AngelaHunter May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 10 hours ago, meowmommy said: I still don't get, since the tow people legally took title and didn't actually want the car, why MM made them deduct KBB value from the daily impound charges. I still don't understand why MM gave it such a high value. I'm pretty sure all the prices in the KBB are for cars that can actually run, no? There are no prices listed for utterly broken down wrecks full of mice. The only value should be parts that can be salvaged at the scrap yard, I would imagine. A few hundred dollars? Maybe I'm missing something. 4 Link to comment
aemom May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I still don't understand why MM gave it such a high value. I'm pretty sure all the prices in the KBB are for cars that can actually run, no? There are no prices listed for utterly broken down wrecks full of mice. The only value should be parts that can be salvaged at the scrap yard, I would imagine. A few hundred dollars? Maybe I'm missing something. If memory serves, there are different categories of the condition of used cars, and while I doubt that "mice-infested" is one of them, the lowest condition one probably still qualifies at $2K because BMWs are expensive cars that hold their value. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 I took a quick look, and the cheapest 2003 BMW I found is 1,999$. It's "As is" but it's actually running, probably not well and no doubt needs a lot of work but seems head and shoulders better than the lawyer's abandoned, dead pile of junk. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 21, 2018 Share May 21, 2018 (edited) hit and run smash up: entertaining - but wow these litigants!? break out the whiteboard and toy cars! plaintiff claims he was parking his car when defendant came along and sideswiped him - says defendant tried to drive off, but was caught by cops - and accident deemed fault of defendant. Then things start going sideways. Plaintiff had to wait 2 months before adjuster declared his car totaled - during all that time his wreck was racking up storage fees and he's driving a rental. Defendant WAS insured, but must have been one of those lousy policies with a cap or something, as plaintiff still hasn't received any money - is here today asking for 5 grand. Ok, defendant tells a different story... a wayyyyy different story. According to his intro, plaintiff is unlicensed and uninsured, and it was plaintiff who caused the accident when he backed out of a parking space into oncoming traffic. Could this be one of those times when an unlicensed driver (P) is bared from recovery even when other driver is at fault? Oh, and how can an unlicensed driver sue for a rental? Can he even rent a car without a license? (Never hear anything about license during testimony) Legally, should be simple case. If P is being truthful, he should have a police report assigning blame to D. Then, question will be one of damages, and whether P can collect without a license. Ok, testimony starts at whiteboard, and P even supplies soundeffects, which gives MM a chance to get a laugh. Ah, seems there was already a cop car at scene - so much for a car chase and hit and run story in intro. Anyway, P says he was half backed into paring space (parallel parking) when D sideswiped him - while D says he was stopped behind P (who was stopped behind the cop car) and P backed in to D - very little damage, just scratch on bumper. Huh, are these guys sure they were involved in the same accident? Uh oh, when MM asks for pictures D suddenly repositioning cars, now he's showing his car angled into side of P. Not looking good for D, changing his story. My doesn't P look like he's happy with D's performance, as he asks the judge if she wants pictures of the damage or the police report... oh yeah, and easy to see why he's happy, as MM holds up picture and asks D how the hell this happened if accident happened today way he said. Ah, his story is all the damage shown in picture is from some other accident, as there's no corresponding damage to his vehicle.... ok, maybe so - time for police report... hmmmm, dude was so eager to offer up the police report a moment ago, WTH is he now having to dig through his folder to find it? (and WTH is D doing fiddling on his phone all this time?) Ok, while P looking for his evidence, MM turns to D and we hear another bit of nonsense. Must have a counterclaim for assault... he tells us he was in a store buying smokes when P came up and suckered punched him - cops, EMS responded, stitches at ER, (camera zoom in and shows scar on D's bald head) etc. MM asks P if he was arrested? No your honor, not arrested. D, I got an order of protection and P WAS arrested. MM, asks again, were you arrested? - P, oh, yeah, I thought you meant that day, yeah, I was arrested 5 days later, but I didn't do it... uh oh, MM finds case is pending, probably shouldn't ask too many questions about that... oh, and D also claims P put sugar in his tank, which he says was reported, but no, no evidence. Hmmmm, did I miss MM looking at accident police report? was hit and run just intro smoke and mirrors? - still waiting to hear about status of P's license. Anyway, she's now asking for car damage estimate and P is going into his claim... whoa dude is reaching, here. Claims insurance offered KBB - which he claims is between $2500 and $4000, wants $1500 for 20 days storage on receipt MM finds highly suspicious, 20 days rental car - sounds like he never actually rented a car, just heard that was something you get after an accident so he wants to ensure paid for it.... oh, and says D called and told insurance this was all a scam, so insurance denied claim.... hmmmm more I hear more information doubt P's claim and figure he's looking at this as a money making opportunity... MM says she believes his version of the accident (ok, she saw the police report, I didn't) but she also believes P clicked D upside his head. Today's verdict is $2,900 for the car damage (nothing for storage or rental) and D hasn't filed a counterclaim.... must be waiting til assault criminal case is settled. GOOFY tattoo: ?silly case - giving it a thumbs up because it was short and simple after the first case's litigants P says he paid for three tats - only got two done before shop fired tattoo artist - so he wants money back for the tat he paid for and never received. D says the artists are more independent contractor, not actual employees - says artist caught on surveillance camera stealing, so got booted. Well, says MM, how do customers know about this independent contractor bit - shouldn't the shop just make it right. Ok, now there's a dispute about the shop policy. Seems the policy is that if you stand up an artist and miss an appointment you lose any advance money - and when they finally get the thieving artist he claims P missed the appointment for the third tat. Uh, who to believe - the customer who as far as we know is honest, or the guy caught on video stealing and has additional larceny charges pending. Nope, especially as D has to admit he has nothing showing a followup appointment was missed - give the dude back his money. deposit case: ??? did not enjoy listening P ranting against D - didn't like how MM let P just rant on and on with no evidence - oh, and did not appreciate seeing high end (granite counters, laminate floor, tiled kitchen and bathroom, frickin' tv mounted under kitchen cabinets) section 8 housing tenant claims landlady let maintenance slide, she lived out the lease but is glad to be out of there, just wants her deposit back - ah, but how much was the deposit, this woman is suing for 5 grand. D says P was tenant from hell - all kinds of traffic while there and left all kinds of damage in her wake. When testimony starts we learn deposit was $2,500 - P is seeking double because she says there's no basis to withhold any money as there were no damages. Soon as P starts testifying we get a rehearsed speech about how D is world's worst ever landlady - "she's nasty and plain out wicked for no reason!" Not sure why MM let's her run on and on - guess she needs time filled, but nothing I'm hearing has anything to do with the deposit... Finally, MM says, that's lovely, but let's talk about the case. Uh huh, but that doesn't move things along much - P finally starts talking about the apartment - but she talking about condition when she first moved in. Ok, floors were messed up when she moved in, let's see the pictures.... uhhhh, as she looks up and into the distance, well, she doesn't have pictures of the floor. Ah well, says MM, were you was section 8? Yes, but not anymore. Uh huh, says MM, and you say D was nasty because she reported you to section 8 for having bf living there when he wasn't supposed to. Oh, no, that's not why she was nasty -- ok, I'm getting tired of her fast and am ready to listen to landlady. Ah, over to D - so glad to learn what a high end place section 8 was paying for - geez, part of damage claim is broken TV in freeking kitchen! Ok, landlady has before and after pictures - yep sure looks great (way better than my humble abode). Anyway, pictures show some damage - some of it may be just cleaning and wear and tear - but enough that no way would this rise to a double deposit back type case (unless there's a requirement of itemized list which wasn't met.) Here is thought we were going to start talking about the case, and instead MM is letting P run on again about how unprofessional D is and a bunch of hearsay where other tenants supposedly made complaints. Actually I thought D defended herself quite well, sounds like what P is quoting is sort of yelp reviews which, as D points out, anyone can get on and write anything. Ok, big ticket item - damage to laminate floor is tossed because no good theory on how tenant caused damage... but several items on damage list stand.... P gets back less than half the deposit - forget the double down bonanza scam. Really, defendant didn't need to say much, she came off looking pretty good (besides her hair). When we get to hallterview - actually, not sure WTH P was trying to say, except that MM was all wrong. Edited May 27, 2018 by SRTouch 8 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 21, 2018 Share May 21, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: hit and run smash up: The key to the decision seems to have been in the police report, but MM did not grace us with a detailed reading from it. Litigants were both equally confused and shifty. P was a winner in this case, but we will not know if his luck holds up in the criminal assault complaint. