even as a veteran watcher of My 600 Lb Life, I was grossed out by the food pictures).   The bride says the steak was raw, it doesn't even looking warm; potatoes were rock hard, stuffed shrimp were horrible, and chicken was like a hockey puck, pictures are equally awful.   The steak is raw.  

Defendant says plaintiff was a bridezilla, blamed the hall not being ready for the dinner and reception on plaintiff's kids being in the way, but the kids were all 3 or under, and in strollers.   Plaintiff says she had to pay the DJ, and hall extra money to keep there.   Food was supposed to start at 4 p.m., salad wasn't even served until 8 p.m.    As usual, there is no signed contract.     Defendant says plaintiff ordered rare steak (not legal to serve), and she delivered 'rare' steak.     Defendant says she started serving at 4:30 p.m.

Several people reinforce what plaintiffs said about the wedding food, and how nasty defendant was to everyone.   

$1250, half of the catering bill back to plaintiffs. 

Case 2- Plaintiff says she had to put up a fence to keep defendant's vicious dog off of plaintiff's property, and is suing defendant for the cost of the fence.   Dog is small, half Yorkie, and half Shih Tzu, and never actually bit plaintiff.   However, dog jumps the small fence between the properties, and charges the plaintiff. 

After defendant said she couldn't pay for half of the fence, but plaintiff says defendant put up a very nice gazebo right after saying she was broke.    Animal control refuses to do anything about the dog coming on plaintiff's property.   

Then the interesting stuff.   Defendant claims plaintiff used to have a Cane Corso, and dog would come in defendant's yard all of the time.   However, plaintiff says Corso was her ex-husband's dog, and went with him.   

Plaintiff told her adult son not to come to her house, because she's afraid the defendant's son's murder will lead to retaliation, and they may not check the identity of someone before the killers blow him away.    Gate between the two houses on the porch is to keep people off of her porch.  Defendant's son was shot, but not killed on her porch, and he crawled onto plaintiff's porch turning plaintiff's porch into a crime scene.  

Defendant claims the fence is too high to build without a permit, but I think the fence posts need to be cut to fit the top of the fence, and defendant is whining that the fence ugly side is facing her yard.     I never understood why people spend a ton on fences, and the ugly side is facing their side.  

Plaintiff can't force defendant to pay for a fence on plaintiff's property, some places a joint fence can be paid for half and half, but not where they live. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant suing for ugly side of the fence on her side side and damage to her side by the front porch gate/railing.   Defendant case dismissed. 

You have to admit someone dying on your front porch, and being offended about the trespass is certainly a new low in complaints. 

Rerun, 25 August

"You Are a Deadbeat Dad" 

Case 1-Plaintiff suing defendant ex his share of medical bills for their two daughters, for medication and for therapy.  $1927 is the amount in question.      Defendant claims over half of the bills had plaintiff's name on it, not the kids.   Defendant also says plaintiff went on vacation when one of the daughters was in the hospital.   He claims poverty, but plaintiff claims he had enough money to buy the current wife a Range Rover. They've been divorced since 2016, and the medical bills are in the decree.    

Plaintiff pays the first $250 for each kid, and then they split everything over that.  One daughter has been in therapy for a long time.  However, when they switched to a new therapist, the plaintiff claims the new therapist was much better, and making progress.    One issue is the doctor is out of network, and the medication bills have only the ex-wife's name.   

JM doesn't care that many people's insurance reimbursement sucks if the doctor isn't in network.    Sometimes, the medical insurance won't cover out of network at all, or medications prescribed by them.   

Defendant says ex never told him anything about the therapist until after the bills came in.  Also, plaintiff claims defendant was told everything about daughter's revelations, but defendant says he only found out when therapist reported what daughter said to CPS, and CPS contacted defendant.    

Many bills are only in plaintiff's name, and she's in therapy with the same practice, if not the same doctor.  JM claims that the way the ex-wife cumulates, and sends the bill once a year is fine.   Then, JM goes off as usual, and says the defendant didn't pay for dental and other medical bills.  However, plaintiff admits she doesn't know which bills are the children's and which are hers. 

I think the plaintiff is playing fast and loose with the truth.   And the day daughter came home from impatient, ex-wife went on vacation to Greece, and said nothing would get in the way of her vacation.    

This could have been prevented if ex sent bills as they were paid.  

Plaintiff gets $1504 for half of the 2021 bills.   Defendant says plaintiff never showed him any bills, or that she paid them. 

Case 2-Plaintiff was driving, when a piece of metal came off of a truck owned by defendant's company, and she wants to be paid for her windshield replacement.  Defendant says nothing fell off of his truck.   Defendant says his truck is a hauler for the USPS, and is a closed semi trailer, and nothing came out of the truck.   It could have been something on the roadway too.    So, does plaintiff have a dash cam going constantly?   Because she has a video of this.    Plaintiff didn't even contact her insurance company, I wonder if she has any.  

Plaintiff claims the metal came off the top of the semi trailer, and I don't believe that.  

Defendant wins.    Plaintiff looks pissed. 

John's brother was an ER doc for about 30 years.   A patient came in who had been kicked and gored by a deer.  Patient was driving home, saw a dead deer, loaded it up for Rigor Mortis stew (aka Judge Judy case), when deer came back to consciousness and was pissed, and attacked. 

Case 3-Plaintiff bought a scooter from defendant's shop, and put down $500, but it was a third party finance company, plaintiff was denied and wants his deposit back.    Defendant says plaintiff applied for the loan, and was denied, and plaintiff denies he knows why he was denied.    Defendant says the deposit was non-refundable, and he's not giving it back.     The way it works is you make the deposit, as soon as you get home you go online, and do the application, and it's all through the finance company.

