The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

Today’s first case (wedding dress loan) bothered me. Something felt really off about the defendant and her situation. After knowing each other for many years and finally getting married, three months later she is divorcing him. This happens but I also put that with the $1400 wedding dress that she and hubby couldn’t afford so together they came up with a plan to get a credit card to charge it and cover it with a loan from hubby’s parents. A key point was that the plaintiff said that the loan discussion was with both hubby (plaintiff’s son) and the bride to be, making it a joint debt as explained by JM (this will come up later). Lots of back and forth with defendant sounding (at least to me) rehearsed and scripted. Two issues stuck in my mind. First, JM asked why the defendant was so eager to get her wedding gown back. Defendant looked (again to me, YMMV) blank then JM gave her the answer that of course she wanted to sell it to get the money back and defendant immediately said that yes, of course that’s it and looked relieved. Given how her first brief marriage went down, I wondered if she has the next hubby lined up so may need the dress soon. The second thing that bothered me (and this is on JM more than the defendant), JM saw a text message from the defendant (quite late in the whole saga) that JM considers proof that the defendant was not in on the original discussion with hubby and plaintiff. If the defendant is as scheming as my cynical side suspects, the defendant sent this text to detach herself after the fact from a joint debt. I may well be completely wrong about all of this, but her cutesy innocent smiley presentation grated on my nerves. I really would have liked to hear something from the erstwhile hubby.

[callie lee 29]

Really, because the plaintiff struck me as the type who could never believe darling angel baby boy ,who apparently had been lying this entire time about the defendant emptying out the bank account, could possibly be in the wrong here. And they never got the money that the bank account paperwork shows was paid....

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Today’s first case (wedding dress loan) bothered me. Something felt really off about the defendant and her situation.

These litigants! Entitled millennial def, appearing here with her mommy and sporting her huge trendy glasses wanted, as they all do, a royal wedding even if they have no money and have maxed out any credit cards. The wedding is everything and the marriage? Not so much since they split up 3 months after getting hitched. Maybe she thought (as a friend of mine did) "I'm 28 and by now I should have at least one bad marriage behind me. Can't have people thinking I got left on the shelf."

She and her disabled, unemployed fiance didn't have enough money or credit to get everything they - more likely "she" - wanted for an appropriately grand, show-off affair so instead of scaling down the event (remember, it's all about the wedding and related trappings) they ask P to finance it. P - who also doesn't have the funds on hand is dumb enough to shower them with money for their fripperies and give them a credit card for a 1400$ wedding dress and more money for some venue.

BTW, P's assertion that no one was allowed in her home and she was unable to ask for the money back for many months because she was in a wheelchair sounded like a silly excuse.

Def was smarmy and manipulative, relying on how cute she thought she was, but P was extremely dumb to extend funds she couldn't afford to give to legal strangers.

Her "Aren't I adorable?" act seemed to work on JM who indeed seemed to find something cute and sympathetic about the little weasel.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I may well be completely wrong about all of this, but her cutesy innocent smiley presentation grated on my nerves.

You're completely right, IMHO. What normal, responsible person would anything about this debacle something to grin and smirk about?

[DoctorK]

Another fence case (at least not a dog attack case). Plaintiff was so clueless that it was painful to watch. As soon as the basic facts were presented, it was open and shut, following the law in most of the country (as JM pointed out clearly to the plaintiff who either didn’t listen or was too dense to understand), cut everything that intrudes onto your own property. The plaintiff was constantly defending her lazy landscaping guys who as JM pointed out repeatedly are not doing their job, some of the intruding plant trunks were around two inches in diameter so nobody has been doing the trimming for a very long time, The defendant could have handled things better but I have a feeling that he figured out that the plaintiff was impossible to deal with. (I think I know exactly how the heroic defender of dim women (Corriero) would have handled this case.)

Second case was sort of amusing in a pathetic way. The plaintiff doesn’t understand the basic concept of “facts”, and wouldn’t know the Truth if it bit her in the ass. She is also pretty nuts, claiming that her neighbor comes into her apartment and damages her floor, cracks a plastic container and even put bird seed in one of her drawers. But … but … but … she had all of the proof on her phone but she left it out on her front porch and someone sneaked up to it and deleted just the pictures (and left the phone) of the evil defendant poisoning her dog, damaging her apartment and even the pictures of her cute (only according to her) dog. She is a horrible neighbor to live close to.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The fence case was bizarre.  Everyone I know gets the idea that if something encroaches on your property, you chop it off, and if the roots are coming on your property, you chop them off too.  Then, you are responsible for the removal cost, and getting rid of the trash.      It was obvious that the brush had been growing through that rotten fence for a long time.   Defendant paying the lawn crew every month for removal needs to get a clue, and hire someone else.  

 

I'm so glad the defendant in the second case moved, the plaintiff would scare me to live next to her.  As we say where I live "the cheese slipped off of her cracker".   

 I wonder if plaintiff did follow the animal control ruling to get her dog out of L.A.?   I doubt that L.A. would rule a dog that barks would have to move out of the city, so I wonder what else was going on?    Doug found out the answer, the plaintiff claims that she never saw the notice from the city to get her dog out of city limits. 

Defendant may or may not move back to the other side of the duplex, I suggest she goes elsewhere, after calling animal control about plaintiff's dog still living inside the city limits.  

Plaintiff's claim that defendant was crawling through the void above the units was hysterical.     

Edited May 8, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Another fence case (at least not a dog attack case). Plaintiff was so clueless that it was painful to watch.

It was funny how she devolved from "sweet little old lady" to eye-rolling and arguing with JM.

As an absentee landlord, her gardeners were totally ripping her off, saying that for an extra 30$ a month, they would keep these rampant bushes at bay. They never did it even though she says they go there every week.

Her gardener told her this "explosion of growth" (like Genesis on Star Trek?) occurred after some rain when It was painfully obvious to everyone but the P that they had never been touched.  She swallowed their story hook, line, and sinker. Whose fault is that? 

Sorry, but unless her property is like the "Little Shop of Horrors" those huge trunks didn't pop up overnight. You don't need to be a botanist to look at those thick, woody, gnarly trunks and realize this is not anywhere near new.  She got duped and that's on her.

Def was kind of a jerk, saying he ignored her email, just because. He could have informed her then that these plants were growing between their two fences and she could do whatever she liked and pay for it herself. He offered to give JM California law to help her, but she merely told him, "I know the law". Durrrr... He should have sent those law papers to the P.

P needs to sue her gardener for getting paid for something he never did. She continues to pay him to this day.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

(I think I know exactly how the heroic defender of dim women (Corriero) would have handled this case.)

Cue kindly "Papa Mike" smile and, "You felt taken advantage of, didn't you?" He would have argued vehemently to give her the money back while the other two tore out their hair in frustration.

[Pepper the Cat]

If you think someone is using her key to enter your home and damage it, wouldn’t your first move be to change the lock?