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: GOOFY tattoo: Everyone was confused with the labour law terminology; they kept talking about an "employee" whereas the contract defined him as an independent contractor, using the parlour's premises. In which case P's recourse would have been against the individual, whose responsibility it would have been to make the business relationship clear to the customer. On the other hand, the owner shoud take this as a lesson and make those conditions clearer for customers, for example through a display or by printing them on the service agreement or bill. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: didn't like how MM let P just rant on and on with no evidrnce She sounded so rehearsed and calculating in her little opening speech that I was very disappointed MM did not smack her down, and did not reprimand her for here gratuitous digs at the landlord throughout. Nor did Doug call her on her irrelevant and confused hypothetical in the hallterview. Did she hypnotise them both in some secret way? I would have preferred if she had been made to pay for at least part of the floor, but the evidence for the moving-in condition was not there. Edited May 22, 2018 by Florinaldo 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 21, 2018 Share May 21, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: hit and run smash up: entertaining - but wow these litigants! The thought that people this stupid are out there, freely driving around, is scary. "No, I wasn't arrested." Well, he means he wasn't arrested that day. He was arrested a few days later for the assault. that doesn't count, does it? He didn't understand the question, I guess. Duh. "I.. I... I... I..." Ugh. Def. was just as incomprehensible, except for the big scar on his football-shaped head. Have a dispute you need to settle? Just go punch someone in the melon if, like a toddler, you are devoid of impulse control. There. Solved. Oh, but plaintiff never did that. I guess it's a big conspiracy to frame him. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: GOOFY tattoo: I don't know why the defs didn't just give the plaintiff his measly 150$ instead of appearing here and doing harm to their business. Plaintiff - a grown man with a comic book and cartoon fetish but hey - it's his skin - is supposed to run all over town hunting down the def's felonious worker? Yeah, I'm sure he'd get the money from him before he goes to jail for whatever criminal hijinks he's up to now. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: deposit case: I really wish this case had been on JJ. Plaintiff, who doesn't know the difference between "draw" and "thaw" starts her case with a rehearsed speech about how evil, condescending and totally wicked the landlord is. JJ would have shut that shit down pronto. For some bizarre reason, JM seemed to find that charming. I did not. So, if you want to buy a house, go get Sec8 so you can save money for that house. Plaintiff raises her eyes to the heavens and thanks the lord for that, when she should be thanking the over-burdened taxpayers who for some reason had to shell out to keep her in a "high-end" apartment. JM noted the upscale cabinets and granite countertops. How nice for plaintiff and her boyfriend, who you just know was living there too. Why not? Share the windfall! I lived in very UN-high-end apartments before buying a house, where I still don't have granite countertops, but of course, unlike plaintiff, I had to pay the rent myself. 7 Link to comment
aemom May 21, 2018 Share May 21, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I lived in very UN-high-end apartments before buying a house, where I still don't have granite countertops, but of course, unlike plaintiff, I had to pay the rent myself. You and me both. I still have my laminate counters because that was all I could afford when I redid my kitchen 20 years ago. Which I saved up for all by myself and didn't rely on social assistance. I was also surprised that MM let her go on and on with her rehearsed spiel. The tattoo parlour was stupid not to refund the money. It makes them look bad. I don't remember if they wanted the name of their business kept secret or not. If your place is benefiting from positive reviews from the tattoo artists that work in your place, then you need to take some of the bad that comes along with it. The plaintiff totally clocked the defendant in the head and the accident was the defendant's fault, so MM got that right. "Were you arrested?" "No." "Oh, well, not that day." *eyeroll* Edited May 22, 2018 by AEMom Typo 5 Link to comment
meowmommy May 21, 2018 Share May 21, 2018 1 hour ago, AEMom said: You and me both. I still have my laminate counters because that was all I could afford when I redid my kitchen 20 years ago. Which I saved up for all by myself and didn't rely on social assistance. I was also surprised that MM let her go on and on with her rehearsed spiel. I only have granite countertops because they came with the house I bought three years ago and the house I bought this year. Believe me, they're overrated and a pain in the ass to maintain. As usual, I am perturbed that the security deposit goes back to the tenant, when the rent was paid by the taxpayers, but I suppose if there wasn't some carrot dangling on some stick to induce tenants to behave, they'd completely trash apartments owing to lack of incentive to do otherwise. I wondered why the landlady bothered to get section 8 tenants if her apartments were so nice, but perhaps she overdeveloped for the neighborhood. I agree with you and everyone above that MM had no business letting the mouthy, entitled plaintiff basically slander the defendant with zero evidence and 100% hearsay/psychotic visions. 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 22, 2018 Share May 22, 2018 1 minute ago, meowmommy said: As usual, I am perturbed that the security deposit goes back to the tenant, I too was puzzled at how this self-righteous person, who feels perfectly justified to get public assistance to live in her "high-end" place, had 2500$ in cash to pay a deposit. That's a lot of money for any average person to have on hand and she was awfully indignant for someone who lived on the enforced handouts of others. JJ would have asked where she got that much money. I'd like to know too. This Sec 8 seems like it provides boe-nanzas to people who want to live in upscale places but want someone else to foot the bill. Sounds good to me. I just wish I had thought of that many years ago, instead of being stuck in an ancient, tiny apartment where I was surrounded with freaks and weirdos. 3 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I suppose if there wasn't some carrot dangling on some stick to induce tenants to behave, they'd completely trash apartments owing to lack of incentive to do otherwise. From what we see on this show, tenants trash places anyway. What do they care for property that someone else owns? 4 Link to comment
Broderbits May 22, 2018 Share May 22, 2018 36 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I agree with you and everyone above that MM had no business letting the mouthy, entitled plaintiff basically slander the defendant with zero evidence and 100% hearsay/psychotic visions. I'm so disappointed with JM for allowing her to rant like that. Aren't these cases supposed to be about facts, not opinions? Did some kind of order come down from Levin to spice things up with slander? There's enough of this kind of behavior in "real life", I don't need it in a court show. 6 Link to comment
aemom May 22, 2018 Share May 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Broderbits said: I'm so disappointed with JM for allowing her to rant like that. Aren't these cases supposed to be about facts, not opinions? Did some kind of order come down from Levin to spice things up with slander? There's enough of this kind of behavior in "real life", I don't need it in a court show. The operative word here is: Show. With Levin, it's all about ratings and attention and the kind of "show" they can put on. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch May 22, 2018 Share May 22, 2018 (edited) check cashing fiasco: convoluted mess - glad MM kept it straight, because i have no idea?? ?started out ok, but went down hill - 2/3rd of way through I no longer cared one way or the other... plaintiff is one of those litigants who, instead of having a bank account - or even just be willing pay a fee to cash it at a store. I have a friend who lived most of his adult life without a bank account. So, I know enough to know some check cashing places rip you off by charging you a percentage of the check. My friend cashed his paychecks at WalMart. Quick check online tells me you pay $3 for a check up to $1,000, or $6 up to $5,000 (KMART used to be cheaper - but our KMART is now out of business). Anyway, reason this dude is a litigant is that he had his checks directed deposited to a his mom's friend's account and he says she kept $2,800 of his money. Then the friend accused him of damaging her car, so she's refusing to give him his money. Course friend denies owing P any money. She argues dude drove her car - even though he doesn't have a license - and smashed into the car across the street when backing out of the driveway. Not only doesn't she feel she owes him anything, she's countersuing for almost, $2,500 for the car damage. Hmmm, is she saying he did over 5 grand worth of damage to HER car backing out of a driveway, or is she stuck paying for the other car because she let an unlicensed driver use her car and insurance denied claim. Once testimony starts we learn checks P was depositing were from Social Security - which at least to me makes whole thing make even less sense.... when a friend finally got his big back disability check, he was strongly encouraged to have it direct deposited (same friend I was talking about earlier - and this is when he opened a bank account.) Anyway, dude's story doesn't make much sense. What he says is he was temporarily living with defendant after moving to NY (lived with her for about a month) - but since he didn't have a NY ID or drivers license he couldn't open a bank account - which is why he was having his disability checks go into her account. Uhhh, how hard is it to get a NY ID? And, how many checks are we talking about if he loved with her for "about a month?" And, really, in today's world of electronic banking, why not keep his account in whatever state he moved from until he's set up in NY! Anyway, his story doesn't make sense to me... if I'm understanding him, he moved from Ohio to NY, lived with her for a month, then moved to Myrtle Beach and lived there a while, then back to Ohio. While he's moving around, he thought it a good idea to have his checks direct deposited into her bank. He planned to let her keep 1 month's check for room/board, and all together 3 checks went into her account.... but she's hanging onto his money. Oh, and he freely tells us his disability is for mental health issues and epilepsy, and I have to think he didn't hide that from D... maybe just be, but I think this would be one of those times I'd make sure dude had a driver's license before letting him drive - well, actually, I don't lend my car. Ah well, he has convoluted story, but what he says D offered as to why she kept two extra checks also pretty lame. Ok, first month he admits he let her keep. Second month, while he was living in Myrtle Beach, her story is that his money us lost in the mail - she sent a money order, but didn't keep the stub - now it's lost. Next month she decides she gets to keep the money for supposed car damage - that she's just now complaining about for the first time - after 2 months (false - later we find out she was complaining all along). Ok, over to D to see what she has to say... ah, couple things about lovely D -- first, when she came in I unkind lyrics thought she reminded me of one of our founding fathers (actually, though Ben Franklin.; but ole Ben would have been much more convincing than this woman. Then she starts getting attitude when MM asks for clarification of the bits and pieces of her story... I gave him his Nov check - two seconds later, it's I send it to so and so because he asked me to - hold on, says MM, thought you gave it to him - then she starts getting a 'tude.... ah, and when she's tries to use a notarized statement from a brother in law that she send P money, things starts to get heated when MM says she's not taking the statement - old hag gets excited and starts getting louder and MM warns her to rake it down a notch or risk getting booted from her courtroom. Ok, from her bank statement it does look like she wired (popmoney - new to be, but guess it's today's western union where you can electronicely transfer money from your account into someone elses). What her account shows is that she transfered money from her account to the guy (a nephew or God son or something) that P moved in with in Myrtle Beach. Once MM sees that, she tells P he may be suing the wrong person as it looks like Myrtle Beach dude received at least some of his money. Hmmm, apparently, he parted company with Myrtle Beach dude amicably - when Myrtle Beach dude was getting threatened with eviction. Wonder why, and if it was for nonpayment of rent, got to doubt P's contention that good BUDDY IN Myrtle Beach was letting him live that here rent free - in fact says they never even discussed P contributing towards expenses. Oh, and when MM asks if he still talks that hereof good buddy, nah, seems good buddy's squeeze cussed him out for leaving them in the lurch.... gotta says makes it sound like D WAS sending money down south like she says, and when money order lost things kind of blew up when Myrtle Beach couple couldn't pay the bills. (But, like MM says, the lost money order would be on D so hopefully she can figure a way to track it down.) Ah, but there's still the self help car damage where she keeps some if his money for alleged car damage.... she may be entitled to be paid if she can prove he damaged the car, hut she can't just keep his money. Seems I'm saying convoluted a lot with this one.... if I'm right, instead of lady keeping me $2800, she actually there's actually only $300 odd unaccounted first (remembering the $500 lost money order that I believe lady sent, but will end up having to make good since she can't prove or recover). Ah, but the car damage... he denies everything damaging the car, but at one point in a text exchange offer to let her keep a couple hundred to fix it. So, can she prove he damaged it, does she share any liability for letting an unlicensed epileptic drive the car, and is there an estimate for the damage? (remember she has at least some of his money already, and is suing for $2,500... this better not be some $500 junker.) Math on this one is confusing, as both sides are suing for money they have admitted other doesn't really owe. After urging P to get his own fricking bank account, MM is ready to decide the case - but I'm over with it and just waiting for next case. Of the Social Security money deposited in Def's account, there's about $330 unaccounted for (not sure where in all this the lost money order fits). MM makes a strong case for dude being on hook for car damages based on texts - but concludes damages are inflated a tad - instead of $2500, MM decides $1800 is a better number.... she's already got $300, so net judgement is D gets $1500. room rental - illegal lockout: simple case with two stooges with ridiculous non-defense (and 1 with funny 'do) ?? plaintiff story is he rented a room from defendants (surprise, another CL room rental fail) - they kicked him out and put his stuff out unsecured - stuff went missing - he wants 5 grand. Defendants argue dude left for extended visit to daughter - stopped paying rent - they moved his stuff out - say he got all his junk except zip wife rack, and they'll be happy to return that. Ok, after getting a laugh looking at def's hair, testimony begins - oh, and these guys' speech is actually better than 90% of the litigants - didn't even need CC. Not sure where these folks are, but sounds like tenant/landlord agreement awfully loosey goosey and kind of doubt Defs were following the laws. Going by P testimony, he notified defs he was going on his trip - and sure sounds like he just said told them he would be paying rent late, and their response was no way, pay on time or get the hell out. All well and good that defendant notified P he had to pay up or leave, but problem for defendant is that the notice is signed and dated June 6th and he is trying to claim it notice was given on May 15th.... in effect they gave notice on the 6th with eviction to take place a week later. Here in Oklahoma laws come down on landlord side more often then not, but even here you can't start putting tenant's crap on the curb without a court hearing. Ah, unique experience defence to date problem - well, your honor, you see P is known to be a forger - he must have changed the date... uh, dude, prove that forgery charge - the notice with June date sure looks real, and all Def has is picture on his phone which is mighty lame evidence... not sure what defendant is saying - yes, that's my signature - no I just signed 1 notice - ignore what I just said, that signed notice dated in June has to be false because he was notified in May... huh? Uh, and even going with the May 15th notice, what the heck is with text on June 7th saying they've moved his stuff out of his room into their car, does he want them to drop it at Plaintiff's sister's place... ok, case pretty much over - maybe not 5 grand worth, but definitely sounds like a illegal eviction/lockout if there ever was one. Turns out not really a sister, but a friend - and defendants did drop off his stuff - but left it on the curb. Anyway, they gave to pay, but even going my his list, no way are the missing items worth 5 grand... but then this is egregious enough that I'm willing to consider punitive damages - especially as these dude is coming in with such nonsense and forgery easily disproved charges - ah, and in their jurisdiction P can sue for triple damages (he can't show much in ways of damages - but here Def is trying to deny dude had glasses, and that's the only receipt he actually produced). Ah, well, no punitive damages, but MM doesn't give him triple damages.... so, $732 out of the $5000 he was looking for. car wreck: quicky case where MM goes easy on cute teens who deserve a boot up the a $ - oh, and silly no-defense mommy teaching her sonny to ignore his responsibilities ??? mommy says teen son's bud drove her car to get some pizza and had a wreck. whoa, she claims $24,000 in damages for front bumper and deployed air bag (actually $30,000 when you include other car) - suing for deductible and increased insurance, $613.02. Sort of non-defense defense in this case, too. Defendants, snowflake mommy and her entitled snowflake, seem to think having permission to drive the Plaintiff's vehicle means he doesn'the have any liability. ?Ok, just going by preview as we go to commercial before testimony begins, I predict one of those cases where MM finds teen so adorable ? she forgets to give a life lessons on taking responsibility.... oh, and good chance snowflake mommy will be told what a great little cutey she had. Ah, cuts eyes high school seniors who have nothing better to do then sit around playing XBOX, decide to order pizza. Since it's car owner kid's turn, bumper car driver goes to get the food. Ah, but as he's driving by Burger King he decides a shake would go well with the pizza, so he starts to turn in, isn't watching where he's going, and rear ends a minivan. So many things wrong here, but instead a reading both kids the riot act once again MM is blinded by cutey pies. Thinking back all those many years