Defendant says they offered $425 back, out of the $500, and plaintiff refused it.   Then plaintiff tried to do a charge back through his credit card company, and so defendant wouldn't work with plaintiff.    If the credit card company had done the charge back, or refund, then defendant would be out 1,000. 

Defendant wins, and plaintiff still is ticked.  

Edited August 25, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

Ridiculous rerun, "Feuding with a Friend" (I'm hoping this April rerun is the right one, lots of litigants are feuding with friends on this show).  (This is the wrong case, I suspect they're changing titles around). 

Case 1-Plaintiff claims to deposit a check from defendant, the bank teller said the defendant had to be on the acount to (Wrong, you can deposit any check from anyone in your account, but if there name is on the account then they could have access).   Plaintiff claims the check was in her account to hide it from the government assistance financial limits, so that's why defendant's money was in plaintiff's account.    When the money was taken out, then plaintiff called police.   However, plaintiff claims the defendant's name never appeared on her online account statements.   

Defendant swears that years ago she loaned plaintiff $2400 to cover plaintiff's new apartment (so long ago that plaintiff no longer lives in the apartment).   Defendant claims they fell out of contact three years ago, but claims bank told defendant she was signatory on the account, so she took $800 out of the account.   This was on the loan from 13 years ago, which is long out of time to be a debt.  

I can't tell you how much I dislike both litigants.   As a taxpayer, I hope the benefits office that sends our money to defendant saw this case, and took action.   $800 back to plaintiff that defendant stole from the account.   

The real case is plaintiff gave defendant (old high school friend), money to get in line for a PS5, he never got the PS5, and then he broke the plaintiff's TV after tussling with the dog.   Plaintiff gets her TV money.   

Edited August 26, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The real case is plaintiff gave defendant (old high school friend), money to get in line for a PS5,

That little twerp, trying to sound all superior by using convoluted phrases and big words, "The ideology of it..." when referring to silly P giving him money for a new toy, was even more disgusting on second viewing. A grown man, he sits in his little bedroom which looks like that of a 10-year-old, surrounded by toys and comic book pics while leeching from his granny. Someone needs to give this man-baby a swift boot in his useless ass.

[AngelaHunter]

Gee, I hate having no life.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Funny rerun, except for JM giving the Case 1 plaintiff money for phony damages to an already damaged gate.   "Tangle with a Tow Truck"

Case 1-Plaintiff and defendant have had a business relationship for over 20 years, Plaintiff claims defendant wrecked his gate, and fence, all caught on video, when defendant towed his car.   Defendant says he's towed uncountable numbers of plaintiff's vehicles over the 25 years.   

Defendant owns Tire Empire, and plaintiff says he was notified that defendant was towing the car (it was a loaner), and the car had to be repo'd.    Finaceing on care was through Florida United Auto Sales, and defendant's company repos cars for them.  Plaintiff claims when his car was being towed, defendant's son and co-worker ruined his gate, and fence, and he wants the defendant to pay for the fence and gate repair.   Defendant had a business relationship with the auto dealer, and he says plaintiff pays the car loan up to date about half of the time, as long as the car is still running, plaintiff pays up.    I really wonder why the auto company keeps selling cars to the deadbeat plaintiff?   Unless they make out very well on repo the car, and reselling? 

Defendant says gate post wasn't actually attached, but just leaning on fence.   On the video, the gate posts don't move at all, and the gate post looks identically bad before and after the car being towed away.   The plaintiff is milking the incident for all it's worth, he gets $350, way too much, when you can see the gate and pole were already damaged. 

(I  figured out what's going on in the car case (the deadbeat defendant with the phony fence and gate claim).    He buys cars from the car lot that defendant repo'd cars for, I bet the interest rate is into the double digits, with a steep down payment too.   Then when the car breaks down, plaintiff stops paying for the car, and then defendant repos it.    Then the car lot either sells the car at auction if it's not repairable, or repairs it and resells it, so they can get their money several times over for the same car with a few different buyers.    I bet the lot buys at auction too, so the cars are super cheap to them, and then fools like plaintiff keep coming back over and over, and the car lot makes out very well)

Case 2-Plaintiff suing mechanic for using after market parts on her BMW, and she is suing $1040, and wants the defendant to fix the car again, with BMW parts.  My view, if you don't take your car to BMW, then you won't get BMW parts.   Plaintiff actually bought the car used from defendant's company, but their mechanic only works on the sale cars.  So, when plaintiff wanted work done, it was done by an outside mechanic.  

Plaintiff also didn't get an itemized receipt either.  Seals and gaskets don't have a warranty, so she's out of luck too. 

The only part of the repair did was to run and charge her credit card for the mobile mechanic (mobile mechanic doesn't take credit cards).     Defendant's shop isn't certified to do the mechanic work for anyone outside of their own sale cars.    Obviously, JM already decided that plaintiff will win.   

THe mobile mechanic probably went out of business after this, a lot of places have, so I don't find it strange that the mobile mechanic is gone. 

Plaintiff gets $1043.    I hope the plaintiff enjoys her money, because I bet that engine will go boom before too long.   If you want BMW parts, and a BMW mechanic go to BMW.   Plaintiff in her after interview with Doug, says BMW would charge her three times what defendant does for labor, and she doesn't want to pay it.  

(This morning's rerun was the woman who claims she put almost 200 items in for dry cleaning, and left them for two years.   Then, when dry cleaner told her to pick them up or he would donate them, she didn't pick them up.  Clothes were donated, and now plaintiff wanted $5k for her clothes.    Plaintiff case dismissed, and dry cleaner received the dry cleaning fees.)