 

[seacliffsal]

Both of the cases today involved plaintiffs who just wouldn't listen to JM.  The woman in the first case just refused to hear what the judge was saying about the law and kept insisting that JM should look at her photos because then she (JM) would understand.  The plaintiff in the second case just refused to hear what the judge was saying about evidence and kept insisting that had the evil defendant not deleted all of the photos off of the plaintiff's phone, then she (JM) would understand.  So, there were actually a lot of similarities between the two cases...

I actually felt sorry for the second plaintiff as I felt that she suffered from some delusions or paranoia.  Although her dog isn't a service dog, I would bet it is an emotional support for her.

[AngelaHunter]

I got different cases than Seacliffsal did.

The first was the piano woman who hired def. to transport her piano to its new owner and he was 1 1/2 hrs late and his workers were devoid of anything needed to actually get the piano into the truck and damaged her door while wrestling with the thing. This case was butted into for me by urgent, breaking news that simply could not wait I did catch the end and P was awarded $1475 to fix the damage. Doug lightly spanks def and yells after him as he's leaving some advice about better planning! Plaintiff looked and sounded like a perfect central-casting pick for "Piano teacher", although I don't know if she did that. She was quite delightful.

Then we had an uber-pontificating windbag condo owner. JM allowed him his 15+ minutes, and seemed to find him charming while he spouted an endless, rehearsed, unfunny comedy monologue, referring to the governing board as "incestuous" "idiots", and other derogatory terms all punctuated with a zillion drawn-out "Umms" and "Ahhs". Anyway, it seems his unit got flooded due to a blockage in the pipes. P orders his upstairs neighbour, who I believe he referred to as "Tickle Me" to stop using water, but alas, the idiot or moron actually used his water gain. 

P wants all kinds of money, including for the cleanup of his kitchen which is denied since the mess wouldn't have been so bad had he called a plumber right then.

I really couldn't take the P any longer, so don't know how much money, if any, he got.

I listened to JM and JJ discuss what they would have been had they not gone into law.

Judge John says he would have been an English professor and I can see him in that field but -Yes! JM says she originally wanted to be a therapist but someone tactfully informed her that she may be a better talker than a listener.

I'm picturing JM as a psychologist:

JM: "So, did I tell you about what happened at my wedding when my husband wanted to leave because his "stupid" Mustang took off on its own? Yes? Oh, well then you need to know about our three wonderful, beautiful, talented, SJW, perfect daughters! Did you know they missed their graduation ceremonies because of that stupid COVID? Try and imagine how devastated we all were. I told them we could hold the parties later, but you know it's just not the same! And..."

36 minutes later: "I dearly love those perfect beautiful daughters but I get annoyed when they steal my clothes and jewelry and I have to yell at them. My husband has no say about anything in our home, so he just slinks off to the garage to play with his cars and I'm left to hand out the discipline. One time..."

45 minutes later: "I don't really know what my incomparable daughters might do but both my husband and I hope for them to be professionals, hopefully in law so they can follow in their mother's footsteps. Did I mention that one of them drew on the walls when she was a small but perfect child? I did? But did I tell you that those circles she drew were absolutely perfect! "

50 minutes later: "My oldest lovely daughter is a grown woman but I'm sure you'll understand that I treat her, and all of them, like little babies who need my constant supervision and protection. If it were up to me, they'd all be living at home with me and..oh, yeah, their father - until they're at least 35, and... on another topic, my whole family are contractors and try and imagine how much it annoys me when anyone thinks I don't know about construction!"

53 minutes later: "Well, enough about me. Let's talk about you and make it fast. Time is nearly up!"

Okay. I'm just goofing around. I really adore JM!

So.."what happened was" I was trying to figure out who the condo def. reminded me of - some rock star, or minor celeb? I did admire his perfectly placed and streaked locks. Help me out, people.

 

 

[DoctorK]

10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was trying to figure out who the condo def. reminded me of - some rock star, or minor celeb?

Can't come up with who this reminds me of (maybe burned out surfer dude?) but I was really waiting for him to start saying things like "Really Dude?" and "like you know, Dude, I was" or maybe "you're harshing my mellow". Ah, cheers for the 60s and 70s.

[AngelaHunter]

21 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Ah, cheers for the 60s and 70s.

Maybe a combo of a young Bon Jovi and if he watches MeTV, facial hair from Maynard Krebs from "Dobie Gillis"?

[CrazyInAlabama]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I got different cases than Seacliffsal did.

The first was the piano woman who hired def. to transport her piano to its new owner and he was 1 1/2 hrs late and his workers were devoid of anything needed to actually get the piano into the truck and damaged her door while wrestling with the thing. This case was butted into for me by urgent, breaking news that simply could not wait I did catch the end and P was awarded $1475 to fix the damage. Doug lightly spanks def and yells after him as he's leaving some advice about better planning! Plaintiff looked and sounded like a perfect central-casting pick for "Piano teacher", although I don't know if she did that. She was quite delightful.

 

The piano movers did damage the bottom frame of the slider, but the original installer fixed that.  The big damages happened when the piano was taken over the deck, and a lot of work had to be done to get it level again.   That was what cost the defendant (actually the show) so much. 

"A Smelly Solution" new episode for Wednesday.   

Plaintiff father and son (both named Daniel DeForest) are suing for $1200 return of security deposit, and $1200 for the listing fee.    Defendant says the ad said no pets, but son/plaintiff brought a stinky ferret that defendant was allergic to.   

Plaintiff father says he talked to defendant about the ferrett before he signed the lease, and father claims defendant says the no pets wasn't going to be enforced.   

Defendant says son said he found a ferret, but said nothing about moving it into a place with a no pets policy.   New York law says ferrets are illegal in the state. 

Son did find ferret a couple of years ago.   New York says they are rodents, and ferrets that aren't surgically altered stink.  Judge M is trying to find any excuse to give every penny back to the plaintiffs.     

Defendant claims he didn't know ferret was in the apartment, and thought sonny would keep the ferret at the father's place in Pennsylvania.  I don't believe that defendant gave permission to move that animal in.  

As usual, ferret is called an emotional support animal.  

Judge M wants to talk to rental agent, but she didn't come to court.    I don't think someone who is allergic to almost any animals would say it's OK to bring in an animal to his place.  Ferret's cage was huge, at least 4 ft x 4 ft. 

Security to plaintiffs $1200.   No listing agent fee. I wouldn't give them a penny.

Another bad paint job on a car.   Plaintiff had body damage repaired on her car, and is suing because they didn't paint the roof, and she doesn't like the paint job. 

 Defendants/painters say the roof didn't have any damages, and didn't need repainting.   Defendant says he told plaintiff to wait 3 or 4 weeks and bring the car back for touch ups, but she refused to do that. 

There was no written contract or estimate. Plaintiff claims they had her car for a couple of months, rust and body repair, bumper damages, and paint.   Super close ups show bubbles, swirls, drip marks, but I don't see it.   It looks like there were scratches, but defendants claim that the car didn't have scratches when they finished it.   The final coat has to be done three weeks later, but plaintiff wanted her car back and refused to wait until the final coat was done. 

