Florinaldo April 28, 2018 Share April 28, 2018 (edited) I really loathe it when this show becomes an auditions platform for fouth-rate performers, with MM basking in the reflected glory. Today it was the yappin' rabbi, and there were various singers over the last few months, including the one with the awful "Go Go Go" song. It is as if they feel the viewer needs that sort of alleged entertainment not to lose interest in the cases because of our presumed short attention pan. Admittedly, some cases are rather boring or repetitive. I disliked the plaintiff in the Halloween case because of her "look at me I am so cute and innocent" act and would probably have assigned a high portion of liability to her. But I suppose MM was correct in her assessment. Edited April 28, 2018 by Florinaldo 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 28, 2018 Share April 28, 2018 11 hours ago, Florinaldo said: I disliked the plaintiff in the Halloween case because of her "look at me I am so cute and innocent" I kind of felt sorry for her. If you, as an adult, get so overcome with terror, dread and an adrenaline rush at the very thought of entering some little amateur Halloween haunted house that you need to rush off and blow chunks and are sick all evening, you have a very hard road ahead of you. There are things a lot scarier coming up in life, believe me. 11 hours ago, Florinaldo said: I really loathe it when this show becomes an auditions platform for fouth-rate performers, with MM basking in the reflected glory. I loathe it as well, and I don't know what the point of it is. It's not as though JM can impartially judge the quality of the performance as someone in a talent agency or music production might do. She can't use it to help decide a case, so why do we get these assaults on our ears, when the only result is that these hacks - who range from zero talent to mildly talented - get free publicity? But though JM may be a judge, she's just human I guess and really wants to hear what these people do. That the Rockin' Rabbi saw the whole case and process as a joke to snicker about and play dressup made it a million times more irritating than usual. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 28, 2018 Share April 28, 2018 11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I kind of felt sorry for her. If you, as an adult, get so overcome with terror, dread and an adrenaline rush at the very thought of entering some little amateur Halloween haunted house that you need to rush off and blow chunks and are sick all evening, you have a very hard road ahead of you. If you are prone to such anxiety or terrors, then as an adult be responsible enough not to even get in line for a haunted house or a Halloween corn maze. But I suppose it may have been part of her "delicate flower" act. 3 Link to comment
Zahdii April 28, 2018 Share April 28, 2018 There's an easy way to prevent people from using the show to advertise their 'talent'. Just don't show their attempts on the air. Let the judge listen to their caterwauling while the viewing audience sees a brief comic view of said crooner belting out their tunes with no audio to assault our ears. Have some fun with it by showing select moments in slow motion, making the background fuzzy, and highlighting their most emotional expressions. Now back to real time to see the judge thank them for their effort. If necessary, cut any additional comments out and simply move onto the case. 8 Link to comment
bref April 28, 2018 Share April 28, 2018 The rabbi's hair-twirling more than likely had a significance beyond a nervous habit. I think he does it to keep his payot curled. He was still super weird and distinctly untalented, though. "I'm a Holy Man", oy! 1 Link to comment
meowmommy April 29, 2018 Share April 29, 2018 5 hours ago, Zahdii said: Now back to real time to see the judge thank them for their effort. If necessary, cut any additional comments out and simply move onto the case. You silly person. This is a Harvey Levin show. 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 29, 2018 Share April 29, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Zahdii said: There's an easy way to prevent people from using the show to advertise their 'talent'. Just don't show their attempts on the air. That would work if they did not believe that this kind of crap makes for good TV and keeps viewers interested. They seem to think the audience is as much made up of morons as their usual assortment of litigants. Edited April 29, 2018 by Florinaldo 1 Link to comment
CASinCHI April 29, 2018 Share April 29, 2018 In the Rockin' Rabbi case...did anyone else notice that the bailiff, (of "thank you Douglas" fame :D ) said, "the litigants have been affirmed"? That's first time I've noticed him not say "sworn". I know that oaths will swap out sworn for affirmed if one of the party's faith doesn't permit the use of "swear". 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 29, 2018 Share April 29, 2018 14 hours ago, meowmommy said: This is a Harvey Levin show. Exactly, which is why we get treated to the song 'n dance acts, Show 'n Tell, ancient dumb jokes, intros that sound like voice-overs for 1930s horror movies, gum-flapping morons in the doorway, and constant close-ups of Levin's ugly face. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch April 30, 2018 Share April 30, 2018 (edited) three cases - none with a defense Gym fail: plaintiff is a personal trainer who worked for gym owned by defendant - Says he actually was working at the gym for years when it was purchased by D 18 or so months ago. Says defendant abruptly closed down the gym, and still owes P $1400 for do sessions. D doesn't deny owing lots and lots of money, not just to P - his defense is you can't expect him to pay what he doesn't have. Part of what makes D look so bad is that, according to P, he was collecting annual membership fees right up til he locked the doors - oh, and according to preview, charging "club enhancement" fees. What are club enhancement fees? Asks MM. Oh, says D, ALL gyms charge that fee. Nope, says the judge, she's been paying for gym memberships for years and never been charged for "club enhancement." But, but says D the contract members signed says he gets to charge the fee. Ok, says MM, show me where it says that in the contract. Oh, says D, I don't have a contract with me since that's not what I'm being sued for. Alright, says MM, did you bring ANY evidence with you to court? Nope, says D. Ok, no evidence... well, guess that dovetails into the no defense stance in the intro. Anyway, 2 months before lockout he came up with this fee to raise money and keep the doors open, then 8 days prior he tells P gym will be closed next week - but, P says, nothing was said about stopping sessions immediately - in fact, makes sense D would want as many of the prepaid sessions completed as possible so that he wouldn't owe members bigger refunds for the prepaid sessions. Anyway, P is suing for the whole month prior to lockout - not just the last week... Yep, even if you believe D, P worked at least 3 weeks before he was told to stop conducting sessions - then another week after being told to stop (course he denies he was ever told to stop). Oh yeah, D may not have come to court without any evidence, but P shows us a promissory saying he's still going to pay the employees. Break out the violins, time for D to whine that he bought gym from previous owner because previous guy lied about the business... Dude, it's called due diligence - seller puffs the property up, but before you buy you check things out for yourself. Oops, as we go to commercial P gets hauled on the carpet because he can't keep his mouth shut during D's testimony. Whoa? really dude? Everything is going your way and you need to be a but-in-ski? Hmmm, could a switcheroo be coming where D starts to make a case (without evidence of course)? Nah, I figure it's just MM's way of dragging this no-case case out - I was ready to call it 4 minutes into the case. Oh well, after commercial there is no last ditch defense, in fact MM raised my earlier point - why would D tell his trainers to stop sessions when each session reducles amount he should refund the members - unless he never planned on refunding anything for the prepaid sessions. Oh, yeah, back to P's promissory note ( a copy, BTW, Why bring a copy instead of the original? Asks MM) A forgery says D. Nah, says MM, looks like your signature. Anyway, the members had prepaid - 70% of that is supposed to go to P (who I guess is more independent contractor than regulars salaried employee). P is entitled to be paid for sessions he conducted. Foolish D actually tries to argue - you have this wrong! Nope? Says MM, you have it wrong! Now it's D getting the slap down for interrupting the judge and trying to talk over her. ? case, even slap downs are boring. Hmmm guess she heard the complaints about her yelling at litigants, as she doesn't even raise her voice much when she boots D out at minute 14. Ok, she does get loud while ruling, but slaps downs kind of low key. tenant suing over deposit: plaintiff/tenant Says he bought a fridge when the supplied fridge died - took HIS fridge when tenancy ended - and now landlord/defendant keeping part of deposit because there's no fridge in place. D says P bought the replacement because he wanted an upgrade, there was nothing wrong with the old fridge, he certainly never gave permission to P to junk the old fridge so guy owes for it - oh, and now that P opened the door, D wants addional money for damages he was going to let slide... Hmmm, really? Intro says now he wants over $200 for cleaning the Windows (and additional charges, says intro). Uh oh, countersuit bad idea - really, dirty windows! Hopefully that's just crazy intro nonsense. Ah, but as we go to commercial we hear preview of D saying he junked the old fridge... Huh? Says P, why would he take old fridge to dump if, as D claims, it worked? Nope if the tenant junked the old fridge to the dump, D May have a case for making tenant pay - not if it was landlord who came and removed old fridge and junked it... Well, unless there was texts or something where tenant agreed to leave the new fridge. Oh, not just the fridge... Apparently landlord removed washer and dryer when tenant moved in because tenant had his own, and he replaced the stove at the same time as the fridge (not talking high end stuff - tenant bought replacement fridge off FB and was given the stove.) ok, another case where only evidence will be texts. D doesn't deny appliances were brought in by P - his whole thing is that he claims he gave tenant permission to replace appliances, but with the understanding that the replacements would remain when tenant left... No, everything was verbal, says D. Uh, no, says P, here's the texts. Yep, back when fridge was being replaced the two were getting along great - and despite what landlord testified, nothing said about new fridge having to stay - even saying if he could fix it he'd use it in another apartment... Then what's with the testimony that he junked it? Geez, another non-case case