Edited August 29, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

Rerun, and was on recently,  "Customer Crisis"

Case 1-Plaintiff bought Sea Moss (the dried mossy stuff in a ziploc bag, not the stuff in a jar that was on Shark Tank last Friday) and when it finally arrived, after a complaint to Pay Pal about non-delivery, it looked nastier than a competitor product.   

Defendant has the Covid/hospital excuse, but I agree with plaintiff, it doesn't look like Sea Moss.   Plaintiff claims what he sent her is old, and expired.   This lawsuit is over $30 worth of product.  

Plaintiff gets her refund.

Case 2-Plaintiff had her applications for a liquor license for her bar denied twice, and hired the defendant to do her application, for $2140.   Defendant says plaintiff lied about her past, and that's why her applications were rejected, and for the third time when defendant did her application for her.    Turns out plaintiff lied about her criminal record, and her spouse's criminal records on the question about convictions for misdemeanors or felonys, and both have convictions. 

Rejection has reasons for first two denials, no employment history, no proof of notification to city, and no proof of financing.    Defendant charged her $1100, plaintiff claims she paid defendant $1300 cash, but no receipt.   

Plaintiff's spouse actually has a felony, but that was made a lesser charge somehow. 

Plaintiff is a total liar, and I don't think that's the defendant's fault. 

Plaintiff gets $1100, $240, and $150, adding up to $1490. (I wouldn't have paid this plaintiff a penny)

Case 3-Plaintiff says she loaned her ex money, and he won't pay her back.  $455 to plaintiff

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Bickering With your Neighbor" Rerun, case 1 is scary, that the cornices could have fallen and killed someone on the sidewalk.     Case 3-Stupid decision.  Another case where the plaintiff gets screwed over by JM

Case 1-Plaintiff says his neighbor did some construction work, including on the cornice, 2 stories high, for $1,635.  The edge stair step brick cornice was 2 stories high, and bricks were coming off.  Plaintiff says this home is a rental property, and when neighbor/defendant tore down and rebuilt his side of the house, some work wasn't up to snuff.   Construction went on for 12 to 18 months.    The cornice looks like a stair step but from the underneath, so a loose brick is very dangerous.    

Defendant says it was a duplex conversion, adding a third story to the two story home, The pictures of the two houses, look like row houses, with plaintiff's rental property is two stories. Plaintiff told defendant about the issue, defendant says it was plaintiff's to pay for and fix.  Plaintiff called a roofer, and had the cornice taken down, and defendant still refuses to fix it.  Defendant also claims the plaintiff's row house is falling down, and everything is plaintiff's problem to fix.    Plaintiff says it's a common wall, so a mutual problem to fix. 

Plaintiff asked his insurance company for their view of the issue, and insurance company said it was poor construction by defendant's workers.     

Defendant claims that in the 1970's the grandfathers had an issues with construction of the two row houses, but only his grandfather fixed it correctly.   He blames the cornice issue on the old construction.  However, the cornice on the other side of the plaintiff's row house is fine, and the cornice where defendant's construction workers cut defendant's house loose from planitiff's house.   

The issue was caused entirely by defendant's construction workers. 

$1635 to plaintiff.  

After the verdict, the question is when Judge John was presiding over a 14-year-old's stabbing by his best friend, and it was on a true crime show, if he has issues separating the case from his own life.  (Defendant was Michael Hernandez, and he was 26 by the time the sentence was decided for the second time). Judge John also added 30 years for Hernandez's assault on another student, the other student survived. The 14 year-old was convicted, and sentenced to life in prison, appealed and received the same sentence.  In May 2021, Michael Hernandez died in prison.   Both judges say they've had problems with separating themselves from horrible cases.  

Case 2-Plaintiff lived in defendant's house for two years, and she says it was hell.  Hell is appropriate, because the wall decoration behind plaintiff's head looks like devil's horns.   Plaintiff wants her security back, because all of the rug and other water damages were from other tenants flooding her apartment. 

Defendant /landlady says there was only one minor issue from the upstairs tenant's kid flushing toys, that happened two or three times, it was fixed and there were no other leaks.   Landlady says plaintiff damaged other tenant's cars, and stole checks.   Defendant claims the rug was soaked by plaintiff's dog, floors were warped the same way, and she's not returning a penny to plaintiff.   

Landlady says walls were full of holes, and damages. Everything was filthy, and apartment was trashed.   Plaintiff moved out a few days late, and still claims she didn't have time to clean.   Plaintiff had six months notice that her lease wasn't going to be renewed.   No move in pictures by landlady, just move out pictures.  Plaintiff blames everything on water leaks, including big holes in walls, and a full wall in the bathroom with the drywall surface peeled off.    Landlady says water never leaked into son's bedroom, but there certainly are holes and door damages.  

Water leak on ceiling looks bad, but is that the same apartment?   JM is already saying the $1300 security isn't going to be the landlady's to keep.    

Plaintiff gets half of the security back, $650.   (Why don't all landlords take move in and move out pictures?)

Case 3-Plaintiff says defendant blew a stop sign, and hit hiscar, and he wants $1468.  Defendants say plaintiff keeps changing the story, and after he hit her 14-year-old son, he was mean to him.  So, defendant son blew the stop sign, caused the accident, and defendant mother wants $500 for her son's medical bills.   Plaintiff says he was going slowly, was hit by defendant on the electric scooter.    Plaintiff says he told defendant son to stay still, called an ambulance for him, thought he was clearly concussed.   Defendant son and mother claim it wasn't an electric scooter, but a regular one.  