ago, had it been meeting letting someone else drive because I didn't want to miss my turn at Xbox, my folks would have laid into me - rule was in wasn't to let my buds drive my car (which of course was really parent's car), especially when I wasn't in the vehicle. Then bumper car dude - freely admits fault - like MM asks, why are they here arguing they shouldn't pay P's out of pocket expenses. Ah, but your honor, D is single mommy of 5 kids, she couldn't afford to pay. So, how bout 17yo kid, how much did he offer to pay on his own.... well, you see, he was having his own financial crisis - yeah, so broke that he could only afford a large shake with the pizza where he really wanted an x-large. Hoboy, little rant ? another litigant claiming to take full responsibility, just not willing to pay any cash money... yeah, sainted broke single mommy of 5, did you offer a liitle each month or tell sonny to go inside next time he stopped at BK and fill out a job application instead of ordering a shake.... or, kid, did you explain how you had no money, but were willing to come over and bust your assistance doing yard work the rest of the summer... nah, course not, let insurance cover damages and ignore P out of pocket (not to mention other driver kid ran into). Oh, and let's not forget lesson single mommy is trying to teach sonny.... hey, at least sonny is giving lip service to idea that he might bear some responsibility (just as long as he's no good expected to pay any money). Not money, though. Her position is that her sonny was doing such a great service to P sonny by letting go him continue to lay the xbox, that P should just be thankful and eat the out of pocket and insurance rate increases (not that she really believes that nonsense, as she can't keep a straight face when MM calls her out.) Ok, I know case almost over, but when P says she offered to work out a payment plan and Def kid ignored her and defendant mommy blew her off, I almost quit watching. Ah, but glad I didn't, as MM decides sainted single mommy is off the hook, but 17yo distracted driver is old enough to take responsibility and pay the lady. so, MM does give a life lession. Edited May 24, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 22, 2018 Share May 22, 2018 22 minutes ago, SRTouch said: check cashing fiasco: I'm assuming this is another of Levin's freak shows. Creepy little plaintiff is 30 years old but prefers to let other people take him in, feed and clothe him and receive his disability cheques because opening a bank account of his own never occured to him. I'm not downplaying the seriousness of being bi-polar, but that does not preclude someone from opening a bank account into which government cheques can be deposited. I guess he prefers to make everyone else responsible for him. Most ridiculous was his, "I didn't damage her car because I don't have a driver's license so I'm not allowed to drive." Since when has lack of a license stopped anyone we see on this show from driving? His uncle is uber-creepy too. 28 minutes ago, SRTouch said: room rental - illegal lockout: The little defendant was wearing a truly hilarious wig that seemed to be crooked, and his buddy DeShawn was quite the little coquette, posturing and posing so fetchingly. Yes, that original document had their signatures, but well, maybe they weren't real even though they confessed to signing it. I have no idea if plaintiff is a known forger, but he's certainly on hard times if he has to rent a room in a trailer with those characters yet expects JM to believe he's owed 5,000$ for his stuff. 32 minutes ago, SRTouch said: car wreck: quicky case where MM goes easy on cute teens who deserve a boot up the a $ - Ugh! Def. boy with the retro Richard Carpenter 'do was such a mealy-mouthed little twerp. He takes full responsibility for the damage but can't pay a single dime for it. No time to earn money when he has to play high school football. His beastly mommy starts out with "I'm a single mom of five." Good for you, but that's your problem and your baby boy still owes the money. 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 22, 2018 Share May 22, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: check cashing fiasco: Some people do make some very odd arrangements for managing their money, as is the case with this putz of a plaintiff. Althought the self-justice aspect by D was never addressed, I would not be surprised to learn that she was in cahoots somehow with the Godson who was supposed to act as intermediary. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ok, after getting a laugh looking at def's hair, testimony begins He was either wearing a crap-ass wig or has a haidresser who goes beserk with the hairspray and dryer; his posing uppity partner who seemed to be auditioning for a remake of Madonna's "Vogue" video seemed well-paired with him. I could not figure why MM did not impose punitive damages considering how arbitrary and nasty their eviction maneuvers were. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: silly no-defense mommy teaching her sonny to ignore his responsibilities But she's a single mom with 5 kids! She's too busy popping them out to do any actual parenting don't cha know. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 23, 2018 Share May 23, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: but since he didn't have a NY ID or drivers license he couldn't open a bank account - which is why he was having his disability checks go into her account. Uhhh, how hard is it to get a NY ID? I have never lived in Texas, but that's where my bank is, and has been for years. I have a checkbook and a debit card and online bill pay. Maybe some little mom and pop bank on the corner wants you to be local, but I'm pretty sure Citibank and Chase and BoA have branches in all 50 states and will happily relieve you of your money no matter where you live. Or the plaintiff could have kept an account where he'd previously lived and they'd be happy to keep all his money, too, and then he could have opened an online-only bank account linked to the B&M bank and used it anywhere. His excuses, even when MM explicitly asked him why he couldn't open an account and manage his own money, were incredibly lame. And yes, my daughter doesn't drive, but it took a birth certificate and about five minutes at the motor vehicles department to get her a non-driver's state ID. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: he denies everything damaging the car, but at one point in a text exchange offer to let her keep a couple hundred to fix it. And another case where MM accepts the printout of the texts instead of rudely demanding the originals on the phone. I always imagine trying a case that is two or three years old and having to scroll through a couple hundred or couple thousand texts to get to the relevant exchange. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: MM makes a strong case for dude being on hook for car damages based on texts - but concludes damages are inflated a tad - instead of $2500, MM decides $1800 is a better number.... she's already got $300, so net judgement is D gets $1500. Somehow I'm always curiously amused when a plaintiff walks out owing money, as in, dude, you should have left well enough alone. 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: His uncle is uber-creepy too. They were all creepy. The defendant looked like she was auditioning to stand over a kettle, "Double, double, toil and trouble..." 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I have no idea if plaintiff is a known forger, but he's certainly on hard times if he has to rent a room in a trailer with those characters yet expects JM to believe he's owed 5,000$ for his stuff. Really, maybe he should have come up with the rent before he bought airplane tickets. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: (he can't show much in ways of damages - but here Def is trying to deny dude had glasses, and that's the only receipt he actually produced). If you're renting a room only, how much stuff could you have? I'm not sure my entire house has $5000 in depreciated belongings. $214 for reading glasses? My reading glasses are from the dollar store. If I'm a big spender, I go three for $5 at a discount store. Oh, and why would he not have taken them with him to California and not left them behind in the trailer? 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: But she's a single mom with 5 kids! She's too busy popping them out to do any actual parenting don't cha know. Someone knocked that person up five times??? I'm a single mom, and the number of times I've used that to excuse anything is...hmmmm...let me count....hmmmm...oh, yeah, zero. The kid said he took full responsibility...but then the poor single mom refused even to allow a payment plan that the plaintiff was willing to take. But they've got money for poor single mom to bleach her hair and kid to wear Ralph Lauren Polo shirts... 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 23, 2018 Share May 23, 2018 23 minutes ago, meowmommy said: His excuses, even when MM explicitly asked him why he couldn't open an account and manage his own money, were incredibly lame. You mean his, "Duh. I never thought of it."? 25 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Oh, and why would he not have taken them with him to California and not left them behind in the trailer? It seems the glasses were the only property has a receipt for so he figured he'd use that, no matter how illogical it sounds for him to have left town without them. I have reading glasses - also from the dollar store! - and I never go anywhere without them. I doubt he did either. 27 minutes ago, meowmommy said: But they've got money for poor single mom to bleach her hair and kid to wear Ralph Lauren Polo shirts... Litigants have different priorities than we common folk, don'tcha know? Tats, wigs, fake nails/eyelashes, giant screen TVs, designer clothes, cruises and all that other vital stuff comes before their financial obligations. And why not? It's more fun. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch May 23, 2018 Share May 23, 2018 (edited) best day of cases in a while - not the best legal cases, still some lame litigants, but also some who were entertaining and/or at least put on a good case missing earrings: interesting non-case ??? plaintiff accuses good friends of 17 years of stealing her jewelry - says when it first disappeared defendant agreed to pay, but later reneged - she's asking for $2,400. Defendant claims they all lived together for a while - says P accused defendant's adult son of stealing the earrings, but son was innocent - besides, even if son did steal her jewelry, he's a 28yo adult responsible for his own actions, so why sue the defendants instead of the son... hmmm, pretty good defense... oh, and of course she says she never agreed to pay. P says she kept her jewelry in a drawer in her closet. As I said, for awhile these folks all lived together, worked together, vacationed together, etc... so really good friends. Anyway, when she discovers the missing earrings she immediately figures someone stole them. When asked, she says she never accused the def's son - but when MM asks D she says yes, P accused dear sonny at the time, and P and sonny had a big kerfuffle... ah, well, could be she was just making the rounds, taking turns screaming at all the suspects, "IT WAS YOU! WASN'T IT?" without ever really settling on the actually culprit. Ok, how big a place was this where they were all living? Not only the two litigant couples, but 28yo adult son - who else lived there? Anyway, just heard P testify that she really doesn't know who thief is, but "in her heart" she thinks it was defendant wifey. Ok, not sure WTH this is going... unless defendant admitted something and agreed to pay P has no case. Heck, doesn't even sound like she can list all the potential suspects - I think, but am not going back to be sure, that she knows the earrings were in the drawer in May and didn't discover them missing until October. Seems P is basing her conclusion that her dear friend of 17 years is a thief on fact that P trusted her enough in the past to tell her where her jewelry was and ask D to retrieve pieces of jewelry and send it to her when P was out of town. Ah, seems D was having money troubles, car repossesseded in Aug, so obvious jump when jewelry came up missing in October Def must have stole the earrings and pawned them. Her story, and reason for the case, is that when she confronted D, D agreed to pay for the 3 thousand dollar earrings - but wanted to negotiate down the price. Says D has made some payments, but refuses to pay the rest. MM tries to get P to see that D never admitted to stealing anything, and may have just been trying to help cover the loss (uh, maybe should have let D testify first instead of testifying for the defense). Ok, time for defendant to talk... first she denies doing the deed, and pretty much like MM said, she offered to help cover the loss without ever admitting she knows anything about the crime. Then it seems def hubby steps in and offers to pay some cash and to throw in a bedroom set. Ok, guess that's a settlement offer and basis for the lawsuit because now defendants aren't paying the money? Not sure if we'll hear more about defendant's money troubles, but she just mentioned a possible cause for being in debt. She says she buys new furniture every year, so this bedroom set hubby was offering was last year's furniture that she had put on CL for $800. Yeah - sounds like one of those folks who probably owns nothing, but is always making payments. Soon as the furniture (or car) is 50% paid for, time to buy new. Anyway, we may actually have a switcheroo coming... defendant hubby hasn't had much to say, it's all been defendant wifey saying she never agreed to pay anything. Ah, but defendant hubby says, sure, I agreed to let P keep the furniture, and pay her $2400 cash.... ahhhhh and he didn't tell wifey he was making the settlement offer. Thennnnn, defendant wifey blows up at defendant's hubby, why are you agreeing to that!?! We owe her nothing! We're paying nothing - NADA! Ok... so was his offer a binding agreement, or just a settlement offer that defendant wife can veto? Hmmmm still don't think P has a case - but time's up and MM rules.... ah, MM tells P, his promise to pay is NOT a contract. She says going back to square one - there is no evidence D stole the jewelry, so there was no real obligation to pay, so, no, hubby's offer is not binding (which means P still wins because she gets the bedroom furniture for free). tenant/landlord dispute: liking this guy, finally a family that I can relate to. ??? best litigant in awhile. Landlady - not so much - ? hey, this one is actually different - not a feud over a deposit or eviction. According to intro, heat went out in dead if winter - temp 19°F, no heat, or hot water for a month. P wants back the rent he paid for that month, plus extra for the hardship he and family had to endure. Landlady has lame excuse. According to intro, her defense is that she immediately called repairman - not her fault it took awhile for repairs to be made.... uh, not sure how she thinks that makes it right for her to collect full rent for a place that is only good for cold storage. Oh, but she told tenant he could go buy space heaters and she'd reimburse him... seems pretty simple, tenant deserves at least a partial rebate, plus reimbursement for any space heaters plus any increase in utilities for the month - but I wouldn't think a FULL refund plus "hardship/inconvenience" unless he proves she dragged her feet making the repairs. Ah, stereotypical New Yorker (never been there, so going by media portrayal of folks in the Bronx)... anyway, P is sort of fast talker and has the accent as he stresses he always pays his rent on time - not easy with 2 daughter's and two car payments etc... and what I'm thinking is finally, what looks like a real family of hard working parents. I like this guy and how his wife reaches over and looks for evidence in front of him as he's ranting. Ok, I get why he's upset, and why he's maybe overreaching in his claim. He feels the absentee landlady was too busy bickering with Sears over the warranty to hurry up and fix his boiler so his kids didn't need parkas indoors and his family could go back to living in the 21st century and wash dishes and take a shower, etc. Oh, and he and his wife are making a pretty good case - well, they're hopping mad and sort of skip around with the evidence, but that makes their case even more believable. He says Sears came out three times and couldn't fix the problem. Says at first def wouldn't answer his calls or texts, wasn't til he started making noises about moving out that she finally contacted him - even then it irks him that she expressed no concern about how his little girls and wife were making out - family all crowded into a single bed at night to stay warm. (We get a chuckle when he tells us that not only was he freezing his ass off at home, but he works in a freezer at a food/produce distributor.) Says he eventually filed a case with Housing Authority, had a court date where landlady/representative failed to appear. Eventually, when Housing ordered her to fix the boiler, she hired someone else to fix the boiler. Yep, I get why he's mad, but was landlady really blowing him off or is this a case a bad communication. Ok, over to Defendant - right off the bat, MM asks and we learn she was out in San Francisco staying warm (which brings to mind the Twain quote (which snopes says never actually said) about his coldest winter being a summer he spent in San Francisco). Uh, not too happy with defendant here. She has tenants without heat or hot water beginning in late December, and she starts out by telling us that it was Sears dragging their feet - not her problem/fault. Early January, she says, Sears agreed to pay $250 for space heaters. When, for first time, asks MM did Sears send out a repair tech? Huh, not til January 15th!?! This was an emergency, says the judge. MM says she should have taken up the problem with Sears later - at the time landlady had a legal obligation to provide her tenants what they paid for. Have to think that had it been her freezing in her apartment with her whole family in 1 bed the boiler repair would have been expedited. Ok, landlady will have to pay - but how much? For now, having fun watching dude talk about how little 7yo complaining about AC running and how his weight gain is because he was going to gym and taking a shower instead of exercising - what, dude, don't you normally shower after working out? Like I said at beginning, not liking landlady's position much as she tries to defend her dithering around waiting for Sears - but what really gets me is when she starts to complain about her tenants not waiting for the space heaters Sears finally agreed to pay for... why should she pay because the dad went out and bought heaters when his family was freezing instead of waiting for heaters from Sears. Ok, I thought P was overreaching with his claim - not now, for second day in a row I'm thinking something is egregious enough to warrant punitive damages (though yesterday was worse with weird hair dude and his partner dumping their tenant's stuff on curb after illegal lockout.) Hoboy, then landlady passes up her phone so MM can follow the text stream.... huh, why? she should have hidden her phone and denied ever receiving daddy's texts as he's sending texts in all caps that kids are freezing and she doesn't answer. Finally, she answers that she's doing everything she can... nope, says MM, you could have expedited the repair, send family to a hotel, and later on go after Sears for reimbursement. Defendant doesn't like where this is going and tries to interrupt, but time's up, it's Rough Justice time. MM orders rebate of $1500 of the $1900 rent, plus a little more for heaters he bought etc - total of $1618 (he was seeking $2500 which probably was too much, but I would have given him more. May have had a case for hotel bills, but unlike 99.9999% of our litigants he didn't just go get a room at the hotel and say "charge it!") Oh, once again I wish the money actually was coming from the loser... when Doug tells landlady she sounds like