Defendants returned $1000, everything except $90, which plaintiff refused to accept. .    Plaintiff agreed on the receipts that she would settle for $1,000.   Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Plaintiff gets the remaining $90, and case is ended. 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A Smelly Solution" new episode for Wednesday. 

Thanks @CrazyInAlabama I got another urgent "Special Report" that butted into this whole case, except for the end, and upon seeing Daniel DeForest I and Daniel DeForest II, I was not annoyed at missing it.

9 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 New York says they are rodents

Omg. They are in the weasel family and certainly are NOT rodents. They feed on rodents and other prey. My niece had a ferret. It was very cuddly and sweet, but all weasels have a very strong musky smell. Even my niece's spayed female was musky. I didn't find her smell unpleasant - more like very strong baby powder - but some might not like it. I bet The Levin was jonesing over this, as he does over anything smelly, dirty, or "stinky". Gross little shit.

9 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Another bad paint job on a car

That ol' Charger is a regular cash cow. P is suing Def's for nearly twice what she paid them, and after accepting 1K as a settlement. NOW she is suing some other body shop for 6K when she paid them 3K. She is not shy about admitting this. I think P does this kind of thing regularly and may be a scammer. She gets 90$. Haha.

What was with Ms. Prickler and her Veronica Lake hairdo? Maybe hiding a black eye? She did seem rather rough.

[seacliffsal]

Regarding the ferret case-I find it incredibly cruel that the son kept a wild ferret in a cage when he was out.  He claimed that he thought the ferret had a previous owner, but there's no evidence of that.  Caging animals that are used to roaming freely seems cruel to me.  And their "we didn't know..." about ferrets being illegal in NY seemed overplayed to me.  JM decided immediately that she didn't like the defendant and told him to stop "mansplaining" to her.  I wondered why JM didn't call the listing agent in order to find out if they did indeed talk about the ferret at the signing (I bet Judge Judy would have called).  That seemed like a simple solution to finding out who was telling the truth.  I doubt that someone with such extreme allergies would be excited to have an animal brought into his house.  The fact he didn't collect a pet deposit seems to back up his testimony.

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

Regarding the ferret case-I find it incredibly cruel that the son kept a wild ferret in a cage when he was out.

Where did he find this ferret? There are no wild ferrets in the US (or anywhere else, to my knowledge). They are all domesticated so this one probably did have a former owner and either escaped or was dumped when the owner got tired of it or didn't like the smell.

[Guest]

On 5/9/2023 at 5:54 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I got different cases than Seacliffsal did.

The first was the piano woman who hired def. to transport her piano to its new owner and he was 1 1/2 hrs late and his workers were devoid of anything needed to actually get the piano into the truck and damaged her door while wrestling with the thing. This case was butted into for me by urgent, breaking news that simply could not wait I did catch the end and P was awarded $1475 to fix the damage. Doug lightly spanks def and yells after him as he's leaving some advice about better planning! Plaintiff looked and sounded like a perfect central-casting pick for "Piano teacher", although I don't know if she did that. She was quite delightful.

Then we had an uber-pontificating windbag condo owner. JM allowed him his 15+ minutes, and seemed to find him charming while he spouted an endless, rehearsed, unfunny comedy monologue, referring to the governing board as "incestuous" "idiots", and other derogatory terms all punctuated with a zillion drawn-out "Umms" and "Ahhs". Anyway, it seems his unit got flooded due to a blockage in the pipes. P orders his upstairs neighbour, who I believe he referred to as "Tickle Me" to stop using water, but alas, the idiot or moron actually used his water gain. 

P wants all kinds of money, including for the cleanup of his kitchen which is denied since the mess wouldn't have been so bad had he called a plumber right then.

I really couldn't take the P any longer, so don't know how much money, if any, he got.

I listened to JM and JJ discuss what they would have been had they not gone into law.

Judge John says he would have been an English professor and I can see him in that field but -Yes! JM says she originally wanted to be a therapist but someone tactfully informed her that she may be a better talker than a listener.

I'm picturing JM as a psychologist:

JM: "So, did I tell you about what happened at my wedding when my husband wanted to leave because his "stupid" Mustang took off on its own? Yes? Oh, well then you need to know about our three wonderful, beautiful, talented, SJW, perfect daughters! Did you know they missed their graduation ceremonies because of that stupid COVID? Try and imagine how devastated we all were. I told them we could hold the parties later, but you know it's just not the same! And..."

36 minutes later: "I dearly love those perfect beautiful daughters but I get annoyed when they steal my clothes and jewelry and I have to yell at them. My husband has no say about anything in our home, so he just slinks off to the garage to play with his cars and I'm left to hand out the discipline. One time..."

45 minutes later: "I don't really know what my incomparable daughters might do but both my husband and I hope for them to be professionals, hopefully in law so they can follow in their mother's footsteps. Did I mention that one of them drew on the walls when she was a small but perfect child? I did? But did I tell you that those circles she drew were absolutely perfect! "

50 minutes later: "My oldest lovely daughter is a grown woman but I'm sure you'll understand that I treat her, and all of them, like little babies who need my constant supervision and protection. If it were up to me, they'd all be living at home with me and..oh, yeah, their father - until they're at least 35, and... on another topic, my whole family are contractors and try and imagine how much it annoys me when anyone thinks I don't know about construction!"

53 minutes later: "Well, enough about me. Let's talk about you and make it fast. Time is nearly up!"

Okay. I'm just goofing around. I really adore JM!

So.."what happened was" I was trying to figure out who the condo def. reminded me of - some rock star, or minor celeb? I did admire his perfectly placed and streaked locks. Help me out, people.

 

 

He reminds me a bit of Jonathan Cain of Journey.   

[AngelaHunter]

I'm probably alone, but I like boat cases. They are usually pretty kooky and devoid of punching, biting, kicking, or other forms of abuse and/or vandalism.

The litigants had a "gentleman's agreement" for a boat they bought jointly for 1500$. If they no longer wanted to own it jointly, D would buy P out for that amount, the boat would be sold by def. and any profit was to be split. This agreement was in writing but, being true gentlemen, neither signed it.

Def says he sold the boat for $3,400. P says it was sold for $6,500 from which he wants his cut but says, "Well, I don't have proof!" JM informs him that proof is what you might need in court, and not water cooler gossip or hearsay. Seems P even called it "hearsay'' in his complaint. I must say he didn't seem overly bright anyway. He wants to get into Def's marital problems and tell JM how D has alienated all his old friends, but JM is not interested.

Def says he agreed to give P more money because P is very intimidating and his wife and child were in the car while P and D argued outside. JM wants to know if he thought P was going to get violent or cause harm to wife and child?