Defendant son's ridiculous story is he was going downhill on the electric scooter, the brakes failed, and it wasn't his fault.   Plaintiff tried to find a cheaper body shop, but couldn't.  However, defendant says it was a regular scooter, not electric. 

Plaintiff gets $1468, but from the minor son, so plaintiff will receive nothing.    Defendant gets nothing.   As JM says, defendant son is lucky he survived.  

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says it was a duplex conversion, adding a third story to the two story home,

Considering the kind of work D's contractors do, I would be worried about the 3rd floor tumbling down.

As for D saying that P's property was ready to fall down because it has those "star anchors" in the wall - that is nonsense. Many very old homes in Britain and elsewhere have those to make ancient, bowed exterior walls stable. It's not a "temporary fix". Of course, trying to have a reasonable discourse with this def. was an exercise in futility.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Friendship Fireworks"   Rerun.   

Case 1-Plaintiff suing her old (now former) friend over a car she bought for defendant, and defendant's incarcerated boyfriend, car was in plaintiff's name, but got repossessed for non-payment.     Plaintiff says defendant had car for a year, and tickets were in plaintiff's name too, and plaintiff says $1300 worth of tickets.   Plaintiff doesn't care about her repo on her name.   

Defendant's story is totally different, her boyfriend was only in jail for a little while, defendant needed extra money for boyfriend's fines and bond.    So, plaintiff financed car, and defendant and boyfriend would sell the car, and put the money towards boyfriend's bail.   Car was $3,000, so it was to rip off for  the finance company.  Defendant says the guy who was putting up the mail, would get the car instead of payment.   Defendant says she never drove the car, or even rode in it once.   Then plaintiff claims defendant drove car off of lot.   

Now defendant claims ex-boyfriend gave plaintiff $1,000, to go to Miami, and have the fat sucked out of her stomach lard, and put in her butt, and ex went along, and paid for the rest on Care credit.   I know this will be heart warming, but defendant's boyfriend beat the case for a potential 25 to life charge (it was a murder case).   Why didn't plaintiff sue the boyfriend?  Answer is because she's a crook, defendant and boyfriend are crooks. 

JM dismisses plaintiff's case on the tickets.  Defendant case dismissed, because it's stupid. (I'm not sure I got everything right in this bizarre case.    I may have left out a character or two, but it's the worst case of unclean hands by both sides I've seen in a long time). 

Case 2-Plaintiff rented apartment from defendant, building was sold, and plaintiff wants her $1,000 security deposit back.  Defendant purchased under a program where she had to move into, and live in the building, so she evicted the plaintiff.   The loan was a FHA loan, and for residential property, not investment.     Plaintiff was given the choice of leaving in two months, but landlord is letting her have 30 days more, for $800.    However, plaintiff did not move out on 1 October.    Who is the defendant kidding about the loan requirements?   They make you sign every part of the loan documents stating it's residential. 

Another case like Case 1, where everyone is doing bad things.    Plaintiff said she would move anywhere in NJ, but Camden (search city-data forum for "how dangerous is Camden NJ," it's an interesting read), or "what's the most dangerous U.S. city you've been to".     Plaintiff threatened to stop paying rent, and because of the pandemic eviction moratorium defendant couldn't evict plaintiff for months.  

Plaintiff was a jerk, defendant also was and knows nothing about landlord/tenant laws. 

Plaintiff gets $2,000, double the security deposit, because defendant didn't follow the landlord/tenant rules about notifying tenant why they were keeping the security deposit. 

My guess is landlords only come on here because they can get the award paid by the court, and keep the money the plaintiff is suing for. 

Edited September 1, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

her boyfriend was only in jail for a little while

Oh, well then. Hardly worth a mention.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Now defendant claims ex-boyfriend gave plaintiff $1,000, to go to Miami, and have the fat sucked out of her stomach lard, and put in her butt

"Sounds bad when I say it like that, right?" 😆

[CrazyInAlabama]

Rerun, "Hotel Horror"

Case 1-Plaintiff suing defendant over the suite they were supposed to share in Atlantic City, for $470.    Plaintiff says room had two teeny tiny beds, smelled bad, and she was out in the cold when defendant threw her out, hotel room was in defendant's name.    Litigants used to work at a funeral home in New York.   They were going to a 70's party.   Defendant sent the pictures of the hotel room to plaintiff, however, room wasn't acceptible.   Room smelled like B.O.,  Plaintiff thought they were getting a suite, with a living room.   

When plaintiff and another friend arrived, they went into the hotel room, and it wasn't a suite, very tiny, 2 tiny beds, and room reaked.   Plaintiff says defendant and another friend were all drinking, and the defendant's friend was blotto.    So, plaintiff says defendant and friend told plaintiff and other friend to get out of the room, or they were calling the police.   So, plaintiff and her friend left.   Can you imagine how bad the defendant smelled to gross out plaintiff, who used to work in a funeral home? 

Defendant says photos of suite were from a different hotel, not the suite defendant wanted to rent.   Defendant says when plaintiff sent the $250, that defendant told her it wasn't a suite, and two people would have to share each queen bed in the room (it was at the Claridge).

Texts from plaintiff show she knew it was a 1 bedroom, with 2 queen beds.     

Plaintiff gets $250 for the room, and that's it.    (So, the litigants used to work in a funeral home, so the room smell was worse?)

Case 2-Little old lady get $470 plus court costs to get her fridge  repair costs back from shady defendant.   Repairman/defendant is obviously a jerk.  