here that could be called a few minutes in. Ok, explains MM, if a tenant just wants to upgrade a working appliancd, then tenant has to replace it when they leave... But texts are plain that fridge was NOT working (well, ice maker was noisy). Ok, seems landlord held $320 of deposit, and lawsuit is for double because P figures he gets double everything back. Hmmmm seems landlord kept $250 for fridge, and rest for cleaning/maintenance. Even says place looked good during walkthrough. Really sounds like may have a double down victory going here - but landlord hasn't said much yet. (hmmm, not much time left for him make his case, either.) ok - MM explains, the double down only comes when a landlord blows off sending an itemized list of why he's keeping all or part of deposit - he sent the list, so just a dispute as to whether his deductions are valid- no double down. Ok tenant ALMOST gets the deposit back - he has to pay for some blinds he admits were mistakenly taken... He gets $300 of the $320 the landlord kept. Rear ended: well, at least dude isn't trying for a lottery win - suing for $919. Defense seems to be that since there was no visible damage, plaintiff must be running a scam. Hold on, with today's plastic bumpers that pop back out, there could actually be expensive damage hidden from view. Ok, no whiteboard today - we actually have pics. Ah, but forget intro's rear end story. Actually, plaintiff's testimony is that defendant ran a stop at an intersection and hit plaintiff's vehicle in the right rear quarter panel - ok, damage should be obvious - but $900 still awfully cheap for ANY bodywork. Ok, still another non-case. Defendant says he stopped at stop sign, inched forward to get better view of oncoming traffic. Says plaintiff was too far right as he was going through intersection, actually driving in the bike lane rather than a vehicle lane. So, story is he was stopped on side street with front of his vehicle sticking into bike lane and plaintiff scraped plaintiff's vehicle on defendant's license plate... Course, since both guys were in a hurry, nobody wanted to call the cops. Plaintiff says at the time Defendant was willing to pay the damages, but changed his mind when presented with the estimate and just stopped answering calls. Ah, we still get whiteboard/oh action - defendant uses them to demonstate his non-case case. Hoboy, our cars never hit, then why did you stop and get out of your car, cause my license plate was knocked off and my grill damaged. Ok, dude has no defense. Let's talk damages. Plaintiff has two estimates and is asking for lower estimate... Which he gets. Edited April 30, 2018 by SRTouch 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 30, 2018 Share April 30, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: D doesn't deny owing lots and lots of money, not just to P - his defense is you can't expect him to pay what he doesn't have. Yeah, moon-faced big baby has a perfectly good argument - he took money from clients, knowing full well he was closing down and he kept all the money. He has rent and bills to pay! Clients should be happy to pay his debts. Doesn't JM understand that? He always wanted to own a gym when he grew up. No one told him it was hard work to own a business and that he needs to show up once in a while. Why is everybody always pickin' on him? He told plaintiff to stop giving the clients what they already paid for and he's not paying him either. He needs all the money, so there! What's hard to understand about that? JM is just an idiot who doesn't get these intricate and complicated details and - "GET OUT!" Boy waddles out with Douglas escorting him. He continues to whine in the hall to Doug, who also has no patience for his BS. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing over deposit: What the hell was plaintiff chewing on? His jaw was working like a cow on its cud. Landlord makes all kinds of claims about damage and caulk, etc, and he has plenty of evidence to back it up. What? JM wants to see it? Well, he doesn't have in ON him. Take his word for it. Every rental case I see here renews my gratitude that I haven't rented in many a year. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Rear ended: well, at least dude isn't trying for a lottery win - suing for $919. Unlike JM and the audience, I saw nothing amusing about this. Def is a total jerk, who when asked how his license plate got damaged if, as he claims, he never hit plaintiff, answers, "I dunno." He sounded like an utter and complete fool not only over that but when he claims plaintiff decided to drive his car in the bicycle lane and that's how the accident happened. Or that's how it would have happened but it never did since he never touched plaintiff's car. There was no impact but plaintiff hit his license plate. Go away, you lying idiot and take your idiot witness with you. Cute, they were not. When I see what is given a driving license, I really want to stay off the roads. Ugh. Edited April 30, 2018 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
meowmommy April 30, 2018 Share April 30, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: according to P, he was collecting annual membership fees right up til he locked the doors - oh, and according to preview, charging "club enhancement" fees. The gym owner made no sense by claiming he wanted the trainers to stop training but wasn't running a scam. If they stop, he legally has to give 100% of the training fee back to the clients. If they continue, he legally gets to keep 30% of what he's collected. Obviously, he was planning on stiffing his clients as well, not to mention the bogus "club enhancement" fee, but he would have gotten nailed for that, too. Given how much financial trouble this guy is in, however, I wouldn't be surprised if he rolls this judgment in with all the other bills he has and files for bankruptcy. I was once a member of a Bally's franchise, and my PT let me know in advance the place was closing, so we jammed in as many sessions as possible from my prepaid before it closed. Oddly enough, though, I even got my prorated membership fee back. Whodathunk? 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: his whole thing is that he claims he gave tenant permission to replace appliances, but with the understanding that the replacements would remain when tenant left Where on earth did the landlord get the idea he could keep appliances that his tenant bought? Unless the tenant junked the appliances, it's on the landlord. At most, assuming the old appliances really were still available and still serviceable, the tenant should have paid to have the old appliances re-installed when he left. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ah, we still get whiteboard/oh action - defendant uses them to demonstate his non-case case. They need a hybrid whiteboard-Google maps, where they can put the Matchbox cars over the photographs. I don't know how the bicycle lane is this big defense. Most bicycle lanes are barely wider than a curb line. I wish MM would be consistent. She reams out plaintiff #1 for saying boo while defendant is talking, but plaintiff #3 is having a whole chat with Douglas while she's talking to the defendant, then yaks again over him later, and she thinks that's cute, even gently shushing him. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 1, 2018 Share May 1, 2018 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: She reams out plaintiff #1 for saying boo while defendant is talking, but plaintiff #3 is having a whole chat with Douglas while she's talking to the defendant, then yaks again over him later, and she thinks that's cute, even gently shushing him. I didn't get that either. She wanted to rip plaintiff 1's head off, when he was totally in the right but spoke out of turn. Midly annoying, but he didn't shout, insult her or curse. The person who deserved the biggest reaming was the stupid, grinning, lying fool - def.3 - who damaged plaintiff's car, refused to take responsibility or to pay for it and couldn't keep his lies straight to save his soul, but JM seemed to think all that was cute. Maybe she just didn't like 1st plaintiff's face? 4 Link to comment
SRTouch May 1, 2018 Share May 1, 2018 (edited) Little late today - safelite tech was here fixing car window broken by rock Saturday - long as he was here I had him fix windshield chip. Won't say he botched it, since he says it won't spread any more, but where I had a barely noticeable chip I now have a 2 2/2" crack. event contract case: these litigants got together and put on an event with various musical performers. Problem - seems event didn't net enough to make the payroll - MM jokes more performers showed up than paying audience. Other problem... Despite fancy company names - llc this and that - these two conduct business via email - don't need no stinking contracts. Plaintiff was promoter and supposed to book artists, advertise, etc - defendant was the financial backer. Now they're in court with dueling $5,000 cases. Seems part of what they fussing about is that some artists showed up late. Money man says he instructed plaintiff not to let the tardy artists perform, but they performed anyway. Thing is, what I'm hearing when the email is read is that artist were told to be there when they were scheduled to perform - which could be from 1230am to 3am depending on when they were to perform. Defendant is hanging his hat on fact that headliners weren't there 1230 - but plaintiff says everyone was there to perform as scheduled. Defendant says he's not paying any who were late - but late according to who... Another bone of contention has to do with sparse crowd... Seems defendant wanted the event done with little advance notice - against plaintiff's advise (or so plaintiff says.) oh, and in keeping with the not needing contracts - apparently receipts and simple math are other foreign concepts, these guys sort of just round off numbers as it suits them- and I'm betting everyone who WAS paid was paid cash. When MM adds it up her figure disagrees with what plaintiff claims is owed. Defendant says budget for artists payroll was such and such - while plaintiff figures it was a couple thousand more... Course both claim to have emails backing their version - just not readily available. What I'm taking away from this case is don't do business with these llc's. Ok rough justice time... Countersuit easy - defendant asking for 5 grand for harrassment - but folks doing the harrassing were the artists not guy he's suing (though plaintiff may well have told them his home address, there's no proof). Main complaint harder to decide - the key email where defendant agreed to how much each artist was to be paid - course that's the one plaintiff can't produce. Ah, but he's already written off what he was to be paid - he just wants the money he promised the artists to protect his rep. Case runs long as MM explains concept of artist showing up on a staggered schedule as they are to perform rather than everybody showing up when first artist goes on. Defendant has to pay what he agreed he was going to pay if everyone