Def looks to be in his 70s and has a 6-year-old boy.  What's with this big trend now of men who are grandpa and even great-grandpa ages having babies and little children? Maybe he'll make it to 85 and see the kid off to college. In the meantime, I doubt he'll be teaching the boy to ride a bicycle, will coach sports, or take the kid to practices. Oh, well. Maybe between naps.

P tells JM about D: "I feel like he's being liable. He's harassed me at work and... I don't...umm...I don't think that's necessary." Whatever.

Anyway, P's hearsay evidence fails and JM has to decide what he's owed. Def has a printed email with typing to show what he paid a mechanic friend for repairs. I guess JM used it as a doily for her coffee cup. It's decided P gets $526 and not the $2,500 he wanted. Friendship is kaput. Odd it lasted 20 years since Def explains how ill-tempered and intimidating the P is and "I don't want him around my son".  I maybe have mixed up a few facts in this convoluted tale of woe.

Then we had yelling P suing her great friend or cousin for the cost of a birthday trip to New Orleans. After everything was paid for P finds out D "wasn't gonna get no COVID shots" so P refuses to share a room with her and the trip is off.

P informs JM that both of them have "underlining conditions" and it's not safe for her to bunk with Def. She never asked ahead of time if D had the vaccinations and Def never offered that info. It's funny how these great friends or cousins never brought this up in conversation in the last few years. I know my friends and family and I always mentioned if, when, and where we got shots. I guess some people didn't.  Def says the money was a birthday gift. JM asks her if P at the time told her she'd have to pay it back. "Yes". I've had it with this although JM seems to find something precious about it.

Levin's title: "It's the case of hit me with your best shot."

What a goof. What a fucking goof.

[AngelaHunter]

I think I got it. "Tickle Me" or whatever, looks like a cheaply made knock-off of Keith Urban:

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

So, today's sad story.  "Letting a Dad Down"    Plaintiff suing daughter and son-in-law for repayment of a loan.   She says it was a gift to pay for her wedding venue.   Plaintiff says daughter's mother absconded with her and he didn't know where she was for many years.   Daughter says mother said plaintiff wasn't interested in supporting or visiting with daughter.     

So, daughter claims it was a gift for the venue out of guilt, and plaintiff doesn't want repayment.   She also says that plaintiff then got insulted by her indifference, and then either plaintiff's other daughter, or plaintiff pretending to be the other daughter sent defendant horrible facebook texts to her.  

If defendants were broke, then why spend thousands on a wedding?   They would have save a bundle with a justice of the peace wedding.   After plaintiff paid for rent for daughter, and the wedding venue, he wasn't invited to the wedding.  Plaintiff has a total of five kids, and defendant claims he posted on FB that he has eleven kids.  This reminds me of the case a few weeks ago, where the daughter claims her mother put her in a mental hospital when child was young, claimed to have many health and mental issues, and mother said it was all a lie.  

Defendant reads the posts from FB saying defendant only wants the plaintiff for money.    Judge M says don't pay for the venue, and it won't give them a relationship.    

Plaintiff gets $1300 for the loan. 

Plaintiff pawned a vaulable gold coin and necklace at defendant's pawn shop, and items were sold without plaintiff being notified.   Defendant says there's a deadline to pay off the loan and redeem your pawned merchandise, and plaintiff came in and pawned the items, and never came back again.   So, when the deadline passed, defendant sold the merchandise.  

Even though it's on the contract, the pawn shop still has to send notices to plaintiff, and they did. Plaintiff denies he ever received any notices. 

Plaintiff claims he didn't receive any letters from defendant or the text they sent him. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, he ignored multiple notices that the jewelry was going to be sold, and had zero proof he owned or pawned the coin.  (Thanks to rcc I can update the ending). 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So, today's sad story.  "Letting a Dad Down"    Plaintiff suing daughter and son-in-law for repayment of a loan.   She says it was a gift to pay for her wedding venue.   Plaintiff says daughter's mother absconded with her and he didn't know where she was for many years.   Daughter says mother said plaintiff wasn't interested in supporting or visiting with daughter.     

So, daughter claims it was a gift for the venue out of guilt, and plaintiff doesn't want repayment.   She also says that plaintiff then got insulted by her indifference, and then either plaintiff's other daughter, or plaintiff pretending to be the other daughter sent defendant horrible facebook texts to her.  

If defendants were broke, then why spend thousands on a wedding?   They would have save a bundle with a justice of the peace wedding.   After plaintiff paid for rent for daughter, and the wedding venue, he wasn't invited to the wedding.  Plaintiff has a total of five kids, and defendant claims he posted on FB that he has eleven kids.  This reminds me of the case a few weeks ago, where the daughter claims her mother put her in a mental hospital when child was young, claimed to have many health and mental issues, and mother said it was all a lie.  

Defendant reads the posts from FB saying defendant only wants the plaintiff for money.    Judge M says don't pay for the venue, and it won't give them a relationship.    

Plaintiff gets $1300 for the loan. 

Plaintiff pawned a vaulable gold coin and necklace at defendant's pawn shop, and items were sold without plaintiff being notified.   Defendant says there's a deadline to pay off the loan and redeem your pawned merchandise, and plaintiff came in and pawned the items, and never came back again.   So, when the deadline passed, defendant sold the merchandise.  

Even though it's on the contract, the pawn shop still has to send notices to plaintiff, and they did. Plaintiff denies he ever received any notices. 

Plaintiff claims he didn't receive any letters from defendant or the text they sent him. 

I'm guessing plaintiff case dismissed, but there's a huge thunderstorm coming, and everything will be turned off for safety. 

 

 

Plaintiff got nothing. He claims to be a poor man but wears lots of jewelry to court.

[patty1h]

Letting a Dad Down - I didn't get good vibes from the daughter.  I think she had a right to feel abandoned by her father but that didn't stop her from seeking him out for money when she was down on her luck.  She just seemed like another in the long line of borrowers who take the most minor excuse to say they no longer owe on their debt.

To me, that was a big leap to blame the dad masquerading as his other daughters to badmouth the defendant, but I think the defendant was still having money issues and she found the perfect excuse to renege on the loan.  Also, not having any proof to back up her claim of debt forgiveness just cemented that she was going to lose.

[AngelaHunter]

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Letting a Dad Down"    Plaintiff suing daughter and son-in-law for repayment of a loan. 

P dad's kid(s) disappear when their mother decides she doesn't want dad around (and I guess didn't want child support which is for the children) and he shrugs and says, "Oh, well. Guess they're gone". and never bothers looking for his daughter for the next quarter of a century. Seriously if someone took off with my PETS I'd try harder to find them.

Dad has another daughter, a 28-year-old woman who acts like she's 12 and posts mean things about Def on the wonderful FB, which helps us keep in touch with absent loved ones and also facilitates scams, provides income for repulsive gigolos, ruins lives, and destroys livelihoods. 

28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

If defendants were broke, then why spend thousands on a wedding?   They would have save a bundle with a justice of the peace wedding. 