Monday TPC will be zapped by drag racing, but the rest of the week, and the next week will be reruns.   I don't know when the new season starts, but from their FB page it will be with remote testimony permanently (It saves a ton of travel, hotel, and transportation costs).   However, I currently get a recent rerun at 10 am, and another from this season at 3 pm, or when they start the new season they were running at 3 pm.   For the  3 pm slot, they're older episodes., this week and next week, they're 2018 episodes.       Of course, that may not be what actually is aired, sometimes the listing has the 3 pm and 10 am reversed.  My cable guide doesn't seem to like consistency. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

First time viewing this episode.  We were on vacation when this first aired and the comments posted were all spot on with the cases.

I will say that as I watched the first case of the women/body odor/blue hair/Atlantic City situation I was reminded of my trip to Atlantic City casinos when they were fairly new.  I just turned 21 and my friend and I drove there.   It wasn’t that far from my home (less than two hours).

Anyway, at that time men had to wear sport coats or suits and women were all decked out in gowns, furs and tons of jewelry.  I remember what I wore because wanted to make sure they’d let me enter.  I also remember the women wearing white cotton gloves so their fingers wouldn’t be stained by the quarters they were putting into the machines.  As I recall it seemed like a movie set with the lights and sounds, even the cocktail waitresses were dressed like top tier showgirls.

Anyway, watching the case just brought home how times have changed.  Women were impeccably dressed. Not a chance in hell anyone with body odor would have been allowed to roam the casino. Now?  Eh, who cares.  Just make sure you spend your money here.

I’d probably be ragging on the case but my mind went in a different direction. 

Poor pickles 

 

 

[Maverick]

 Has TPC been cancelled?   The new season usually starts on Labor Day but today I got a rerun from 2018.   My guide shows 2018 reruns for the rest of the week.   WTF?!  

[Bookworm13]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

 Has TPC been cancelled?   The new season usually starts on Labor Day but today I got a rerun from 2018.   My guide shows 2018 reruns for the rest of the week.   WTF?!  

As @CrazyInAlabama said above, drag racing is airing during TPC’s normal times in most areas. 
 

I’m not sure what VTR stands for(guessing video something recording), but based on the TPC website, it’s old episodes until Oct 14. The only plus is it’s mostly episodes from 2017/18, so it’s not rewatching a case for the 5th time. https://peoplescourt.com/schedule

ETA : I only get one airing daily, so if you’re one of the lucky ones with 2 airings, you may get new eps sooner. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Bookworm13

[Taeolas]

Check your TV schedule. They may have nudged it to a different slot. 

My PVR shows a new ep "Raging at a Real Estate Broker" today.  I think this is a new ep.

Judge Mathis's new season started today as well. 

*Edit* The PVR said the date was 05/09/22 and the case matched the description.  But the actual date on it was MMXVIII, so 2018.

The courtroom was full, the cases seemed to be from 2017, and there wasn't a hint of COVID, and no hanging with the hubby.

But she did get a good roasting of a bad tow truck driver in the 3rd case.  

Edited September 5, 2022 by Taeolas

[AngelaHunter]

I too got repeats today, although my PVR said 5/9/22. Even I couldn't forget the arrogant, smart-assed "Call me Mikey" hustler or the P with "my lady" who maybe isn't such a lady since it seems she has "situations" with past landlords which we know could mean anything from squatting to physical violence.

I vaguely recall the second case with the fence fight. I guess it was just as boring then as it was today.

ETA: It's kind of nice to get a repeat that's not from a couple weeks ago.

On 9/3/2022 at 9:00 AM, PsychoKlown said:

Not a chance in hell anyone with body odor would have been allowed to roam the casino.

Especially THIS body odor - such a stench it sickened someone who works in a funeral parlor. 😨

Edited September 5, 2022 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

2018 Rerun-"You Borrowed My Car Without Permission! (This episode was wonderfully dissected on page 103 by SRTouch)

This is 2018 all right, Levin and his pack of gerbils are talking, Doug is talking to litigants in person, and JM has different glasses and an audience. 

Case 1-Plaintiff hired defendant as unpaid intern, (she's a realtor for a non-profit finding housing for single mothers) she loaned him a car, he parked in front of his house, and racked up a bunch of tickets.   Romeo, the defendant claims he got tickets while working for plaintiff, she said she would pay the tickets, and he's countersuing for $5,000.  Plaintiff wants  $2553 for the tickets, a laptop, and EZ pass tolls.   

Then Romeo gets arrested for domestic violence, she went to pick up things for him and saw a stack of tickets on her vehicle.    He also had an accident driving her car while he was under the influence, and she let him keep driving her car.   

Levin chimes in totally missing the entire facts of the case, saying Romeo drove the cars without plaintiff knowing about it.  Totally wrong as usual Levin. 

Romeo says the tickets were something plaintiff knew about. 

Then, one day they couldn't find Romeo, and plaintiff tracked his phone, and found out her car was at a Super 8 in Connecticut, and stayed there for a week,  instead of parking the car at plaintiff's mother's house in the Bronx.    He also used to have a meth problem too. 

Sorry, plaintiff and defendant shouldn't get a penny.  Plaintiff gets $2553, Romeo gets $0. 

Case 2-Plaintiff added defendant to her phone plan, and got screwed over. Of course it was an iPhone, and plaintiff either had to pay the hefty termination fee, or pay for the phone, Plaintiff wants  $1368.  As always, the defendant says phone was a gift. 

I wonder how much defendant's mother had to pay when defendant got the iPhone, and on plaintiff's plan, from the mother's plan? 