was there at 1230 - $4625 not 5 grand as plaintiff claimed. neighbor feud: P (quite the hairdo on this guy - purple ponytail and shaved on the sides) suing because defendant's concrete contractor damaged plaintiff's driveway and then messed it up even more trying to repair the asphalt driveway with concrete - he wants concrete contractor to pay $450 for the repairs. Defendant, looking kind of ancient for a concrete contractor - and is he wearing his suspenders backwards, and is steadily blinking and stuttering - says damage to the driveway was pre-existing... Says he tried to talk to plaintiff to let him know they'd be pouring concrete right up to his property line - but nobody answered the door. Problem is - his pour came right to the driveway. Plaintiff claims the frame for the concrete was put on plaintiff's asphalt - causing damage. Contractor claims asphalt already in sad shape and his frame didn't hurt anything. Anyway, he says the frame was on the neighbors side of the property line - not so, says MM as she brings up photos. Poor ancient cement guy has trouble explaining his case - but nothing he's saying explains away the damage seen in the pics and video plaintiff presented - besides, plaintiff isn't asking for big bucks. What happens is that after frame is removed plaintiff talks to defendant and defendant sends a guy to make the repair. Ah, but repair is botched when Contractor and his guy just pour concrete along the property line - actually making things worse as they left cement powder on the asphalt - which stuck to their driveway because it rained before they cleaned up. Ok, only question is - after the concrete powder got wet and adhered to the asphalt plaintiff hired someone to clean, patch and seal the affected area. How much of that cost does defendant/concrete contractor have to pay? Seems pretty straightforward to me - defendant has to pay - heck, MM is even complimenting plaintiffs on how reasonable they were when they filed the case because even after the repair the repair no longer matches the rest of the drive. Yep, defendant ordered to pay. clunker purchase: plaintiffs claim is that they bought an 06 clunker - but not exactly an as is deal, as they had a two day warranty. Day when they got it home they noticed it has an oil leak - so decided a trip to a mechanic was in order. Mechanic supposedly told them car was a POS - too much wrong to write it all down. (Sorry, if that's the basis for the suit they'll need something proving the flapping gums.) anyway, they say when they called defendant to complain, he blew them off. Defendant doesn't deny the two day warranty story - but he says it was a limited warranty on the engine and transmission, and the reported oil leak wasn't covered. Besides, he says, he told plaintiffs he's fix it no charge, but they just demanded the deal be unwound. Nothing really new here... Silly folks buying a clunker knowing it needs brakes. Say that's why they wanted the two day warranty - you know the warranty was only for the engine and transmission, says MM - yeah, yeah says Einstein... Did you have a mechanic check it out? Nah, course not, why bother when they're getting such a great deal - only $2,000 for such a great looking 12yo car with bad brakes - and a warranty to boot. Geez, if the pictures are true it is an unsafe junker (really - gas tank about to fall off!) when MM asks defendant about the unsafe gas tank, dude is quick to say not his problem - only engine and transmission under warranty... I'm hoping MM can undo the deal... OTOH the plaintiffs sort of walked into this mess and should maybe have a hard lesson coming. Ok, enough in the pictures that MM is willing to get plaintiff's mechanic a call. Anyway, shady used car dealer claims plaintiffs already took their complaint to the BBB, and the case was tossed. Nope, says MM, BBB just acts as a mediator - they don't investigate. If the parties can't agree, BBB gives up and tells the parties to go to court. Ok, after commercial MM chats on the phone with plaintiff's wrench. Oh boy, yeah, dude remembers gas tank held up by bungee cord - car was a mess, but is this enough for MM to rewind the sale - especially as defendant says he's willing to repair the engine/tranny. Yep, sure nuf, MM decided mechanics talk of many oil and coolant leaks is enough to just undo the sale - guessing she thinks defendant would never repair the engine correctly - not sure I'd trust him to do an oil change - really? Gas tank held up by bungee cord?!? Plaintiffs get the money back (but not $500 for their troubles) defendant gets junker back. Ah, poor shady dealer, tells Doug he's going to appeal the decision and Doug gets to tell him no appeals for binding mediation. Edited May 1, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
DoctorK May 1, 2018 Share May 1, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: is he wearing his suspenders backwards, That was my first thought but watching closely it looked like the part oh his left side was wider than the one on the other side, and the wider one got progressively wider as it approached his waist. That suggests that it was an ordinary tie, worn in an unusual manner. Maybe he couldn't tie a Windsor knot? He seemed to have multiple medical issues. 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 1, 2018 Share May 1, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: event contract case: The way these people do their business in this janky-ass way - all verbal, all cash, no receipts - I really wonder how they manage to stay afloat. "Here's a bunch of emails to prove what I'm saying," says plaintiff. JM asks for THE email with the evidence that will win his case: "Uh, errr, ahh - well I didn't bring THAT one." *shrug* Doesn't anyone watch this show before appearing here? Do they think JM is an idiot who won't ask for important evidence a litigants claims to have and that telling her it exists but not showing it will suffice? I can just picture the scene in the lobby of the "luxury building." The next time I think I'm owed money I'm going to threaten to bring a mob and duct tape (BTW, duct taping someone(??) seems to be a well-known course of action with this social set) that person. Whatever. I wonder how it will be assured that plaintiff gives the money to the performers and doesn't just put it in his own pocket. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: neighbor feud: Wasn't there someone from the def's company who could have appeared here? He seemed to be near 100 years old and I was afraid he was going to expire before our eyes. His attitude was, "Yeah, sure, we wrecked plaintiff's driveway but so what? No big deal." At least, I got that from what I could understand. Plaintiffs were very sweet. They're young so the rainbow hair was okay. My niece put pink and blue streaks in her hair and I thought it was very cute. Old geezer could have just paid the stinkin' 450$ without all this fuss. It's not like plaintiffs were looking for a boe-nanza. "Judge don't let me talk," complains geezer to Doug in the hall, which, by the way, is the usual gripe of the guilty. Oh, yes she did, which is why she ruled for the plaintiffs. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: clunker purchase: Holy... truly, if I walked into some car place and came face to face with defs, who appeared to be some terrifying thug and his henchman who looked like a massive bouncer in a little black cocktail dress, I might walk right back out again, but not plaintiffs. They trusted him. Ooops, gas tank is being held in place with bungee cords. Never a good sign, I'm sure. A little different from the usual "as is" whiners. This car belongs in the junk yard and I'd hope that's where it's headed, but I kind of believe defs might pass it on to some other naive fool. Buyer beware. Oh, and these people wanted compensation for "emotional distress" over a car sale? Can't they do a little Googling and try to at least get even a fuzzy understanding of what that entails before writing their complaint so as not to sound totally ridiculous? Edited May 1, 2018 by AngelaHunter because - as usual - wine. 8 Link to comment
meowmommy May 2, 2018 Share May 2, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: safelite tech was here fixing car window broken by rock Saturday - long as he was here I had him fix windshield chip. Won't say he botched it, since he says it won't spread any more, but where I had a barely noticeable chip I now have a 2 2/2" crack. If they don't fix it, go back to your insurance company. I had a windshield chip that Safelite supposedly fixed, but I feel like it's the Emperor's new clothes because I can't see what they did. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: (quite the hairdo on this guy - purple ponytail and shaved on the sides) Astounding to me that people actually pay money for the privilege of looking like shit. But for the hair, I thought the guy looked like very young Kiefer Sutherland. What earthly defense did the geezer have, other than "I didn't do it?" It's cases like these that make me glad I don't work as a closed captioner. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ok, enough in the pictures that MM is willing to get plaintiff's mechanic a call. Anyone else, she yells at them for not bringing in the mechanic as a witness or at least a notarized affidavit. I appreciated the fact that she offered the defendant the chance to cross-examine the mechanic. 4 Link to comment
aemom May 2, 2018 Share May 2, 2018 (edited) The gym owner and the guy who wanted the concert have something in common - they are both assholes who tried to take advantage of people by not paying/refunding them and hanging on to their money. The concert guy thought he was so much better than the rest of us. "I live in a luxury building." So what?? You remind me of the spoiled, asshole neighbour that lives behind me who thinks that you can treat everybody like shit because you have more money than a lot of us. I'm glad that in both cases, they had to pay. The case with the apartment appliances - they both seemed like decent people and I think that the defendant realized that he had screwed up not holding onto the old appliances and then had to figure something out for the next tenant. "Refrigerator! He hardly knew her." Thanks so much for that Levin. We've NEVER heard a joke like that before -- EVER! The car accident guy just wanted to be on TPC and meet MM. Not a defense in the world. On 4/30/2018 at 7:59 PM, meowmommy said: They need a hybrid whiteboard-Google maps, where they can put the Matchbox cars over the photographs. Great idea! The rainbow plaintiffs were really reasonable about their driveway and I thought that the 200-year old defendant was going to keel over and die at any moment. He seemed deaf and slightly demented and I spent much of the time trying to figure out what the hell was going on with his tie(?) I'm glad they won their case. When the car case rolled around and they were suing for their money back and I rolled my eyes and said "Please! Not again!" I think that the bungee cord on the gas tank certainly helped their case and the mechanic's phone call helped. The defendant was a crook trying to sell such a piece of crap and the plaintiffs were incredibly lucky to get their money back. I hope they learned their lesson, but probably not. Edited May 2, 2018 by AEMom Typo 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 2, 2018 Share May 2, 2018 12 hours ago, AEMom said: The concert guy thought he was so much better than the rest of us. "I live in a luxury building." He must spend all his money on rent to impress people, because he said he had no money when the thug-mob dragged him to the ATM to demand payment, risking duct-taping or ever murder as he mentioned in the hall. 11 hours ago, Brattinella said: Refrigerator??? GAH!!!! I un-muted a fraction of a second too soon. I only heard ".... KNEW 'ER!" and that was enough to set my teeth on edge. It's hard to judge because often he's still flapping his gum when JM starts speaking. 12 hours ago, AEMom said: I thought that the 200-year old defendant was going to keel over and die at any moment. He really was like some kooky "Mad Magazine" figure. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch May 2, 2018 Share May 2, 2018 20 hours ago, SRTouch said: Little late today - safelite tech was here fixing car window broken by rock Saturday - long as he was here I had him fix windshield chip. Won't say he botched it, since he says it won't spread any more, but where I had a barely noticeable chip I now have a 2 2/2" crack. No recap today - explanation/rant over in the small talk... Off to talk to insurance agent - than nap time til time to go to work. 2 Link to comment