a terrible landlord, she doesn't seem fazed, laughs, and comments guess space heaters weren't enough for plaintiffs. rear-ended car smash-up: standard court tv fare - lame case - plaintiff puts on good case, defendant, not so much ?? ... only unique thing is P only asking out of pocket expenses of $1582.58... dude, you had to go to the ER and be under observation for 6 hours - you might have actually gotten pain and suffering - and $1500 geez, it costs that much for a body shop to buff your car! Ah, usual rear-ender defense - dude stopped short, and is jacking up the damage cost.... huh, stopped short is code for not paying attention, following too close, or speeding - and pretty much already covered jacking up estimate, $1500 for pretty much any body work and trip to ER is NOT jacking up the price. Ok, $1582 is NOT extent of damages - just his out of pocket for deductible, rental, cab costs, etc. Whoa, the old dude is a good litigant. May not be most exciting story teller, but he's covering all the bases and painting a picture of the scene and accident. Ah, good litigant or not, dude is not exciting tv, so we get a quick switch to no defense defendant. Good thing 2nd case ran a little long, this will be a quicky. Ok, really not much for MM to work with, so she rants a little about how her hubby does the follow too close thing - why oh why is everybody in such a hurry!?! Ok, moan and groan from defendant about she doesn't think it's all her fault - yeah, yeah, yeah, I bet she'll accept responsibility like 17yo kid yesterday as long as she doesn't have to pay anything. Oh, and lots of song and dance about how she's working through her issue with her insurance... not sure what she's talking about, but seems her automatic deduction for her insurance didn't deduct - which is why she wasn't covered... course, I'm sure that wasn't her fault, either - amazing how nasty insurance companies won't pay if you don't pay them before the accident. Good litigator P helpfully interjects that her coverage ended December 11th, and he already told us the accident was Janurary 1st. Ah, then more defendant nonsense about how she offered to pay his deductible and out of pocket, but her lawyer told her not to pay anything unless P signed a waiver, to the effect that everything is settled, she's off the hook for anything else. Makes sense her lawyer wanted P to sign it, since MM tells us that would mean his insurance could no longer sue for the damages over and above his deductible. Ok, P is ready to explain why he wasn't about to sign, but MM gives it a "stick a fork" and starts gushes over 82yo P and his young companion (only 70yo - robbing the cradle.) What, says 82yo dude, you're not 70, you're 77! Dude, maybe she didn't what the audience to know! Anyway, losing defendant still can't accept responsibility for anything in hallterview. Oh, and I was wondering about the impact - D was making it sound like minor bump - she indicated they went to ER on her suggestion because his passenger/witness said she had heart condition - but P tells Doug his car had over 7 grand in damages... ah, now it makes sense why she hired a lawyer instead of paying P $1600. Edited May 23, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
Silver Raven May 23, 2018 Share May 23, 2018 19 hours ago, meowmommy said: And another case where MM accepts the printout of the texts instead of rudely demanding the originals on the phone. I always imagine trying a case that is two or three years old and having to scroll through a couple hundred or couple thousand texts to get to the relevant exchange. I always delete my texts. Judges would look askance at me for trying to hide something. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch May 23, 2018 Share May 23, 2018 21 minutes ago, Silver Raven said: I always delete my texts. Judges would look askance at me for trying to hide something. Same here, I routinely delete texts and my call log.... oh, but I DO still have the same phone I've had for years ? 2 Link to comment
meowmommy May 23, 2018 Share May 23, 2018 30 minutes ago, Silver Raven said: I always delete my texts. Judges would look askance at me for trying to hide something. And not everyone has enough storage space on their phones to keep every text from forever. One thing that irritates me these days about MM (one of thousands, I guess), is that she's gone in fairly rapid order from almost a complete Luddite to expecting every communication to have been preserved in perpetuity. She gets really pissy when someone says they had phone conversations with the other litigant instead of using texts, as if they should have known at the time there was going to be litigation and so to leave an electronic trail. Not to mention that a great many business numbers--and how many hundreds of cases do we see involving businesses--are landlines, not cell phones, so the option to text simply isn't there. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 23, 2018 Share May 23, 2018 52 minutes ago, SRTouch said: missing earrings: interesting non-case How annoying. My brother (not my brother, like my brother) and his wife (my sister-in-law, not my SIL but LIKE my SIL) swiped my 3,000$ earrings. Why, no - I have no proof of how much I paid for them, but here's a picture of something that could be diamonds or could be cubic zirconias. Take my word for it that they're worth 3K. Really, if my dear friend accused me of stealing her property, I would be outraged and hurt but never would I offer to pay for it or even half the price. Defs have financial problems, car repo'd and have to bunk in with sister/not sister, yet they like to get rid of their furniture and replace it every year(!!) I see why they have money problems. They seem to have not grasped the concept of what money really is. 57 minutes ago, SRTouch said: tenant/landlord dispute: That landlord was beyond outrageous. I remember in a big ice storm having no heat/electricity for 2 weeks, but at least we had a woodstove. To pay 1900$/month and have the landlord basking in the balmy weather of SanFran and telling them to suck it up was despicable. Why should this cost her a cent? Doug in the Hall told her what a shitty landlord she is, and that the plaintiffs couldn't even take a shower for nearly a month and this woman just shrugs, like "No big deal." I remain eternally thankful I don't rent. And Sears? Here in Canada they finally went belly up and not a moment too soon. Who cares if people are freezing to death? Don't expect them to be able to fix their own products. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: rear-ended car smash-up: I can't remember the last time I actually liked litigants the way I liked the plaintiffs. He told a coherent, linear story and I thought it was cute the way he outed his friend for saying she's 70 when she's 77. They just wanted to go see the movie, "Darkest Hour" (which I've been meaning to see myself) on a Sunday afternoon and ended up in the ER because the stupid, non-insured def smashes into their car. Her attitude was so bad I was half-expecting JM to slap her across the face when they were both standing in front of the janky-ass reenactment board. "DO IT!" I was yelling. Alas, I was disappointed. Oh, yes - she had insurance, but well, she didn't. There was some kind of "situation" with her auto-pay. It's not her fault! She uses auto-pay for everything! The 'situation' caused the insurance company to cancel her policy with no notice. Yeah, like we've never heard that shitty, dumb defense before. I love how she proved what a wonderful person she is by asking plaintiffs if they were okay after she smashed them. She was so supercillious I was hoping she'd come up with some original defense but it was not to be. What a tragic coincidence that this happened right before she rammed the plaintiff. She seemed to think that hitting someone in the rear wasn't her fault. Grrr... ridiculous person, showing herself up to be a lying jerk who won't take responsibility for her own screw-ups when I'm sure everyone she knows was watching this. Bitch. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 23, 2018 Share May 23, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Defs have financial problems, car repo'd and have to bunk in with sister/not sister, yet they like to get rid of their furniture and replace it every year(!!) I see why they have money problems. They seem to have not grasped the concept of what money really is. That's what floored me. I've gone five years without a bedroom dresser, while I try to convince myself I can afford to take $100 out of savings to get one at the thrift store. And ordering and getting furniture delivered, especially new stuff, is actually a pain in the ass. Would be even more so if you have to sell off the old stuff--at serious depreciation--each time. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Oh, but she told tenant he could go buy space heaters and she'd reimburse him... seems pretty simple, tenant deserves at least a partial rebate, plus reimbursement for any space heaters plus any increase in utilities for the month There aren't enough space heaters in the world to cover a Northeast winter. I lost my heat one weekend in CT over 20 years ago; to this day, I call it the weekend from hell freezes over. It was 7 degrees outside and 23 inside. There was ice inside my house. The shampoo bottles froze. Space heaters and an electric blanket weren't close to being enough. It was horrible. We finally had to go to a hotel, using money I did not have. I cannot, cannot imagine living like that for a month. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: MM orders rebate of $1500 of the $1900 rent, plus a little more for heaters he bought etc - total of $1618 (he was seeking $2500 which probably was too much, but I would have given him more. I would have given him every penny he could have extracted out of that landlady. She had more excuses than a dog had fleas. You are a landlady; you are obligated to provide habitable lodging. She just had no fucks to give. If any case deserves punitive damages, it's this one. 7 Link to comment