Plaintiff gets $808 for the phone costs. 

Case 3-Plaintiff (little old lady) suing former landlord for  rental apartment.   Defendant says little old lady was the tenant from hell,  Plaintiff doesn't was security after all, she claims this is all elder abuse, and she should get $5,000.   She didn't get evicted, landlord refused to renew her lease, says she was a pot smoking, nasty tenant.   ALso, litigants look about the same age, so much for elder abuse as a point of litigation. 

Plaintiff had a HUD voucher (Section 8), in Fort Lauderdale, and defendant says he had constant noise complaints about plaintiff, pot smoke, duct taped the window screens, and all kinds of damages.    All of the pictures plaintiff had are gone. 

Plaintiff claims she rented sight unseen, the place was a dirty dump when she moved in, but didn't take photos, and signed everything was fine on the apartment inventory sheet when she moved in. 

Neither litigant can decide what the security was, how much defendant kept out of security, or anything else.  

JM decides plaintiff gets $1200 back on the security deposit, which is a total crock in my opinion.  

Edited September 6, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Pepper the Cat]

Oh HUD voucher. I thought she was saying hug and couldn’t figure what the heck that was.

[AngelaHunter]

I so enjoyed the repeat of "Romeo, oh Romeo - Wherefore art thou with my car?"

Not sure who I liked most, the lying, amoral, sociopathic Romeo, or the super-dumbass P with the BIG HEART who thought creepy little Romeo was just the most lovable, adorable thing ever, kind of like felonious, full-sized Beanie Baby. I guess he could be if you ignore the arrest for domestic violence, the drug use, the DUI, the car theft/damaging and the fact that his very own mommy 'tooken' away his car.  Hey he only had ONE DUI, so of course she let him continue to use her car for his important duties as liason and his official meeting at a sleazy motel. Awesome litigants!

As for the old witch: "I wasn't allowed to even peek inside the apartment before I rented it because the tenants had a newborn. Everyone knows no one can ever enter a dwelling, not even for 10 minutes, in which a newborn resides."

Old bag was SO toking up. 😄 She had no proof of anything because her phone got wet.

[Bazinga]

We had to go all the way back to 2018 for THESE three cases.  Why? 

Maybe it was these particular cases, not that our more recent repeats are great, but I prefer the way the show is conducted now.  Perhaps it is recency or familiarity bias, but I don't miss Levin having a larger role with his peanut gallery, I don't need the audience and I like hearing from Judge John, though I prefer when they commented on the case that we just heard rather than answering (usually stupid) questions.   

Edited September 7, 2022 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff hired defendant as unpaid intern, (she's a realtor for a non-profit finding housing for single mothers)

I was thinking she must be surper busy since there seem to be no other kind of mothers, if you judge by this and other court shows. They aren't even single mothers due to divorce or death of a partner. They just have babies because they never heard of birth control or don't believe in using it, even when they're jumping into bed with some indigent ex-con they picked up last week at a gas station.

6 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Maybe it was these particular cases, not that our more recent repeats are great, but I prefer the way the show is conducted now. 

I was kind of thinking the same thing. The show just looked so chaotic, I guess just because I'm used to the remote format. Seeing Levin loose on the street with his treasured little mic and his pack of groupies looked bizarre, after being free of that for so long. Also, it's kind of entertaining seeing the dwellings or lairs of some litigants.

I wonder which format they'll have for the new season.

[CrazyInAlabama]

40 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I wonder which format they'll have for the new season.

From their FB page for TPC, they're keeping the remote format.        They save a bundle on transportation, hotels, meals, etc., and they don't have to use staff time to arrange everything.    

It's much safer for Doug not to be near the litigants in the hallway.   Douglas doesn't have to worry about attacks from enraged audience members either. 

The afternoon, new case slot is filled with 2018 cases, this week and next, I'm not sure when the new cases start either, someone said October. 

Edited September 7, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bookworm13]

@AngelaHunter, your descriptions of the litigants never fails to make me smile. 
 

Watching these older cases has shown me two things. 1) I really haven’t missed Harvey’s on-the-street segment the past two years. I get that they have to give him something to do, but reading dumb questions was far better than asking clueless people legal questions. 2) 3 cases per episode is better than 2 longer ones. The less I have to listen to litigants and their double-speak, the better. And my mute button isn’t getting quite as much of a workout now 😆

[CrazyInAlabama]

2018 Rerun "Towing Tussle"

Case 1-Plaintiff Larry suing defendant over illegally towing his car with handicapped plates.    Larry the plaintiff is suing for $272, from tow company,  suing Ivan Cortez, tow company,  Done Deal Towing Company, says plaintiff parked in a steakhouse parking lot that is well marked with private parking, and tow away signs, 3 signs to be exact.  This was on Black Friday, and steakhouse is a big combined parking lot for several businesses.    Plaintiff wanted to buy an umbrella from J.C. Penney, but parked next door to the shopping center, in a closed steakhouse parking lot.   It wasn't just a closed steakhouse parking lot too, but two other restaurants share the huge lot, with Olive Garden, Joe's Crab Shack, and a Longhorn Steakhouse (it's closed). 

Parking lot manager called in plaintiff, when plaintiff parked and went to JC Penney on Black Friday.    

Plaintiff wants his money back on the tow, and everything else.  Plaintiff paid the defendants to bring his car back, and doesn't think he should pay for that either.   Larry says the tow is a scam.   Defendant has their request for towing from the property manager, the picture of the three part parking lot with the signs, their contract with the business. 

I love the defendants, totally prepared, professional, and I think we've seen them before on this show, and maybe Judge Judy too. 