Brattinella May 2, 2018 Share May 2, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: No recap today - explanation/rant over in the small talk... Off to talk to insurance agent - than nap time til time to go to work. Stay safe today! We are both under the gun for bad weather! Do you have a hidey-hole at work? Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 2, 2018 Share May 2, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: than nap time til time to go to work. Work? Why? Can't you get disability for maybe your emotional distress and PTSD over your cracked window? Claim 'angoraphobia' or something! 1 - Anyway - OMG - the Lawnmower Man case? This caused ME distress. Plaintiff wants the 60$ deposit she gave as downpayment to get her lawn mower fixed. Def, Steve didn't give her any info on what was wrong with it in what she felt was a timely manner which is why she wants the money back. All ho-hum, but what wasn't were defs. I got a creepy impression that Steve, who suffers from "anxiety" (and I think I know why) has some kind of Stockholm syndrome with that great brute - who seemed to be sporting a big tangled ball of knitting yarn on her head - to whom he is affianced. I believed every word plaintiff's witness said, that Ms .Fiance punched and pushed little old Grandpa Steve around, and also that she raised her skirt and showed witness her montrous ass. Is JM blind? She says to Steve, "I wouldn't mess with her." She got that part right, but then goes on to say, "I can see what you see in her." Really? She scared the daylights out of me. Plaintiff's witness gave details, such as the Brute punching Steve in the neck and grabbing him and tossing him in the house, that most people just wouldn't make up. But JM didn't seem to believe it. She asks the buttocks-baring brute, "Did you punch him in the neck?" Brute says, "No." Oh, okay then. I guess that's why JM is a judge and I'm not. I truly fear for Steve. 2 - Plaintiff wants his deposit and rent back, since oddly enough, there was an infestation of bedbugs that started when he moved in to the def's premises (a bunch of people renting rooms here). Who says he didn't bring them in? He found the first one in HIS backpack and no one til then had complained about bedbugs. Def, William, was such a pallid little nebbish, who ended each sentence with a raised questioning tone like some Valley girl that I almost felt sorry for him. Anyway, I guess plaintiff got nearly what he was asking for. I lost interest. 3rd case: If you aren't happy with the work, or non-work, someone does after you hire them, do not give them a cheque to make them go away and then stop payment the next day. Def wanted her new kitchen counters installed before Thanksgiving, got nervous because she didn't hear from plaintiff and fears he's never coming back, but he says he arrived with the countertops 3 days before Thanksgiving only to find def. had hired someone else in the predeeding 7 or so weeks (we don't know how long. Def says 10 weeks, or maybe 8 or maybe 7 or ?) to finish the job. Def agrees to call it quits if he gets paid for the work he did on her floors etc. JM makes her honour the cheque and informs her what she did is a crime. I hired someone form the local paper in August of 2014 to totally level my front yard and redo it and gave him a down payment. He still hadn't showed up by Oct and I had to start a compaign of harassment to make him appear, including calling him from a friend's house so he wouldn't know it was me. He didn't finish the job, but just walked off one day and never came back. Fine. I learned my lesson and since then have never hired "some guy" from the paper or from the down the street or whatever. Now I go through Home Depot's contractors. They did my roof, my kitchen and lately my bathroom. They showed up every day on time, worked all day, had contracts, are bonded, licensed and insured. If they cost a few dollars more, it's worth it for my peace of mind. 3 Link to comment
Broderbits May 2, 2018 Share May 2, 2018 I think that final check-bouncing defendant just wanted to stay in the hallway and hang out with Doug; he practically had to escort her off camera! 2 Link to comment
meowmommy May 3, 2018 Share May 3, 2018 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: "Did you punch him in the neck?" Brute says, "No." Did you catch the smirk of pride as the plaintiff witness relayed this information? Trying to understand what the def's GF has to do with the business, anyway. And her assertion that the def gets to keep the deposit, regardless if any work is done--well, there's a business model. Just collect deposits. Why haven't I thought of that? And how many times did def GF interrupt MM, and all MM did was smile. Again with the inconsistent standard. 6 Link to comment
VartanFan May 3, 2018 Share May 3, 2018 I'm watching some of these cases and thinking about how close I am to being a plaintiff. No matter the promises, don't lend money...especially to family. Grrrrr....good thing I've saved all my texts! I can't believe the gym owner was so obtuse....he thought he could keep the membership money but the people who did actual work to earn it should get nothing. Dirtball. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 3, 2018 Share May 3, 2018 Another entitled plaintiff suing a tow company. Only difference is that plaintiff admits she parked illegally, but she had to! She had to get to church on time, you see. It was an emergency. Think about her soul! No one should tow the cars of churchgoers, should they? Outrageous to do so. They should be exempted from the law because they're so pious and all. Problem is that def is a big fat crook (or maybe a little fat crook) who is authorized to charge 125$ yet charges 250$. So 125$ goes on the books for taxes and the other 125$ goes in his pocket, I assume. Pretty good gig. He doesn't need to adhere to any laws either. No, he finally admits - maybe that's not written in any laws he can point to, but just trust him - he's allowed to do it and does it all the time. I agree plaintiff should get back the extra 125$ she paid to the crook, but not the Uber cost. Def deserved to be punished, but so did she. She would have paid that even had she given the tow company only the 125$ and she knowingly broke the law. I don't see why she was penalized not at all for her flagrant disregard for the laws other people - even if not as pious as she - have to obey. I need to start going to church and then I can park anywhere I want. Then we have plaintiff - displaying her massively tatted massive arm and her chest tat that says, "Sometimes it sucks to be a soldier." JM really wanted to know what the hell that means, since plaintiff is a motorcyle club "old lady" and not a soldier. She also has a cross around her neck, dangling prominently although def. brings up that she and her former squeeze were involved in a manslaughter case or something like that. Def? hahahahahaha! Oh, sorry. He's a shrimpy, repulsive little alien-looking thing, but there are women who really want some of what he's got! No, honestly - they do. that must be true, since he has 4 kids. He had 5 but one got murdered, it seems. He informs Doug in the Hall that plaintiff is only suing him because she's "jealous." Hahhahahha - ooops, sorry again! Really, that could be, considering plaintiff's life choices, abject stupidity and lack of judgement. Anyway, the Father of the Year can't buy anything for his "kidses'" Xmas, so stupid plaintiff - who for some reason feels that buying his kids things is her responsibility even though def. has a new paramour(!!) who apparently woke up and realized she hates the pasty little wizened shit - agrees to get kids a bunch of stuff on her Amazon card - true necessities of life, like tablets and X-boxes (neither of which I have, BTW). Def. squeaks and whines that he doesn't even HAVE his "kidses'" stuff anymore. Their evil (and apparently visually and/or mentally impaired if she wanted to breed like a frickin' rabbit with him) baby momma took all the stuff. Yes, this is how these people live their lives. I feel blessed. Then used stove conks out in a year, warranty, stove not fixed and blah blah. Plaintiff gets 53$. Boring. 5 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 3, 2018 Share May 3, 2018 (edited) I thought that MM went overboard in the church-going parking rules violator case. It was certainly justified to reimburse the double-charge, however reasonable the extra charge appears to be because it happened during the weekend, because it is not provided for in any statute or official regulation. However, she should not have gotten a complete absolution for her... sin. Both litigants deserved to be penalised. I quickly lost interest in the Amazon case and its pitiful litigants, while I could not muster any for the stove one. Edited May 3, 2018 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Florinaldo said: I thought that MM went overboard in the church-going parking rules violator case. It was certainly justified to reimburse the double-charge, however reasonable the extra charge appears to be because it happened during the weekend, because it is not provided for in any statute or official regulation. However, she should not have gotten a complete absolution for her... sin. Both litigants deserved to be penalised. She had her nerve asking for punitive damages, given that it was her illegal action that started this whole process. If punitive damages were appropriate in order to teach the defendant a lesson, I'd love to see the money go to charity or toward getting roads fixed or something. MM is always harping on how the law is only supposed to make you whole, but in this case she gave a BO-nanza to someone who didn't deserve it. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: He's a shrimpy, repulsive little alien-looking thing, but there are women who really want some of what he's got! The eww factor was there for both of them. I loathe tattoos. Especially one that is a bizarre statement that stares you in the face any time you look at this woman. Pretty sad threesome, including the ex-GF who writes a letter that's so nasty MM can't read all of it aloud. But let me get this straight--he has a baby momma, an ex-GF who hates him, and the plaintiff, or am I counting someone twice? I can't imagine one woman who saw anything in this guy, much less three, ever. 2 hours ago, Florinaldo said: I quickly lost interest in the Amazon case and its pitiful litigants, while I could not muster any for the stove one. It has to be a really good third case for me to hang on. They really should consider the JJ model of two cases in a half hour. The stove case reminded me of healthcare, of which I know a lot. If you go to a doctor and they don't fix you, they charge you, and they keep charging you each time no matter how many times you go in and they don't fix your problem. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: But let me get this straight--he has a baby momma, an ex-GF who hates him, and the plaintiff, or am I counting someone twice? No, you're right. Three women - that we know of - wanted him. Well, I don't think plaintiff had romantic designs on him. She just wanted to do good things for him, and who wouldn't? That's another thing that gets me about these women. They never have the money they shower on these slugs. They take credit card advances with 30% interest! They apply for loans! They'll do anything to try and hold on to a worthless POS. It's kind of amazing, actually. The desperation of women is reaching a critical stage, but that's nothing new. Personally I wouldn't give that miniscule, hateful little creep a glass of water if his feet were on fire, but it's not surprising he thinks he a prize and he probably has another woman by now. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: MM is always harping on how the law is only supposed to make you whole, but in this case she gave a BO-nanza to someone who didn't deserve it. Actually, I don't think she should have even gotten back the entire amount she overpaid since it was her fault she got towed. Her attitude of entitlement was pretty outrageous and usually JM reams out people like that, who are suing for a tow when they were illegally parked. Both litigants deliberately broke the law, but he gets punished and she gets rewarded. I don't get it, but I'm not a lawyer. 4 Link to comment
Bazinga May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 (edited) I hate how JM sometimes caters to certain people and treats them as if they are wonderful, while others she is harsh with for little to no reason. She thought the church lady was so cute in overreaching in asking to pay nothing for admittedly illegal parking. JM was smiling at her and even complemented her Clarence Darrow like legal skills. No, JM, she was just overreaching and stumbled on an argument that you bought; that the tow-truck guy deserved to get punished. She didn't argue anything well. So many litigants "feel" they are right. Here she felt she deserved to be rewarded because the tow-truck driver had the nerve to harass church going people. THAT is what she told him off about. Not that he happened to overcharge. She won because the law caps how much the tow-truck driver can charge. Plaintiff never brought the law up. She just happened to realize that the charge was inconsistent with what she had been told earlier on the phone. This is the second time that I remember JM rewarding someone who parked illegally due to the behavior of the tow-truck operator. My thought is that she deserved to be punished, too. Not a mild, smiling, admonition that she shouldn't park there in the future. She should have only gotten the wrongly charged amount back with the tow-truck guy admonished that he shouldn't be illegally overcharging, as he is limited by what the law allows him to charge. This woman thought she was entitled to park there because she was going to church and the church parking was inadequate. She even went out of her way to counter the defendant's claim that people park in that lot to beat the mass exodus from the church parking lot. Like it makes a difference why she parked there and her reason made her right. That the church parking was inadequate was part of her "amazing" legal argument, but since it is ridiculous, it was rightfully ignored and not praised but, as it turns out, was condoned based on the decision. She also was trying to argue class action for the others she happened to know about being charged that day. JM should have explicitly struck that down by telling her she can't sue for the damages that others incurred. Was the church lady going to distribute the award money to the others if she prevailed in receiving money on their behalf? Why was this situation deserving of punitive damages when most every other case is not? Was the tow-truck operator really that wrong? That bad? Worse then so many others we see so as to need to get punished? Does the statute call for punitive damages like we sometimes see in some states when landlords don't send letters explaining why they are withholding security deposits? No, but JM has a thing for tow-truck drivers overcharging. What he should do is say, screw you, after hours I am not open, come back for your car when I am. Then charge storage fees, which I did see mentioned on the sign. Would the lady have liked it better to be told come pick up your car on Tuesday, as we are closed today, Sunday, and for Labor Day? Then charge her storage fees. The purpose of towing cars that are illegally parked is to keep the area clear of the illegally parked vehicle and to punish the wrongdoer by charging for the tow, to serve as a chilling effect on the behavior of others. As this lady was not punished, and was in fact rewarded with a bonanza, there is no chilling effect on other drivers for illegal parking, which is the intent of the law. Also, the Uber rides she got awarded for, as well. If her daughter had picked her up like she should have, would the daughter's time and gas have been awarded? No, would have been dismissed just like when JJ ignores charges when a landlord does the repairs themselves or has a spouse do it. This lady got rewarded because she paid an outside party to drive her. Hate that some people are treated better then they deserve by JM. Hate the repeated inconsistency. Think back to the physical trainer earlier in the week. He mildly interrupted the defendant twice. We all know we have seen worse ignored or indulged by JM. Here the Judge took the guy's head off; humiliated him as being a "big baby" because he would not allow something negative to be said against him. Made no sense in context and was undeserved. He interrupted, like so, so many others, was he really acting like a "big baby?" As it turns out, plaintiff was right and the defendant was a big jerk who ended up getting kicked out of court. It made no sense the way she treated the plaintiff. Did he do something so terrible? Something most litigants on this show don't do-interrupt, so as to be admonished like that? This week, JM was also indulgent to the leather wearing fiancé and even complimented what the guy sees in her, etc. Now that was one odd looking match, so why did she get a special compliment as being a catch of some sort? Her fondness for that particular defendant made no sense. Her behavior toward the plaintiff and her fiancé was in no way admirable. So, why, was she favored? Because she was tough looking and was wearing a leather jacket is my only explanation, making her one of the "cool girls" JM so often seems to admire? The chest tattoo was probably something racist, IMO. "Soldier" in some racist "war" where her side is righteous. She dressed to highlight the chest tattoo. It did not need to be seen but was not just seen, it was displayed by the top she chose to wear. She was also evasive as to its meaning. Something was up with that, in my opinion. It has to mean something. Another point I want to make: JM is often particularly hard on pawn shop and jewelry repair shops when their paperwork or invoices are not up to her sometimes arbitrary standards. She always picks on their behavior, records, business practices, especially early in the case, to make them look shifty when the store owners are often in the right. Back to my main point: I just hate JM's unfairness and inconsistency. JJ too, but that is for another forum. Just see many patterns in how JM acts and rules. Edited May 4, 2018 by Bazinga 8 Link to comment
aemom May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 On 5/2/2018 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said: Lawnmower Man case? I got a creepy impression that Steve, who suffers from "anxiety" (and I think I know why) has some kind of Stockholm syndrome with that great brute There seemed to be quite the age difference between them. I also thought there was something fishy there and was surprised how jovial MM was. Also -- those leggings she was wearing - I MIGHT wear those to my exercise class (but probably not since I don't like skintight things), but I would never wear them anywhere else - especially court. I've said it before and I will say it a thousand times: Leggings are NOT pants. On 5/2/2018 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said: Plaintiff wants his deposit and rent back, since oddly enough, there was an infestation of bedbugs that started when he moved in to the def's premises (a bunch of people renting rooms here). Who says he didn't bring them in? He found the first one in HIS backpack and no one til then had complained about bedbugs. I noticed that too and also wondered if he was the guilty party. However, he could have been anywhere that a bedbug crawled in his bag. Those things can be anywhere. However, the landlord is obliged to deal with it. Wow. $950 to rent a single room in a NYC area. That is one insanely expensive place to live. On 5/2/2018 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said: If you aren't happy with the work, or non-work, someone does after you hire them, do not give them a cheque to make them go away and then stop payment the next day. Def wanted her new kitchen counters installed before Thanksgiving, got nervous because she didn't hear from plaintiff and fears he's never coming back, but he says he arrived with the countertops 3 days before Thanksgiving only to find def. had hired someone else in the predeeding 7 or so weeks (we don't know how long. Def says 10 weeks, or maybe 8 or maybe 7 or ?) to finish the job. Def agrees to call it quits if he gets paid for the work he did on her floors etc. JM makes her honour the cheque and informs her what she did is a crime. She seemed a little sketchy and confused about how long anything was taking. I think that she just panicked and hired someone else, which is fine, but in the end, you have to pay the piper. "How many times did you call him?" "Once, and I left a message." "Well that's not losing touch if you called him once." "Oh, I called him many times." ?????? I never listen to the intros and was expecting the case to be about the fact that she didn't like the counter that he chose for her, and I was surprised that it was a completely different plot. 