Oh, please! Def daughter, preggo here, and her top-knotted little hubby look as though they live hand to mouth ( I don't how many other kids they have) but the show must go on. As I said previously, it's ALL about the wedding and the trappings even if they can't afford it.

What bothered me in this is that Daddy obviously paid not a single cent to support this daughter yet he wants his $1300 back. How much would that child support have cost for 18 or 20 years?

33 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff pawned a vaulable gold coin and necklace at defendant's pawn shop, and items were sold without plaintiff being notified.

That was fun. P is a man past middle age who explains how happy he was to see a pawn shop open in his area. After all, if one needs money the only options are pawn shops or loan sharks. Well, for him those are the only options and for him pawn shops - which charge VERY high interest - are like banks. He has bad credit which it seems he's had since 1984 when he started using pawn shops and maybe loan sharks too. At least no one from pawn shops will come and break your kneecaps if you don't pay.

He wears his bank account around his neck in a mass of gold chains and has money to buy very expensive coins bought only to pawn, it seems. He has no receipt for this Mexican gold coin and the pawn owner has no record of it. They sent him notices - snail mail, texts, emails - everything but a carrier pigeon -  to come to pay the interest or get the item, all of which he ignored, but he's not tech-savy! He was born in 1963 so no one could expect him to know how to use a computer or a cell phone so I guess he expected, as JM said, for the pawn owner to come and knock on his door as a last resort. I know someone who is 87 and uses a computer and cell phone.

Anyway, he loses but he tells Doug he's very happy he got a chance to "expose" the crooked pawn shop for their nefarious practices - of only sending him 3 notices? I guess so. If no one put the notices in his hand, it's not his fault!

Doug seemed to enjoy the P's insane ranting.

[callie lee 29]

I think the daughter was full of shit and needed to enunciate. I also really wanted to take a pair of scissors and snip off the grooms little top knot right on top of his head. 

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, callie lee 29 said:

I also really wanted to take a pair of scissors and snip off the grooms little top knot right on top of his head. 

When I see that "Man bun" on someone like him, I always think of this:

 

 

[Razzberry]

Today's case...

[patty1h]

"A Family Fallout" - The case of two grown sisters tussling, a broken TV and a lawsuit.  Per plaintiff Twa, her sisters have always fought and there was an incident where a sister refused to leave her house and a TV got destroyed.   

The sisters have a history of violence, but Twa had sister (first name?) Youngblood over anyway.  They get squabbling and Twa tells Youngblood to leave.  Instead of just leaving like a rational person, behemoth sister Youngblood says "you drive me home or else".   This sister is one of those fools who make themselves so irritating that they can get their way because no one wants them around.    Before you know it, Youngblood knocks the TV over, Twa's husband is trying to get Youngblood out and Twa has puIled a gun.  Youngblood goes outside and tries to pull Twa's car door off!  Police are called.

If I were Twa I would have been tempted to pull a gun to get that monster out of my house, too.  Grown people fighting and pulling guns and knocking TVs over and messing up video games.  I'd like a seat on the next flight to Pluto cause this planet is full up with stupid.  Ugh.  Twa gets money for the TV but not the video game.

The second case was a contest to see which sibling had less teeth.  I think "David" won.

Edited May 15, 2023 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

14 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

Today's case...

No, no, NO! WTactualF???

My tolerance is nearing zero for certain things. As soon as I heard the first "basically" P say that the heavily-fake eyelashed def's girlfriend was "in shambles" and then something about a boyfriend who D informed P "Wasn't (fucking/screwing/rutting with - it was bleeped) her no more", I had enough. Watching this show is making celibacy an attractive option.

I hit FF, thinking the next case had to be better, right? Couldn't be worse, RIGHT? Holeeee shit. Oh, my eyes and my ears!😱

We got three Toothless "We was" Hags from Hillbilly Holler whose appearance halted the progression of my forkful of spaghetti and meatballs to my mouth. Wait. I lie. One of them had teeth. One was semi-toothed and the other was completely toothless but had earrings. I kept skipping ahead while averting my eyes and then find out that "D", alias "Boney", (the completely toothless one who I thought was the Ugliest Sister) def is not one of the Hag Sisters, but a brother. I think? Did I get that right? Can someone clarify? I simply could not deal with any of this.

The brief snippets I saw of JM attempting rational conversation with any of today's litigants had the theme from "The Twilight Zone' running through my stunned brain.

I need to watch a "Saw" movie to get today's horrors out of my head.

*errors in the post were caused by brain freeze* so it's not my fault!

[rcc]

11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

No, no, NO! WTactualF???

My tolerance is nearing zero for certain things. As soon as I heard the first "basically" P say that the heavily-fake eyelashed def's girlfriend was "in shambles" and then something about a boyfriend who D informed P "Wasn't (fucking/screwing/rutting with - it was bleeped) her no more", I had enough. Watching this show is making celibacy an attractive option.

I hit FF, thinking the next case had to be better, right? Couldn't be worse, RIGHT? Holeeee shit. Oh, my eyes and my ears!😱

We got three Toothless "We was" Hags from Hillbilly Holler whose appearance halted the progression of my forkful of spaghetti and meatballs to my mouth. Wait. I lie. One of them had teeth. One was semi-toothed and the other was completely toothless but had earrings. I kept skipping ahead while averting my eyes and then find out that "D", alias "Boney", (the completely toothless one who I thought was the Ugliest Sister) def is not one of the Hag Sisters, but a brother. I think? Did I get that right? Can someone clarify? I simply could not deal with any of this.

The brief snippets I saw of JM attempting rational conversation with any of today's litigants had the theme from "The Twilight Zone' running through my stunned brain.

I need to watch a "Saw" movie to get today's horrors out of my head.

*errors in the post were caused by brain freeze* so it's not my fault!

I can't clarify. Confuses me too.

[Razzberry]

19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

One of them had teeth. One was semi-toothed and the other was completely toothless but had earrings. I kept skipping ahead while averting my eyes and then find out that "D", alias "Boney", (the completely toothless one who I thought was the Ugliest Sister) def is not one of the Hag Sisters, but a brother. I think? Did I get that right? Can someone clarify? I simply could not deal with any of this.

I think the defendant in earbuds (David or now "Dee") used to be the brother of semi-toothless, but had a late-in-life change of pronouns.  What the actual case was about, I'm not sure. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

I think the defendant in earbuds (David or now "Dee") used to be the brother of semi-toothless, but had a late-in-life change of pronouns.  What the actual case was about, I'm not sure. 

Yeah, okay. Thank you. I can say nothing more.

What I gathered before frantically searching for the FF button is that all this insanity and gummy yammering is over some 900$ car that a brother who died (no one knows why he died) left.

[AngelaHunter]

Oh, boy. Different day, same old shit.

Bubbles the Weeping Plaintiff is suing her ex-true love, the shaved-headed douchenozzle man-child for all the money she showered on him while they were living together.