Plaintiff loses and gets nothing.   Doug basically calls Larry an idiot.  

Case 2-Plaintiff Steven Bisnos suing defendant /former employer for unpaid wages, and an unpaid loan.   Defendant  (not a snowball's chance in hell I can get this man's name right, so I'm not even trying).     (Defendant addresses JM as 'Your Worship').  Plaintiff claims he loaned defendant $1500.  Defendant claims plaintiff stole his van, and wrecked it.    

I could do without Levin and his sidewalk commenters.  

Then, defendant says he has a picture of someone vandalizing his truck, JM tells him to talk to the police about it. 

Defendant pays plaintiff $700, and that's it

Case 3-Plaintiff's father hired defendant Ron to repaint and coat the deck, and deck is peeling, plaintiff wants $2995.   Deck was coated/painted three years ago.     DeckOver by Home Depot is supposed to protect the deck, and is supposed to last 10 years, if applied properly.     DeckOver prep is very specific and sounds like a pain in the fanny.    

Years ago, when this first ran, speculation by posters wonder if plaintiff had the deck pressure washed.   Plaintiff has the email when he complained about the deck pealing, 10 months after application, and email was sent to defendant.    

Plaintiff gets a full refund, $2995.  

Edited September 7, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

@AngelaHunter, your descriptions of the litigants never fails to make me smile. 
 

Watching these older cases has shown me two things. 1) I really haven’t missed Harvey’s on-the-street segment the past two years. I get that they have to give him something to do, but reading dumb questions was far better than asking clueless people legal questions. 2) 3 cases per episode is better than 2 longer ones. The less I have to listen to litigants and their double-speak, the better. And my mute button isn’t getting quite as much of a workout now 😆

Glad I can give you something to laugh about. These days that's very important, IMO.

It doesn't matter to me what Harvey does since I FF and mute the sight and sound of him, except it pisses me off when we can't hear what JM and Douglas sometimes chat about before a case starts because of the Raddled Troll's repetition of what we just heard from the former Hall Clown.

And then we have to hear it all over again when the stream of commercials ends. And then we have to SEE Levin and hear more of his stupid BS. That little dirtbag is the biggest media whore who ever lived. I do admire his high opinion of himself, though. Maybe he thinks we watch just for him.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

2018 Rerun Towing Tussle

Oh, Larry, you petty little lying hustler. Lies and sympathy ploys didn't work in your favour. Shame on you.

[CrazyInAlabama]

2018 rerun, "Car Loan Crisis"  Since they're playing fast and loose with the titles, and switching seasons, I have no clue what this is about.  However, Levin and his street Gerbils will be there, the audience will be there, and Doug will be risking his life talking to real live litigants in the hallway. 

Case 1-Plaintiff is suing former girlfriend's daughter, he finance a car for her, and he wants his $1950 back, and defendant hasn't paid him a penny.   Defendant says plaintiff, and her mom had a bad breakup, and mom now has a restraining order against plaintiff,  and the 'loan' was a gift, and this is simply retaliation.   Daughter was homeless, so she moved in with plaintiff, her mom, in plaintiff's aunt's house, and defendant is still there three years later.   Plaintiff lent daughter money for a very used Cadillac Seville.   

After a complaint from the mother about domestic violence, plaintiff got arrested for domestic violence, and mother applied for a restraining order.    The aunt says the defendant daughter has been staying at her place for four years, they're in the eviction process, because the daughter refuses to leave.   She's never paid rent, but is 'waiting for her income tax refund' to come.   Plaintiff is care giver for his 94 year-old aunt, and couldn't even go to pick the aunt up, until he applied for a modification so he could pick up the aunt.      I haven't disliked anyone as much as defendant, and her leach of a mother in a long time.    Defendant and her harridan mother think it's just fine that they squatted in aunt's house. 

As usual, nothing in writing. 

Plaintiff gets $1950 from defendant.   JM says defendant should get out of plaintiff's aunt's house.  Doug tells plaintiff he hopes that the defendants can be evicted. 

Case 2- Plaintiff bought unreliable car from snake oil used car salesman, she wants her $2500 back.   Defendant says this has been going on for two years, he sells her a car, a few months later she wants to return it, he takes it back, and gives her another car, and plaintiff says all of defendant's cars are death traps.  

Plaintiff wants a full refund, and is told to stuff it. 

Case 3-Plaintiffs suing landlord, because he was mean to them, and even though they didn't give 30 days notice, they want their $1,000 security deposit back.   Defendant landlady says plaintiff wife claims she was being deployed by the military, but refused to show her deployment orders, so defendant says she owed her nothing. 

Plaintiffs say apartment was never nice enough, but they didn't complain.   Plaintiff claims dropping a fork made a giant hole in the sink (I think at least a couple of inches wide), and sink had to be replaced.  There is no way in hell the sink had that huge hole from dropping a fork.   Defendant is such a liar. 

Unfortunately, inside NYC and outside NYC have different landlord / tenant laws. The best part is plaintiff wife used the military clause to get out of a lease six months before she had to report to Navy basic training, which is not a proper used of the military clause. 

So, the law is $1,000 security back to the lying, cheating, plaintiffs. 

(Yesterday's Towing Tussle was also another episode title.  The one shown yesterday was hilarious, but so was the other episode where a woman proved the towing company violated the law. It's very confusing) .

Edited September 8, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bazinga]

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

2018 rerun, "Car Loan Crisis"  Since they're playing fast and loose with the titles, and switching seasons, I have no clue what this is about. 

The episode was originally aired May 10, 2018 and the discussion of it is on Page 106.