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 (edited) In the case where the lady thought that her going to church bestowed on her a universal parking permit, MM's motivation for her questionable decision perhaps stemmed in part from the fact that this was a rare occasion where there was an opening to stick it to a towing company, an industry that elicits little sympathy in the public. Despite the fact that the tow was completely justified. As @Bazinga said, this was another instance where MM felt an inexplicable sympathy for a litigant and let that influence her in a biased way, as happened in other cases like the trainer who interjected; I agree that he did it very midly as compared to others who MM lets slide. Edited May 4, 2018 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 5 hours ago, Bazinga said: I just hate JM's unfairness and inconsistency. Is this extreme bias something new? I only remember her being very lenient if whoever trashed someone's house were young women in college, acting like spoiled childen. In those cases I assumed it was because of her own daughters. 5 hours ago, Bazinga said: This woman thought she was entitled to park there because she was going to church and the church parking was inadequate. So if I go into a store and steal a scarf, can I get away with it if I say I needed it for church and forgot mine at home? Can I sue the store when they fine me? She was stealing too - stealing money from the store owners if they had customers who couldn't park there because the lot is crammed with the illegally parked cars of the devout. 5 hours ago, Bazinga said: Her behavior toward the plaintiff and her fiancé was in no way admirable. So, why, was she favored? Because she was tough looking and was wearing a leather jacket is my only explanation, making her one of the "cool girls" JM so often seems to admire? That one had my jaw hanging. That big bruiser, with the horrible grammar, bad attitude and temper to match, wasn't someone to admire. JM completely ignored plaintiff's witness with his very specific description of the brute's horrible behavior, except for one little question about punching Steve and mooning plaintiff (all of which you know she did, oh, and he also heard her verbally abusing Grandpa when he was on the phone), and then completely dropped it and praised that frightening creature. Why?? 5 hours ago, Bazinga said: She dressed to highlight the chest tattoo. It did not need to be seen but was not just seen, it was displayed by the top she chose to wear. She was also evasive as to its meaning. I'd be willing to bet a few dollars that this motorcycle "club" is a really a criminal biker gang and not some social thing where they go for nice Sunday rides, especially after we heard about two murders. I think that's what the "soldier" tat meant, as criminal gangs do sometimes think of themselves as soldiers. I'd also bet even more dollars that plaintiff is not the wide-eyed, demure person we saw here when she's with the other "soldiers." 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 5 hours ago, Bazinga said: What he should do is say, screw you, after hours I am not open, come back for your car when I am. Then charge storage fees, which I did see mentioned on the sign. Would the lady have liked it better to be told come pick up your car on Tuesday, as we are closed today, Sunday, and for Labor Day? Then charge her storage fees. An excellent suggestion. The sign actually said, hours of redemption, Mon - Fri 10 am - 4 pm. So the extra $125 could have been argued as the courtesy fee for getting your car out of impound outside of those hours. I'm no big fan of tow truck operators, but this guy really didn't seem like he was being malicious or that he deliberately undercut existing NYC law. He came across as someone who'd been told he could charge extra for weekends (probably because he has to pay his workers extra), and didn't know that the law didn't support it. MM went way overboard with her assessment of punitive damages. 18 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: MM's motivation for her questionable decision perhaps stemmed in part from the fact that this was a rare occasion where there was an opening to stick it to a towing company, an industry that elicits little sympathy in the public. If you're going to hold yourself out as a paragon of the law, no matter which way it lands, you'd better keep your emotions out of your decision-making or you will lose credibility pretty damn fast. 6 Link to comment
Katy M May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 41 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: So if I go into a store and steal a scarf, can I get away with it if I say I needed it for church and forgot mine at home? Can I sue the store when they fine me? She was stealing too - stealing money from the store owners if they had customers who couldn't park there because the lot is crammed with the illegally parked cars of the devout. That reminds me of when someone who went to our church got pulled over for speeding on the way there. She said she was headed for church and he gave her a warning. He may have anyway, I have no idea. Anyway, the pastor found out about it and said "Don't speed on your way to church. It's OK if you're late. And, don't you ever use church or God to excuse breaking the law. We are to obey the laws of the land." So, please don't take this lady's entitlement as something that all Christians would do. 6 Link to comment
AZChristian May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 34 minutes ago, meowmommy said: An excellent suggestion. The sign actually said, hours of redemption, Mon - Fri 10 am - 4 pm. So the extra $125 could have been argued as the courtesy fee for getting your car out of impound outside of those hours. I'm no big fan of tow truck operators, but this guy really didn't seem like he was being malicious or that he deliberately undercut existing NYC law. He came across as someone who'd been told he could charge extra for weekends (probably because he has to pay his workers extra), and didn't know that the law didn't support it. MM went way overboard with her assessment of punitive damages. A quick Google search shows that some jurisdictions have written it into law that tow operators can charge an additional fee if someone wants their car released outside of the tow yard's normal hours. Portland allows $100. Otherwise, the offending parker has to pay the daily storage fee until the yard opens and they get their vehicle. Sounds fair to me. The tow yard owner has to pay someone to go to the yard and open it up and do the release paperwork. That should be charged to the person who parked illegally to begin with. Otherwise, it becomes entitlement (park where you want) on top of entitlement (pay what you want, regardless of whether you're costing someone else money). If plaintiff got reimbursed for Uber to get to the tow yard for breaking the law, why shouldn't tow yard owner be reimbursed for additional expenses that the plaintiff caused? Bad judgment, MM. 9 Link to comment
Katy M May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 I remember another tow case on PC that I think I disagreed with. I don't think it was all that long ago, but I have no concept of time when it comes to these things A woman went to pick up a take out order at a restaurant. I think it was for the whole office, not just for her, but that's not important. She pulled into the parking lot 15 minutes or so before she thought the order would be ready. She got out of her car and immediately left the parking lot to go next door to a dry cleaner's, I think. The tow car guy saw her get out of the car and immediately leave the parking lot and proceeded to tow her car. She then went to the restaurant and they were able to call the tow car guy back and she had to pay to get her car back, but less than if they had towed it all the way back to the yard. So, anyway JM awarded her her money back because she did have business with the restaurant that she was still conducting. But, I was left scratching my head as to how the tow guy was supposed to know that. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 (edited) quick summary - no recap as I have an appointment - oh for those following the window debacle, glass goes up and down -at least for now. Anyway - this is just summaries of cases as don't have time to watch more than intro and judgements exes battling over finances: old story - and proof positive that there is someone for everyone. Geez - first the sight of these two, then we hear that not only have they been getting it on with each other in their industrial strength bed - but hefty hefty dude has multiple women on the side [including at least one calling equally hefty defendant about his paternity test results]... Oh, and they apparently break up after living together for 8 Years because she went on a girls only trip and came home married... Nothing earth shattering here... Actually, I gave up when plaintiff - dude who has to prove his case to get anything - has to hm and haw over the simplest questions.... When did you buy the house together? Uhhhhhh - MM turns to defendant who immediately has an answer. Back to P, when did you move out because the house was foreclosed? P, huh uh - D, July 1st - back to P, no I think Dec..... Ok, not interested in hearing plus plus size sexcapades and actual case looks to be a dud - skipping for now and will come back if comments suggests it's worth a look-see. Judgement goes to plaintiff - I watch as audience laughs when MM gives him a hundred bucks parking lot damage: plaintiff claiming almost 5 grand in damage to his maserati after parking in defendant's parking structure. Defendant says plaintiff is inventing the damage because rates went up - oh, and says plaintiff waited to long before informing anyone of the damage. Plaintiff will have an uphill battle - the damage he's claiming supposedly happened in several incidents over time, yet he kept parking there - oh, and now that he's upset and says car was damaged he wants back money he paid to using the structure for months. Found this one better than 1st case. Defendant has the proof for his defense - but not with him. Plaintiff gets half of what he's asking. loan for friend's tv goes unpaid: again, nothing new here. Plaintiff claims buddy didn't have the credit to buy the tv, so idiot let him put it on his credit - and of course no-credit worthy defendant hasn't paid. Ok, this is today's winner. Not because of the case, but because of defendant's intro. Of course he says TV was a BD gift - same old story there. Laugh comes with what he says plaintiff does next. Claims when P gets arrested months later the gift became a loan because P needed money. Says when he told P he was broke, P came over and shot up D's apartment with a paint ball gun - knows it was P because not long after P gets arrested for shooting up a cop car with the same color of paint... Really who could make up this story... Have to actually watch at least this one, after my appointment, to see how plaintiff wins what he's looking for. Oh, and how many times was P arrested? In hallterview he tells Doug he's wearing a glove on his hand because the military wants his tat removed... when did he join? I remember when I joined back in the dark ages, some recruits were in because a judge somewhere gave them a choice between jail or military. Hmmm, any chance that's why P joined up? Edited May 4, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