He just had to have a motorcycle but couldn't afford one, so Weepy "nicely" gives him 1200$. Well, then he wanted another motorcycle so she had no trouble forking over more money - I think 950$ - to him. That one had "issues" so he and his good buddy bought a third one together. Maybe the good buddy paid for that and got Weepy off the hook for once.

Then Sir Lancelot, this big 27-year-old man decided that when he grows up he really wants to be a truck driver. Imagine how cool it will be to pull that air horn and say things like, "Hey, good buddy. Break 1-9 for that westbound bull rack", so the little miss "generously" (where did this 22-year-old get all this money?)offers to pay most of their living expenses so the dope can follow his latest dream. I won't even talk about the fact that these two immature nitwits playing house got a dog. Great. BUT, they did refrain from having any babies. It's nearly a miracle.

He said he'd pay her back eventually - yeah when hell freezes over - and she had no problem with that. What upset her terribly, what he did to her, what made her uncomfortable (and makes her start dripping tears here) is that he *gasp* looked at porn online. I thought she was going to say he was shooting heroin or banging little Brittney, the new squeeze he brought with him here.  Miss (I forget her name), if you are going to go ballistic and freak every time a boyfriend looks at porn or as she called it, "Naked women" online, you will be alone forever.

Anyway, Brandon the Prize says he "needs his space/needs to be on his own" and finds his freedom when he runs back to Mommy and Daddy, where I assume he can watch naked women in peace. It used to be a joke in sitcoms of old that after an argument the wife would go home to Mother. Now grown and even middle-aged and older men and women do it. 

P has texts where she's asking for her money. At first he agrees, but then Prince Brandon tells her he doesn't like her attitude and that "just costed" her the money.

JM awards P the money and gives her some advice about being a stupid ATM.

Doug wants to know if dipshit Brandon just came here with Brittney in tow to "rub it in" to the P. Brandon really is a douchenozzle. I wonder if he's still with the 'rents or if Brittney has taken over paying for his whims and toys. Maybe he wants to be a fireman now. Or a cowboy. Brittney can buy the horse.

[Razzberry]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Miss (I forget her name), if you are going to go ballistic and freak every time a boyfriend looks at porn or as she called it, "Naked women" online, you will be alone forever.

I know, right?  The horrific memory still brings tears to her eyes, like she caught him in bed boning her best friend. 

[patty1h]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Miss (I forget her name), if you are going to go ballistic and freak every time a boyfriend looks at porn or as she called it, "Naked women" online, you will be alone forever.

When she started crying, I felt a moment of *uh oh* that she found him looking at ch!ld p0rn, but then she said it was naked women.   Sis, nothing is gonna stop people from looking at porn so get a thicker skin or work on your self-esteem.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Razzberry said:

The horrific memory still brings tears to her eyes

I really feared a true crying jag.

Show me a man who never ever looks at porn or "bare naked women". You don't even need porn to see them. Just watch something like Game of Thrones, overflowing with bare-assed women.

3 hours ago, Razzberry said:

like she caught him in bed boning her best friend. 

Or pimped her out, posted her naked selfies on 'PornHut', picked her up and threw her into a wall, kicked her in the stomach, or done other heinous things ("He strangled me.")our lovely litigants have endured in the name of Love.

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

 Sis, nothing is gonna stop people from looking at porn so get a thicker skin or work on your self-esteem.

Amen. I wish JM had advised her about THAT.

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/15/2023 at 5:02 PM, Razzberry said:

Today's case...

I'm sorry to bring this up, but every time I come to this page and see that, I just start cackling like a loon, so hard I'm crying.

The best part of these pics? That caption that oh-so-casually and rationally mentions insurance. 😆🤣

[Mrs Shibbles]

This show is really circling the drain.  They stretch these boring cases out, so they can do two cases per episode.  By the end you end up not caring at all about what is happening.

[DoctorK]

I was getting a little interested in the Great T-Shirt Case. Then Mr. Local Weatherman took over and provided about three minutes of actually important tornado warnings (although happening a couple of hundred miles away). However, he apparently wanted a lot of face time so he kept repeating the same info (with gestures of course) again and again and again ... . he ran over 22 minutes with his 3 minutes of info so I missed the conclusion of the Great T-Shirt Case. My life is therefore left painfully unfulfilled, woe is me. Think I can take Mr. Local Weatherman to Peoples Court to sue for mental anguish? If I get on the show I'll wave to you'all.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think the show staff knew they were cancelled before they filmed the new episode, so they didn't care about finding interesting cases. 

Defendants in the t shirt case claim the banner they have at the payment desk covers the t shirt company lack of performance, and their policy is they will remake the order.   Plaintiff says the banner about no refunds was put up after his complaint, but can't prove it.   How can a t shirt company claim they can't get 3XLs?   They could get shirts like that from online sources, or at a store very quickly.     Defendants don't have the no refund policy on their website, on the receipts, or on invoices.  Only the banner at the payment desk, but there is a dispute of when that was posted. 

Plaintiff says t shirts were all presold, but plaintiff has no proof.   However, there is no proof of refunds, or presales.   

Judge M says since t shirts were presold, then having them redone by defendants will work.   

PLaintiff wants a full refund, $1000 for refunds he had to do, but has no proof of that.    Defendants blame bad job on plaintiff's changes, the time limits, and the rush order.  

Judge M decides no money to plaintiff, and says defendants should redo the t shirt order, if that's what he wants.  Plaintiff Chad says he won't get the t shirts made again, the work was awful, and resulting shirts were unsellable. 

Case 2-Plaintiff is in the vinyl record business, and says he was going to sell broker the sale of defendant's entire store for $2500 commission, to defendant.  Defendant says plaintiff is unreliable, and he owes him nothing.   Plaintiff says defendant and friend said he was making too much money on the record shop deal, so they didn't want to continue with him.   Defendant says plaintiff is known to be a little off, and he didn't want to deal with him. 

Plaintiff claims for setting up the deal between defendant and the other buyer, that plaintiff's commision would be $2500.   However, defendant says the buyer didn't pay him $50k, and took double the inventory he was selling, so he doesn't owe plaintiff anything. 

PLaintiff claims the buyer paid $70k, not $50 to defendant, and he should have received $3500 commission, not $2500. 

PLaintiff receives the $2500 commission.  

 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

PLaintiff wants a full refund, $1000 for refunds he had to do, but has no proof of that.

He also wanted $2500 for "embarrassment".  I think before litigants are signed up to appear here, there needs to be a questionnaire that includes:

"Do you have one single shred of proof or evidence for what you are claiming?

Will you request that the judge just take your word for it because:

1 - You never lie

2 - You are a Christian sporting a large cross (tattooed, hanging around your neck, and/or emblazoned on a tee shirt with sequins

3 - You trusted him/her and you are a very nice, big-hearted person

4 - You feel the judge should believe you instead of her lyin' eyes.

5 - You were going to or coming from church when the incident occurred?