califred May 24, 2018 Share May 24, 2018 That landlady was horrid. She should have put them up in a hotel, it’s not ok to not have heat in Jan in NY. 5 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 24, 2018 Share May 24, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant/landlord dispute: P lost my sympathy a few times with his attempts to amp up the melodrama ("she put my children's lives at risk!"), but the landlady was such an extreme example of the pitfalls of leasing from an absentee owner that I think he ultimately got what was just and fair in the circumstances. Was it mentioned that she had someone to act as her agent while she was on the other side of the continent or was she expecting to be able to manage everything from so far away? In which case, that was very unrealistic and she should not be in the business of renting out apartments. Also, if the heat goes out during winter, pipes can freeze, even with space heaters which provide only localised heating. Unsafe both for the people and the property. She probably has a good case against Sears for failing to provide the expected service under warranty, but she seemed unwilling to do anything on that front. 17 hours ago, SRTouch said: rear-ended car smash-up: The only interesting about this case was that P was putting on airs of a small-fry Park Avenue socialite and was willing to acquiesce to everything the judge said; noblesse oblige I guess. Edited May 24, 2018 by Florinaldo 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 24, 2018 Share May 24, 2018 56 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: but the landlady was such an extreme example of the pitfalls of leasing from an absentee owner that I think he ultimately got what was just and fair in the circumstances. Yes, I found plaintiff a bit irritating with his oratory and drama, but I bet if the landlady had been home and living in that building she would have found a way to get the heat back PDQ but it wasn't her freezing, so what's the problem? *shrug* They should have gone to a hotel for a week or so, added that cost to their suit here and forced the hag to pay for it. 15 hours ago, meowmommy said: There aren't enough space heaters in the world to cover a Northeast winter. Space heaters are something to use in addition to regular heat here in the north. With no other heat source, you can sit nearly on top of one it and might warm your front while your back freezes. When large aquariums turn into solid blocks of ice in your living room, space heaters are a joke. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch May 24, 2018 Share May 24, 2018 (edited) ?? #1: no case - defendant freely admitting doing some of the damage (and his daughter throws mommy under the bus - saying mommy dropped trou' and mooned P - entertaining, glad these folks live far far away from me, but outrageous D good for some laughs..... 2nd case ?? case of breeders with no morale compass and zero common sense .... freeking production people dragged loser case out so only two cases today ? ! Feuding neighbors: oh my, don't need to hear anything to think I would not want to be living next to those on either side of the aisle. Plaintiffs make entering the court quite the production. Wife comes in pushing BIG baby stroller - acting like this is the first time she's actually used the thing - she has a tough to maneuvering it. Hubby comes in with papers in one hand and a briefcase in the other - also makes me doubt he's been out walking with mom and the stroller - good grief, opening the doors and making it up to their spot at the lectern is a difficult chore. Wondering if there's a brand new 1st baby in the stroller and new parents can't stand to be separated from infant - also, why not just have wife start the case inside with stroller and let hubby make a grand entrance. Yep, right off the bat MM is congratulating them on the new, 5 week old, baby. Course we know intro-dude seldom gives us a close approximation of the positions - but what he says as P comes in really backs up their appearance.... really! He thinks D has convinced others to bring their dogs to crap on P's yard?!? Oh, and defendant sure looks the picture of a little officious little know it all - I imagine people who know him pretending not to see him approach so they can escape before he starts telling him what they're doing wrong. They're in court today because of a fight over parking. Seems P doesn't like people parking in front of his house. Got to point where he set out flower pots along to curb to prevent people from parking. That burned little know it all busy body, so he went over to tell P that it's a public street, and folks can park there. Ah, but words won't do, big kerfuffle, D breaks flower pots and shakes P's fence - screaming and shouting, cops coming, slapping the cuffs on D and hauling him in. Either a slow day for the cops, or D couldn't find the off button when cops told him to cool it.... or, since D claims this is a small resort type town, maybe Barney Fife's grandson is the deputy and Opie's kid was busy and didn'didn't come to calm the folks down. Case had to be seen on TPC - JJ would just scream she didn't go to law school for this nonsense and refuse to take the bench (come on JJ, reason you take the bench is the gazillion bucks you get). ok, testimony starts - I hate the prepared speeches some litigant's start with, so find it fun when MM throws them off by asking questions. P starts out about all the evil, racist things D did or said - even using the "terroristic threats" buzzwords - and MM just keeps stopping him and asking questions.... what racist things? What threats? Guessing the couple may conserve in Armenian - just based on wife's strong accent and comnent by P that D insult him but couldn't say Armenian. Poor P can't get into the groove. Finally he abandons the rhetoric, and actually tells us about the cause of the kerfuffle. Seems neighbors - not always little bearded dude - habitually parked on P's lawn along the street. Well, that pissed off P, because he had an irrigation system and sprinkler heads were getting damaged. So, P says he asks people to stop parking there, then put out the flower pots next to the curb. Actually, I'm with dude so far... I wouldn't want people pulling cars up onto my lawn, either. Ah, but know it all Cliff has to put in his two cents, and comes to inform P that folks have the right to park on the easement, yada yada. And, by golly, if there's no legal restriction prohibiting parking, P has no business trying to prevent parking - and besides, he doesn't see any f'ing sprinklers. P says when D came over that first time and he explained why he didn't want people parking and showed him there were, in fact, sprinklers. Says he moved his pots back away from the curb so the pots were off the easement and totally on his property. Hey, easement or not, if I maintain the area, I figure neighbors should respect my request not to park there. Ah, not good enough for D, according to P, as D comes back ranting and starts breaking pots and damaging the fence - cops came and slapped the cuffs on D. Over to D, who has been standing with crossed arms waiting his turn. Ah, soon as he opens his mouth the whole Cheers-Cliff image gets trashed - would have been perfect if he had the accent of the folks at the bar where everybody knows your name. Ah, but still the know it all attitude, expression arm movements, as he begins to educate the judge on the true nature of the case. See, P is new to the neighborhood and previous owner of P's property had been letting people parking in the area for 20 years. Now, Newby neighbor is trying to keep people from parking there - the nerve of the jerk! Oh, and it appears these people parking there are not parallel parking along the curb - no, since it was a dead end street ending at the bay, folks are creating a parking lot on the street with nose in parking. Ok, I'm even more on P's side now, I would NOT LIKE that. Oh, the clincher as MM gets wound up and starts laying into busy body Cliff. She asks D if he actually smashed a pot. Absolutely! answers Cliff. Why is that ok? Asks MM. Ok, case over, dude admits destroying P's property. There is question about where exactly pots were. P says off easement on grass, but his own pictures show them either on or right next to pavement... Maybe that was before he said he moved them back - doesn't matter much - D can't destroy someone else's property just because it's sitting on public property. Now question is did D really come onto P's yard and damage his railing (I've been saying fence, turns out it was porch railing - which means D had to leave public easement and come onto P's property to continue the kerfuffle. No way, says D, he never went onto P's property so he couldn't have damaged the railing! Uh, what's this? Seems P has pictures of D on his property - none of actually shaking the railing - P says he and wife retreated when he approached the porch. Understandable, pictures look like D was way out of control. - smart thing to do would be to retreat inside and call the cops - which I guess is how D ended up in the back seat of a cop car... ahhhh, apple didn't fall very far. P wife starts talking about the kerfuffle, and audience member can't control her laughter... MM jumps on that - who is that? Asking D, Who is she to you? D turns and looks back. Oh, says D, she's my daughter. Oh my, now P tells us sweet daughter dropped trou to moon them - yep, D's whole family involved in the harrassment campaign. Geez, even a pic of daughter (maybe - daughter says not her) mooning P from across the street. Oh, and if that's D's house/yard, we see how HIS family parks right on HIS lawn - looks too close to the fire hydrant, too. Now MM brings up sweet daughter to let her talk - nah, wasn't me, says sweety, that's my sainted mom. Ok, what's the damages? We don't see D actually shake the railing - we do see him trespassing after he says he WOULD NEVER! Oh, and D's family engaging in harrassing P. Commercial break, also allows P wife to take baby out as he/she must have awakened. judgement time - we know D lied about the trespass - but is there enough to give P big bucks for the