aemom May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Actually, I don't think she should have even gotten back the entire amount she overpaid since it was her fault she got towed. Her attitude of entitlement was pretty outrageous and usually JM reams out people like that, who are suing for a tow when they were illegally parked. Both litigants deliberately broke the law, but he gets punished and she gets rewarded. I don't get it, but I'm not a lawyer. I agree. I think it was the church factor that caused her to get the easier side of all this. 11 hours ago, Bazinga said: She also was trying to argue class action for the others she happened to know about being charged that day. JM should have explicitly struck that down by telling her she can't sue for the damages that others incurred. Was the church lady going to distribute the award money to the others if she prevailed in receiving money on their behalf? Why was this situation deserving of punitive damages when most every other case is not? Was the tow-truck operator really that wrong? That bad? Worse then so many others we see so as to need to get punished? Does the statute call for punitive damages like we sometimes see in some states when landlords don't send letters explaining why they are withholding security deposits? No, but JM has a thing for tow-truck drivers overcharging. What he should do is say, screw you, after hours I am not open, come back for your car when I am. Then charge storage fees, which I did see mentioned on the sign. Would the lady have liked it better to be told come pick up your car on Tuesday, as we are closed today, Sunday, and for Labor Day? Then charge her storage fees. The purpose of towing cars that are illegally parked is to keep the area clear of the illegally parked vehicle and to punish the wrongdoer by charging for the tow, to serve as a chilling effect on the behavior of others. As this lady was not punished, and was in fact rewarded with a bonanza, there is no chilling effect on other drivers for illegal parking, which is the intent of the law. Also, the Uber rides she got awarded for, as well. If her daughter had picked her up like she should have, would the daughter's time and gas have been awarded? No, would have been dismissed just like when JJ ignores charges when a landlord does the repairs themselves or has a spouse do it. This lady got rewarded because she paid an outside party to drive her. The Uber rides especially were a little much. No matter what, she needed the Uber ride to get her car back whether she paid $50 or $250. 11 hours ago, Bazinga said: Hate that some people are treated better then they deserve by JM. Hate the repeated inconsistency. Think back to the physical trainer earlier in the week. He mildly interrupted the defendant twice. We all know we have seen worse ignored or indulged by JM. Here the Judge took the guy's head off; humiliated him as being a "big baby" because he would not allow something negative to be said against him. Made no sense in context and was undeserved. He interrupted, like so, so many others, was he really acting like a "big baby?" As it turns out, plaintiff was right and the defendant was a big jerk who ended up getting kicked out of court. It made no sense the way she treated the plaintiff. Did he do something so terrible? Something most litigants on this show don't do-interrupt, so as to be admonished like that? I noticed that too and I was trying to figure out why she got so upset with him, because I've seen far worse that never gets the slightest reprimand. I think she initially thought he was just a whiner until the details of the case came out. But still, that's no excuse. 11 hours ago, Bazinga said: This week, JM was also indulgent to the leather wearing fiancé and even complimented what the guy sees in her, etc. Now that was one odd looking match, so why did she get a special compliment as being a catch of some sort? Her fondness for that particular defendant made no sense. Her behavior toward the plaintiff and her fiancé was in no way admirable. So, why, was she favored? Because she was tough looking and was wearing a leather jacket is my only explanation, making her one of the "cool girls" JM so often seems to admire? I was really surprised that MM seemed impressed by that woman because she looked a bit scary and there is no question about who makes all the rules in that relationship. I'd be surprised if he's allowed to leave the house without her permission. Edited May 4, 2018 by AEMom Typo 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 4, 2018 Share May 4, 2018 The first litigants: Oh, those madcap lovebirds! It's as I always say: If you're with someone who is intelligent, charming, successful and gorgeous/handsome, you have to expect other people will be wanting them too. Such was the case here. Lothario plaintiff, who has MANY women and baby mommas (understandably! I mean just look at and listen to him!) is suing his former Life Partner, with really orange makeup, for utilities and whatever expenses on a house that went into forclosure. How unexpected. Anyway, Lover Boy - he of the many women - says his ex-squeeze went and got married to some guy she met in the Dominican Republic. I just know he was struck with the Lightning Bolt of Love at first sight at her nasty, Perma-Bitch Face when she first entered his life. It had nothing to do with him wanting a ticket to the US, for sure! JM says, while looking at the pictures of the Happy Couple that it looks like love to her(!!?). I get that, because when I was in Bahamas, I had many lovestruck lads proposing marriage to me. It happened nearly every day I was there. I, of course, knew it was because I was so irresistable. None of them could have cared less, or even thought about about coming back to Canada with me, right? God, I'm so charming and beautiful that strangers chased me along the beach, declaring their undying devotion and instant, deep love for me! The cardiologist suing for damage done - three times! - to his Maserati in the parking garage of his building: Yeah, I'm sure he has nothing better to do than spend his time planning and plotting how to rip off the garage company for a few dollars to fix his car. It couldn't be that the ever-changing staff in the garage thought, "Woo hoo! Maserati! Ride 'em cowboy!" and played a little Bumper Car. Def says he has video evidence of the attendant (who was later suspended) telling plaintiff about pre-existing damage to his car. "I'd like to see that," says JM. "Oh, well," says manager. "I don't have it with me! Take my word for it, okay?" And that, after he says he charges more for parking luxury cars because it increases his insurance cost. Not sure why that matters, since he has no intention of compensating his clients for their losses at the hands of his careless, transient employees. Finally we had plaintiff suing the creepy little def for a TV plaintiff put on his newly-acquired Walmart credit and for which def (who couldn't qualify even for the Walmart credit) has no money, was out of work, was in an accident, had surgery, oh-woe-is-me - never paid. Def needed a really big TV - bigger than that which plaintiff bought for himself, so maybe plaintiff gave him a gift? Or maybe not, but he doesn't feel he should have to pay for it. Go get Byrd to pay for it, you little toad, but in the meantime, pay plaintiff back. JM wants to know if def, in all this time, ever went out to eat (he certainly isn't starving) went to a movie, etc. and if so should have been able to give plaintiff that money. Why should he spend money paying his debts when he can use it for entertainment or feeding his face? Really, why should he? 5 Link to comment
meowmommy May 5, 2018 Share May 5, 2018 8 hours ago, SRTouch said: quick summary - no recap as I have an appointment - oh for those following the window debacle, glass goes up and down -at least for now. It's ok--your weecaps are great, too. Glad your glass goes up and down. I could hear broken glass in my car door for months after my window was repaired, every time the pane went up or down. The cases today were so boring I fell asleep in the middle of the second one. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 5, 2018 Share May 5, 2018 9 hours ago, SRTouch said: Says when he told P he was broke, P came over and shot up D's apartment with a paint ball gun - knows it was P because not long after P gets arrested for shooting up a cop car with the same color of paint... Really who could make up this story... Gee, I completely missed all that part. I must have zoned out while that little slug was droning on his tale of woe. Shooting a cop car with paint balls. Just brilliant. These two are geniuses for sure with great futures ahead of them. 1 Link to comment
califred May 5, 2018 Share May 5, 2018 I gave up after the first case, guess I should have stuck around for paintball. The two in case one still held a lot of vitriol for each other. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch May 5, 2018 Share May 5, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Gee, I completely missed all that part. I must have zoned out while that little slug was droning on his tale of woe. Shooting a cop car with paint balls. Just brilliant. These two are geniuses for sure with great futures ahead of them. Ah, well, never watched actual case. Very good chance the paintball was just intro' nonsense and never came up in testimony... wouldn't be the first time intro turned out to be total BS. I read your recap and saw a couple other folks give today's cases thumbs down, so didn't go back and watch. Looks like a bunch of dog cases lately on all my court TV programs - only watch TPC, Hot Bench and JJ. Saw previews of upcoming JJ case where JJ is yelling at dog owner that smirking about her dog attacking another dog is NOT FUNNY... may be time for another hiatus - but, heck, we just got over reruns ? Edited May 5, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 5, 2018 Share May 5, 2018 8 hours ago, SRTouch said: Very good chance the paintball was just intro' nonsense and never came up in testimony Hmm. I think that must be it because I don't listen to intros and heard not a word of that in the case. Maybe Levin has a little something more in his massive sippy cup than Vanilla Bean Frappucchino Latte. 8 hours ago, SRTouch said: Looks like a bunch of dog cases lately on all my court TV programs Yep. Checked my DVR and saw the word "dog" way too many times. "Erase". 5 Link to comment