If they answer "No' to the first question and "Yes" to any of the others they should be told to take a hike.

Anyway, the next case involved the superannuated vinyl record dealers, Bobby and Ron. Bobby feels that Ron is "shady" and Ron says that Bobby is "off" yet they choose to do business together.

Ron says that the Germans Bobby hooked him up with cheated him. He actually got 70K on a 50K sale of records at first because of a "glitch" in Paypal but he says he returned the surplus 20K.

Ron feels that Bobby is responsible for these Germans taking 860 boxes of records instead of the 400 they actually paid for, even though Ron was right there, watching these nefarious Germans take over double what they paid for so and did nothing about it. He refuses to pay Bobby his commission for brokering the deal because somehow Ron's inattention/negligence is Bobby's fault.

Aside from all that, the most surprising thing to me is that Bobby, who appears to be about 80 was off visiting his mother. Maybe because I lost my own parents fairly young I'm always amazed to see very elderly people who still have a mother or father and from whom they are very often sponging and freeloading.

We get this brilliant summation of the particulars of this case, believe it or not:

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

new, "Dog Borading Debacle"

Plaintiff suing boarding facility owner for her adorable Dachshund Rooster, being bitten while at defendant's facility, $1344 vet bills and board   Defendant says it's a cage free facility, and Rooster tried to steal another dog's food while being boarded at Tiny Treasure Puppies, aka Wilton Waggerz.     She's boarded Rooster at the facility twice before, and dog was in day care boarding for a couple of months. 

Rooster needs medication for his separation anxiety too.   On pick up, plaintiff was told Rooster was bitten by another dog.  Plaintiff didn't take dog to the vet for four days, and by then the bite was infected.  Rooster was nailed while swiping food from another dog.  

Since it's cage free, there is no separation between animals.  That's when plaintiff goes over the top, and says they need to separate animals at feeding time.   That's not how cage free works, food aggressive or dog aggressive animals don't come back to boarding or day care. 

Defendant's contract is signed by both parties, with a waiver of liability for any damages, and plaintiff signed it. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   I suggest defendant ban Rooster from his facility. 

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant caterer to put on her 30th birthday party, and is suing for $500.  Plaintiff claims the food wasn't the same quality as the tasting food.   Defendant says during cooking for her party, he was called by the supplier and told there was a refrigeration problem with the chicken, so defendant had to dispose of it, and buy more chicken.   Plaintiff says it was supposed to be chicken leg quarters, and instead she was served chicken breast, and the rice pilaf wasn't good either.  

Plaintiff says the food at the tasting was wonderful, including salmon, broccoli, etc.    $1500 for 80 to 100 people was the party attendence.   Defendant Ernest was only one of several vendors, and party went from 6 to 10 p.m., with cocktail hour.  Ernest would be providing a bottle of wine and a bottle of champaign for each table.   Then, Ernest was late, about 7:30 instead of at 6:00 pm.   But the issues with the chicken having to be redone would account for that.   Plaintiff also says the chicken was pink inside, but that doesn't mean it's raw.   No champaign or wine showed either.   How can anyone supply food, wine and champaign for 80 to 100 people, for $1500?   So, for 80 people that's 18.75 each and for 100 people it's 15.00 per person, so really cheap.   The party food was supposed to be chicken, glazed salmon, sweet potatoes, wine and champaign, some kind of skewers.   This was caterer giving her a huge deal to get his name back out there because of Covid.   

The video of the party shows people with huge platters of food, and it looks good.    Defendant says he arrived before plaintiff did, and he wasn't late, but did setup, and then went home to change clothes.  Defendant says wine and champaign wasn't for serving with dinner, but just enough for a toast. 

 

$250 for plaintiff.  I wouldn't have given her a dime.   She had way more than $1500 worth of food, wine, etc.   

(Warning, on the commercial for a new episode, the judge will try reuniting a family, either tomorrow or next week.  Have a barf bag ready). 

 

[patty1h]

I got a hinky feeling from both parties in the 30th BD Party case.  The plaintiff had some valid complaints - she paid for things that she didn't get and that's unacceptable, but I think she was going overboard about the quality of the food and asking for an inflated refund.

The caterer didn't seem to be an angel either and I wondered if maybe he did a bait & switch -- the food was great at the tasting in order to get the job, but he cut some corners to keep more money in his pocket and hope that the client would accept his excuses and let it go.    This case obviously brought out the pessimist in me but I thought the refund was fair.

[AngelaHunter]

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff suing boarding facility owner for her adorable Dachshund Rooster

Good lord. That nutty woman's voice gave me a headache, especially as she yelped on and on about what she felt and what she thought. No wonder poor Rooster is neurotic with his separation anxiety and all that. Dogs are not born this way. Their owners create their problems.

These doggy daycares and dog parks are a recipe for disaster. Throw together a bunch of strange dogs - who have a strict hierarchy - and give them high-value toys and food and then keel over in shock when they get into a fight.

Hell, put a bunch of toddlers together and watch them clobber each other. Dogs are not stuffed toys or Care Bears who always "play nice" and it takes literally 1 second for a dog to attack another over food. Dogs will kill each other for food. It's their way! Owners who put them in these situations need to educate themselves. It's not fair. This doggy daycare owner should not be feeding these dogs in close proximity. If his facility doesn't permit for separating them, he could at least put some hooks in the wall and leash them.

JM says, "I wouldn't want my dog in a cage either." Well, I boarded my big dogs in a kennel (it's not a "cage") where they had access outside, got leash-walked, and had no opportunity to be attacked or to attack another dog. No, they didn't enjoy being there but a few days being kennelled was better than suffering 1200$ injuries or my being sued.

30 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff says the food at the tasting was wonderful, including salmon, broccoli, etc.

This woman is so young -  just turned 30 which shocked me - and her laboured breathing made me so uneasy I gave up. Worry less about glazes and butter sauce and more about your health. I did read that this generation is the first in history that will have lifespans shorter than their parents or even grandparents. It's really very alarming and concerning.

 

34 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$250 for plaintiff.

Thanks for the verdict.

35 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Warning, on the commercial for a new episode, the judge will try reuniting a family, either tomorrow or next week.  Have a barf bag ready). 

Duly noted, thanks. Maybe these kinds of warnings should be given instead of advising viewer discretion for a mention, or even a whisper of "sexual matters" in which there is no sex at all.

I kind of enjoyed JJ and JM answering a "Hey, Judges" (Rude!) question about meeting people in unexpected places. This happened to me. I was basically visiting a friend who basically lived 2,100 miles away. I basically walked into a mall and who do I see but a woman I basically worked with at home. It was basically surreal. She was basically like, "What the hell?" and I was all like, "What the hell??" and we were both, like, "What the hell?"