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from May 23, 2018 and the discussion is on Page 108.  Here is the direct link:

Diamond Earring Disaster

Looking back at old posts, I miss many regular posters who no longer post.

[Maverick]

 Apparently there were new episodes listed on the show's website as late as last week starting on 9/5 before they were replaced with the current 5 year old repeats.   If that's.true, the delay through at least October without any explanation is even stranger. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

2018 rerun "Diamond Earring Disaster"

Case 1 Plaintiff Toye Taveres suing defendant, co-workers,  and former friend  Julius and Sharon, for stealing her heirloom earrings, she wants $2400.   Theft was blamed on defendants' 28 year-old son, so why would defendant parents have to pay for them.    They all lived together when this happened .   Earrings were in plaintiff's closet, inside a jewelry box, and when plaintiff went to stay with her grandmother, and for a few months only plaintiffs lived in the apartment.   When plaintiff finally realized earrings were gone, she asked Sharon if she had seen them, and Toye decided the defendant's 28-year-old son stole them.  Then Toye demanded the earrings back, or for defendants to pay for the earrings, $2400 and throw in a bedroom set. 

Sharon also mentions that Toye regularly loses items, including a set of keys for two years.  Toye says she never believed the defendant's son stole the earrings, but then Toye says Sharon stole the earrings, and Sharon looks above for either divine help, or a better light for her appearance on TV.   Toye says defendant Sharon knew exactly where the earrings were stored. 

Defendants also sell and replace their furniture every year (in January to be exact), (or is it they go to rent to own, and when they don't pay their furniture gets repo'd?).   Plaintiff's witness is Toye, and Julius's supervisor. 

(Is there a photo of her wearing the earrings?  Or any other proof the earrings actually existed?)

Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant wins.  (Levin and his street Gerbils chime in)

Case 2-Plaintiff Richard Crespo and wife rented an apartment from defendant when boiler broke, and they didn't have heat or hot water for a month, and want $3500.  Helen Theodore, is the despicable landlady who didn't care about a month without heat or hot water in the middle of a New York winter.  (Levin dubs this "Boiler, he hardly knew her", I really loathe him today.)   

Helen the despicable was on vacation in a warm place, for this part of the winter, and nothing was done.  The plaintiffs were always up to date on rent.   Plaintiffs had a 7 and 13-year-old living in the apartment also.   Heat didn't get fixed until first of February, when Helen came back.   

Landlord Helen the despicable claims the boiler was under warranty with Sears, and Sears couldn't fix the boiler during six visits.   19 degrees in the house, and it doesn't get fixed for a month.   

$1500 of rent, and $118 for the space heaters, $1618 total  to plaintiffs. Doug's right, defendant is a terrible landlord.   In the hall-terview, plaintiff says he's approved to buy a house, and I hope they got it. 

Case 3-Plaintiff Gregory DiBennedetto slammed into by defendant Dawn Rella.   And plaintiff wants $1582 for damages, car rental, etc.   Defendant slammed into the rear of the plaintiff's car, and blames it on plaintiff not driving fast enough to get out of her way.  Defendant says someone was turning in front of plaintiff, and says plaintiff should have gone around turning car, and then defendant could go around too.    Defendant plowed into the back of the car.    

Not a surprise, defendant's insurance had lapsed, and Geico refused to cover the plaintiff's damages.   Defendant wanted plaintiff to sign a release in return to pay for the damages, and cab. 

Plaintiff rats companion out for being 77, after she says she's 70. 

Defendant says her autopay screwed up.  

$1582 to plaintiff (he's 82 also). Car damages were over $7,000, so $1582 was for deductible and cabs.. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Levin dubs this "Boiler, he hardly knew her", I really loathe him today.)   

Just today?

5 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says her autopay screwed up

I hated her all over again, just as much as I hate the Levin. She took her eyes off the road! P stopped in the street! She had a situation with her insurance company! None of this was her fault! She was so caring, so kind, she actually asked the elderly Ps if they were all right! Her airbags didn't deploy so how hard could she have smashed them? JM came very close to telling her to shove her excuses up her ass. Shameless bitch with her stupid cartoon eyebrows stencilled halfway up her head deserved a much worse smackdown.

"Wasn't looking at the road! Didn't know I had no insurance! NOT MY FAULT!"

[CrazyInAlabama]

44 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Just today?

I hated her all over again, just as much as I hate the Levin. She took her eyes off the road! P stopped in the street! She had a situation with her insurance company! None of this was her fault! She was so caring, so kind, she actually asked the elderly Ps if they were all right! Her airbags didn't deploy so how hard could she have smashed them? JM came very close to telling her to shove her excuses up her ass. Shameless bitch with her stupid cartoon eyebrows stencilled halfway up her head deserved a much worse smackdown.

"Wasn't looking at the road! Didn't know I had no insurance! NOT MY FAULT!"

Good point, I always dislike Levin, but especially today.   And the defendant in the car case was rotten to the core. 

[AngelaHunter]

28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Good point, I always dislike Levin, but especially today.   And the defendant in the car case was rotten to the core. 

It kind of surprises me that these days where everyone is searching under every bush and in 40-year-old movies for something that triggers them, offends them and/or makes them uncomfortable that no one has whined about Levin's nasty, insulting, disrespectful cracks aimed at women.  But maybe the Great Offended spend all their time on Tumblr, IG, and FB and don't watch this show.

Rotten to the core. Yes, the witch certainly was.

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from May 21, 2018 and the discussion is on Page 108.  Here is the direct link:

Steaming Mad Over a Sideswipe