califred May 6, 2018 Share May 6, 2018 You guys are awesome for watching before me so I know when it’s not worth my time! By the time it’s on here it’s evening/night on the mainland. 3 Link to comment
Brattinella May 6, 2018 Share May 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, califred said: You guys are awesome for watching before me so I know when it’s not worth my time! By the time it’s on here it’s evening/night on the mainland. So how are things over there? Is is smoky, stinky, are you in danger?? 3 Link to comment
califred May 6, 2018 Share May 6, 2018 I live on Oahu and it’s on the Big Island, I’m sure it smells there plus so far 5 homes are gone and my dh saw a video of a man standing on his roof while lava was all around his house. I honestly didn’t realize lava would just come up out of the road/ground. (Where the vents formed) Worst we will get is the Vog if the winds change. Thx for asking ? 7 Link to comment
SRTouch May 7, 2018 Share May 7, 2018 (edited) Pool hall car wreck: (not much of a case - lots of confusing fractured grammar - but kind of entertaining as the litigants stumble through their cases ) friends hanging at the pool hall - defendant driving plaintiff's car when it gets totaled - plaintiff wants defendant to pay difference between car value and what insurance paid. Their stories differ in a couple key ways. Plaintiff says she was already inside shooting pool when defendant takes her keys out of her coat - without permission - goes for a drive and gets in some wreck which totals her car. Defendant says they were just getting to the pool hall, defendant driving since plaintiff already tipsy. Plaintiff got out in front of hall, defendant drives around back to park - someone comes out of nowhere and rams her. Defendant claims other driver at fault, says his insurance paid plaintiff the value of her car - oh, and says plaintiff's car was uninsured. Gotta wonder just how plaintiff's car was totaled if all defendant was doing is driving around building to park. These two have dueling 3 grand claims - plaintiff wants 3 grand ($1700 because of the difference of what she was paid versus what she figures car was worth + $1300 just because); defendant figures she's faced 3 grand worth of harassment. (Seems their jurisdiction max is 3 grand - probably be claiming 10 grand if they were in California.) Once testimony starts we quickly learn there was a carload of women heading to the pool hall - great, both litigants came with witnesses, so this won't be she said/she said... ah, but wait, witnesses weren't actually witnesses, they're here for the free lunch. Plaintiff says she gave one of their mutual friends her keys to make a trip to the store - even making the point that she checked to make sure the driver had a license before handing over keys to the car. (Yeah, all uninsured drunks ask to see the license of people before they loan their ride.) Ok - driving to the store makes more sense than being totaled while parking. Anyway, according to P, somehow D ended up behind the wheel even though this other mutual friend was the person who was supposed to be driving. Ok, over to D, who starts out with "that's a lie!" Ok, her story couldn't be more different. Girls night at the pool hall, didn't happen, says D. No, according to her, P came and picked her up when she got off work at 1230am - not girls, P and some dude in the car, with another carload of dude's in a second vehicle. Oh, and they don't head to the pool hall right away, they go to P's crib first, and pick up D's female cousin (only important because that's who P says had permission to drive). Ok, once they pick up cuz, they decide they don't want to invite these dudes into P's crib - no, one of the guys is a known to have sticky fingers, don't want him inside, let's go hang at the pool hall. Now's where D says she hops behind the wheel - she's going to drive from P's crip to the pool hall... she's just got off work and is sober and everybody else has been partying awhile. Hoboy, poor MM, trying to make sense of the garbled grammar, bet she wishes she could hit FF... not just the garbled grammar, but D sometimes calls folks by nicknames, they're not really cousins, they just call each other cousin, etc. D abandons the whole "car totaled while parking" nonsense in the intro... no she says she and two other girls - not P - head off to the store for snacks. Ok, now the smash-up... but unless someone is about to pull up a police report, or one of the witnesses from either side actually witnessed something, this case is going nowhere... D says P came down the block to the scene, but doesn't want cops to known because she has a warrant. No says P, Didn't have no warranty then, but have one now because of the accident... huh, why would she have a warrant if D admits to driving the car?.... ah, could it be that D gave false ID to cops at scene? As we go to commercial MM is asking D if she has a license - D, yeah I have a license - Let's see it - oh, I don't have it on me - I don't think you have a license - oh, I don't have a VALID license, it's been suspended, but I had a license then. Ah, reason MM starts on that line of questions - she has the police report in front of her and D was ticketed at the scene for not having a license. New nonsense from D, she says cops didn't ask anyone for her ID. Uh, yeah, I can buy not asking passengers who were being loading into ambulances to go to the ER - but her testimony is that she wasn't hurt and was waiting for AAA, no way cops didn't ask for her license. Soooo D doesn't produce a license, and cops give her a couple tickets in the phoney name she provides. P, who may or may not have had a warrant at the time, now has a warrant because the cops mailed her a ticket for permitting the unlicensed D to drive and she ignored the summons... Guess that's why she made a point of testifying she checked the mystery person for a license before giving permission to go to the store. Ok, this farce has gone on long enough.... lots of yakking but only actual evidence is the police report - which is just narratives and no accident reconstruction. Time to zip ahead. MM rules that since D was driving she has to pay the 20% of the value of the car other driver's insurance didn't cover - and if accident was really other guy's fault she can sue him. Not sure I agree.... both these litigants have dirty filthy hands, I wouldn't give either anything. security deposit case: whopping big case - plaintiffs suing ex-landlord over the $160 he withheld from their security deposit. Landlord claims plaintiff over stayed term of rental agreement, and money withheld to cover for the last week's rent plus an extra week it took for P to get everything out... hmmm, landlord doesn't know how these things are supposed to go as he forgot to file a countersuit for a gazillion bucks. Poor sad sack plaintiff dude, may not have a case, but I'm feeling sorry for the dude just watching him. Takes awhile, but eventually MM figures out dude was paying for a room a week at a time. Actually, gf, Maria, pays his bills - doesn't live with him, but pays the bills. Point of contention is that plaintiffs claim rent was paid a week in advance, while D claims they paid after the week was over. Simple case if they had anything in writing - oh, like a rental agreement or receipts with something on a memo line saying what period the money was for. Course, that would make things too easy. Ah, but D comes up with a new excuse for showing up without his records... claims his accountant has all the records for his taxes.... uh, if I understood what he just said, the disputed money is from a week missed in July, and P moved out in October - even if accountant needs the records for taxes, why not bring a copy. Ok, either way, P just admitted stuff was left in the room for an extra week - which they're not even claiming was paid. Oh, but says P, landlord agreed to let them leave the stuff and come back later.... besides, he already had a tenant in the wings and new guy moved in as soon as he moved out - while stuff was still there. So - forget that week and back to the question of was rent paid at beginning or end of the week... ok, says Maria, there was a time where they missed a payment back in july, but she caught them up - and she passes up a stack of papers to prove it.... ah, but it's a disorganized mess, and MM has Douglas take it back and tells Maria to put it in order. Ah ha... Maria finds the proof - she has a dated receipt for two weeks and the receipt shows which weeks are paid - and D signed the receipt when she paid. Looks to me like Maria has proved her case.... hmmmm, new defense - for the first time D is saying tenant left damages. Uh, really, and the new tenant moved in the day after P moved out? D passes up his picture so MM can view the damages - a scratch on a cabinet. Couple problems here, but biggy is that picture isn't dated... not good when you testify you took the picture on Oct 29th and the judge checks the date on the phone and finds it was actually taken end of December. Oh, and when judge calls you on the error, you should not answer "ok." Yep, ok is right - plaintiff gets what they're asking for... then D gets mouthy and interrupts as MM is ruling - boring non-case, and even slap down when dude gets mouthy is muted. When he gets outside, Doug points out he's no defense (no records and caught lying about photo) and D rants that "the landlord always gets screwed." Love it when Doug just repeats he had no defense, and repeats "you were wrong, you were wrong" as he points towards the exit. ok, dog attack case: little bit I heard before skipping ahead - P has her dog in an unfenced yard - D's dog attacked her dog, causing extensive injuries - P argues her yard actually has one of those electric fences - really wouldn't matter to me, D dog came onto her property to attack.... not sure what dude (who, BTW, doesn't appear the least bit sorry) came up with as a defense, but I stop long enough to hear idiot put on his FB page that while walking his leashed dog the dog charges anybody (not just dogs) that approaches. Surprise, not only does dufus lose the case, but MM advises him that if his dog ever actually bites anyone he's gone on record that it charges people. And, to prove just how big an idiot he is, he argues with MM when she says he's WAY ON NOTICE his dog may be vicious. Like I said, totally not sorry - he tells Doug he's not surprised he lost, not sorry and still trying to blame the woman whose dog was attacked. Edited May 12, 2018 by SRTouch Replaced a "story" with "sorry" 7 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.