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Losing it on a Phone"  So, previous wife, and mother of Kyle, with ex, is suing defendants ex-husband and new wife, confiscated cell phone from Kyle, and then new wifey 'accidentally' ran over the cell phone. New wifey is the one who ratted out the son, and 'accidentally' ran over the phone.   Then defendant ex-husband admits that he's using this entire incident as  part of gaining custody.   I don't understand what program Kyle is in that prohibits him having a cell phone, and then has limited access.   I guess Kyle is a naughty person.      There is no way in hell new wifey accidentally dropped the phone and ran over it.    New wifey was supposedly going through the phone, to make screen shots, so defendant ex-husband could send the screen shots to his custody lawyer.     

The children are actually 15 and 16 years old, so they are old enough not to have to go to either home if they don't want to.   Bet daddy and new wife won't get full time custody, and may not have visitation.  

The litigants have been divorced for nine years!    And they're still fighting over custody.   

Plaintiff gets $200 for the phone. 

New wifey spouts off to Doug in the hallway, saying she wanted the judge to tell her when the plaintiff will be held accountable as a parent.

Edited May 19, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

59 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Losing it on a Phone"

I continue to be fascinated when we see side-by-side evidence that everyone has a "type". Reuben's preference seems to be for large, very dim-witted women. I'm not sure who was dumber, the P or Reuben's new soulmate. The latter was particularly annoying with her stupid giggling and her "like, like" teen talk. "I busted in the door" and  "The phone got 'ran over'. Hee hee hee!" She seemed to think she was cute or something. Nope. Not even a little bit.  That she's a paraplegic wasn't relevant but she thought JM needed to know that for some reason, maybe a sympathy bid even though she was able to bust in the door.

I'd rather not speculate on what this 15-year-old was doing that he got prohibited from using the internet without supervision, but it must be pretty bad. Still, his momma - who has five phones - decided he could access "a little bit of internet". With all this sordid crap, phones are the main issue here. "Wow", says the brainless new wifey at the conclusion. Ugh.

More phone fights. Aunty P (she's 29) loans her nephew (he's 21) $600 to buy a hoopty. He says he'll pay the money back when he "gets his taxes". He was unable to drive this car without crashing it pronto but was very diligent to get his burgundy-dyed topknot and shiny suit to appear here. He got his Aunty a discount on a phone - all these people who really need the latest iPhone they can't afford still amazes me  - and somehow got her a CC? I guess she needed help with that too and Def (who has "issues' with the IRS but has no idea why they kept his refund  - really?) figures all that cancels his debt, even though none of it cost him a cent. It does not. What a tool. Aunty gets her 779$ for whatever nonsense.

 

[Pepper the Cat]

I accidentally drove over it with my car. Sure. Right. Who does she think she’s kidding.

[seacliffsal]

All I wanted to know about was the program in which the son is enrolled and has to follow.  I also wanted to know why his mother allowed him a phone with internet.  Get him a flip phone-they still make them without internet access and all of the other doodads.

[seacliffsal]

Today's first case was a disgruntled plaintiff who bought a custom diamond necklace (it was a diamond "name" pendant).  She thought the 'u' and 'y' weren't open enough and that the diamonds weren't 'sparkly' enough.  The defendant didn't stand a chance as his sister, who works with him, sent a text that stated the diamonds would all be diamond cut (or something) but instead most of them were chips.  I have really mixed feelings about this case as the diamond chips were not as promised, but it was a really good price for a custom piece and the plaintiff got an appraisal (from a different jeweler) which was higher than what she paid.  Anyway, the defendant settled to return $250.  Had I been the defendant I would probably want to give a full refund and then take the necklace back; otherwise it could lead to a lot more similar scenarios (I wasn't happy so I want a partial refund...).

Second case was the defendant bought new Restoration Hardware furniture from the plaintiff and didn't send the agreed amount (she paid $4000 of the $5000 price).  

[DoctorK]

Well, the candle fiasco was slightly interesting. I really disliked the defendant, he reminded of people I knew in the neighborhood where I grew up. It soon became clear to me that the defendant is a fast talking hustler with delusions of grandeur (internationally well known in the music industry? claiming a lot of internet followers is meaningless given the ease of faking those followers). Growing up we would recognize him as a run of the mill punk-ass hustler. As soon as JM found out that Mr. Big Musical Celebrity had all of the needed info for his case (amount he has paid, number of candles received, number of candles sold) except he couldn't be bothered to look them up before coming to court, she should have paid the plaintiff the cost of the candles and sent the defendant out to walk home; that was an insult to the judge. In the end, the plaintiff (who was looking for a Bonanza!) got some of the money and the defendant is supposed to send back the remaining candles and pay for the ones not returned (JM gave detailed instructions for shipping them back and when the plaintiff receives them to prevent either side from cheating). Added trivial note for the defendant: putting on a wide eyed blank look and sticking your tongue out of the side of your mouth doesn't work for anyone older than 6 years old.

[seacliffsal]

If you didn't watch the show today, you missed the appearance of an Internationally Known Singer (didn't catch his name) who commissioned private label candles to sell at his concerts and on his website from the plaintiff.  I was shocked, shocked I tell you, that he didn't sell all of the candles even though he is an Internationally Known Singer.  Of course, their contract did not have a remedy for if he didn't sell all of the candles (because they assumed that such an Internationally Known Star would, of course, sell all of the candles), and he was paying her when they were sold (so, on consignment?).  JM let the Internationally Known Superstar know that she was an Internationally Known Judge.  Plaintiff gets back the unsold candles...

The second case was a dog attack.  But, there was something interesting-the defendant had taken a piece of pie to a neighbor for her birthday, and birthday girl wrote a note that totally supported...the plaintiff!  So, after all these years there are still surprises.

Oh, and stupid stupid 'hey judges' questions...

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

JM let the Internationally Known Superstar know that she was an Internationally Known Judge.

I really enjoyed that oblique smackdown of the Internationally Known...singer or something? I guess being so renowned, he just couldn't be bothered finding the evidence JM requested. It's odd that someone of his lofty status wanted to peddle some tacky homemade candles in little tins at his upscale gigs and then weasel out of paying for them. But I get it. Such details are only for the little people. The P, as per usual, is looking for a big payout for her stress and anxiety.

 

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

The second case was a dog attack.

Two ditzy broads who need a swooning couch and never learned that dogs - even little ones who are put under blankets and carted around in wagons - are not actual "babies". Both litigants, after this horrific "Aweful Battle of the (Poms)" blacked out and developed amnesia.  Delicate flowers they are.

Screaming hysterically, crying, and fainting are not the recommended methods for breaking up even a tiny dogfight. Def is a sneaky "Didn't do nothing" liar and even her own friend wouldn't back up her BS story. Watch out, friend. The next pie might have a dose of arsenic in it.

"Hey, Judges: Who buys the groceries?"

"Hey, Levin: Has anyone ever kicked your smarmy little ass?"

 

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I really disliked the defendant, he reminded of people I knew in the neighborhood where I grew up. It soon became clear to me that the defendant is a fast talking hustler with delusions of grandeur (internationally well known in the music industry?

Perfect. Thank you.😄