railing. Oh, and MM reads us the police report from the big kerfuffle - seems quite a bit of what D told cops doesn't match today's testimony (but, hey, incident took place 2-3 years ago - he's had plenty of time for his mind to rewrite history). Uh huh, but police report (presented by P) makes no mention of D shaking the railing - which is the big ticket item, $1,750, on the claim. P is also asking for medical bills, as he claims the harrassment from trashy neighbors has caused wife to undergo counseling. Now D opens mouth (MM gives him permission to spout his nonsense) and says he has multiple police repost where P changed parts of his story. Seems once he claimed D smashed 3 pots, another report it was 2 pots, and by golly, D freely and proudly admits he smashed the blankety blank smithereens out of one - and only one - pot. Well, says MM, doesn't really matter, as she's about to slap him with punitive damages. Then she starts in on how neighbors just shouldn't go smash ANY pots - and I'm wondering where these folks live - little mouthy Cliff may be in trouble in some "stand your ground" states where coming onto someone's property to have your picture taken ranting and waving your fist could get you shot. Ok, case running long - and I'm ready to move on. Instead, MM is letting Cliff expound on the evil P, and has Douglas bring up some hearsay, self serving letters which D says are from others P has confronted about parking - thankfully, MM just gives them a glance and then ignores them. Ah, more cross aisle talk... geez, they're bringing the feud into the courtroom - not to adjudicate, but to take more potshots at each other... and when D apologizes MM lays into him, you're not sorry, you're a big part of this mess, yada yada - give it up, dude is closed minded and isn't hearing anything. Com'on, I already said judgement time - stick a fork in it, this case is over! Medical bills, railing damage - no evidence. Flower pots - D happy to admit, just disputes how many his bleeping beep smashed - not worth much, but MM says she wants to send a message with punitive damages.... so she awards $9.99 for the pot and $500 for punitive--- net $509.99... D comes out and wants to explain to Doug how MM was all wrong - and, once again Doug nails a litigant "you're missing the whole point of what judge told you! Dipshlt!" Exit left... make that right. suing her baby daddy: and once again, litigants come on tv to announce how STUPID they are. Here, P admits she had sex, got pregnant, then moved in with dude she didn't know or even particularly like... oh, and of course loaned da'bum a bunch of money. Then, when she was 8 months pregnant, jerk gives her the boot. She's here asking for 3 grand. Smug ass bum saunters in, hand in pocket, says he had a one night stand with P, let her move in when she claimed she was pregnant, then gave her the heave ho when her family told him he wasn't the daddy. These two make me think mandatory sterilization may not be such a bad idea... hopefully mommy gets her head straight and raises the baby to be a productive member of society - don't have very high hopes it'll happen. Pretty good chance the FF button will be used on this one! oh, yeah, commercials before testimony starts and little tramp has me grinding my teeth - her accent, the head shake, and just because I'm not about to listen to her when I have that button to push - let MM earn her money, I need another cup of coffee! Ok, when I hear her describe how they met, "sort of hooked up" and then started dating when she announced she was pregnant I decide intro close enough to the case this time to just zip ahead - not interested in these no moral breeders. soooo, I zip ahead and find.... freeking production show runners stretched this out, this Dr Phil/Jerry mess takes up rest of the hour! Anyway, from little bit at Rough Justice time I see, at least male slut, who breeds anyone who will let him, must have at least offered to support the baby when/if DNA proves he's the sperm donor - but wants nothing else to do with female slut breeder who waits til she's pregnant before agreeing to date someone - say that because MM gives him a little credit for offering to support the baby if it is his. Female breeder must have shown some evidence of a loan, as she is awarded some of what she wanted. Adding more ??? because this case lasted half an hour! Edited May 25, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
popcornchicken May 24, 2018 Share May 24, 2018 Turns out the baby daddy ran for mayor last year as a Green Party candidate. He’s got some, uh, history. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mayoral-candidate-akeem-browder-talks-sex-offender-felon-article-1.3279786 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 24, 2018 Share May 24, 2018 27 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Feuding neighbors: What a bunch of distasteful cretins trotted out today. Nearly put me off my Mediterranean chicken. I love these people who have their first kid and think everyone in the world is as entranced with the baby as they are. Sadly, we are not. Anyway, trouble-making plaintiff simply cannot coherently answer JM's questions or just doesn't want to admit he stuck his plastic flower pots on a public street. Def. is an old stereotypical Archie Bunker-like, big-mouthed, loud, ignorant asshole who seems proud of his behavior and lack of self-control. How nice that his friend's Momma likes to moon people to show her opinion of them. Class all the way with these clowns. I'm just thankful we didn't have to see wife plaintiff in her "sexy" clothes, seriously. Hubby wants over 1,000$ for the fence or whatever that def. broke. No, he has not a single pic of it even though he and his wife live with their phones in their hands and take pics of everything else. Doug in the Hall couldn't believe that brainless def didn't understand a single word JM said to him. It's no use, Doug. For this kind of cement-headed dumbness there is no cure. 36 minutes ago, SRTouch said: suing her baby daddy: Omg. I'd like to know what kind of candidates were running for the position of mayor of NYC if def, a stupid, smarmy, oily idiot who can't speak properly and who, as a grown man, has such poor judgement he has sex with no protection with some crude broad with whom he hooked up came in third!!?? He should have been elected and made every aspect of the movie "Idiocracy" come to fruition. Are they kidding us? Plaintiff is no kid - she's 30, although living with mommy - and a crass, mouthy, base, rode hard, rough guttersnipe who screws def. the first time she meets him, and well, one thing led to another and - abracadabra - she's knocked up. Wow. How the hell does that happen, anyway? I guess no one told her about the birds and bees. Why should she wait until she knows someone, even slightly, to have sex? Why wait until she knows him to move in with him or give him money? He doesn't know her either, not at all, but finds out she likes to go out til all hours with her friends and get stumbling drunk and maybe do drugs too. Gee, maybe if he had bothered to find that out - and according to him he only learned all this after from her sister and brother - before he started humping her, the idea of using birth control may have entered his overly-oiled dumbass head. Or maybe not. Maybe he thinks that's not an option for a "real man." 43 minutes ago, SRTouch said: These two make me think mandatory sterilization may not be such a bad idea I've been saying that forever. I feel sad for both babies in these two cases. What chance do they have when their breeders are a bunch of revolting morons? Ugh. 22 minutes ago, popcornchicken said: Turns out the baby daddy ran for mayor last year as a Green Party candidate. He’s got some, uh, history. Wow! I figured he was a greasy scumbag, but had no idea. Is no one checked in any way before running for mayor?? :O Quote when Browder, then 15, was arrested in connection with a string of assaults and attempted abductions on school-aged girls. We're not talking youthful indiscretions here. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch May 24, 2018 Share May 24, 2018 20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Omg. I'd like to know what kind of candidates were running for the position of mayor of NYC if def, a stupid, smarmy, oily idiot who can't speak properly and who, as a grown man, has such poor judgement he has sex with no protection with some crude broad with whom he hooked up came in third!!?? Hmmm, could it be true that he actually got votes because the name "Browder" came before other candidates?!? 5 Link to comment
Broderbits May 24, 2018 Share May 24, 2018 Today's 2nd case: Hey let's have a baby and get to know each other!? WTF 6 Link to comment
aemom May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 The case with the plaintiff who had the cheques being deposited in other people's accounts. The voice mail mentioned that "I am the payee." I wonder if he doesn't have a legal guardian who is required to handle his finances and doesn't even understand his own situation well enough to know that. If so, I hope that it is not supposed to be Joshua, who would appear to be taking him for a ride. The guys with the trailer were an interesting combination with the haircut and the other posing and preening dude. I almost expected him to start twirling at one point, he seemed incapable of just standing still. They tried to pull a fast one with the law and then tried to lie, and lie, and lie some more to MM, but this ain't her first rodeo and they have to return some money. The kids who got into the car accident. I don't blame the kid so much who thought football was more important than paying the plaintiff, because kids learn what you teach them and this kid is clearly not learning any sort of proper behaviour or consequences or anything from his mother who is so busy having children, that she has no time to raise them properly. Hopefully, he learned something from MM and will rise above his mother's teaching and become a useful member of society. One can only hope. For the earrings case, who knows what happened, but there was a lot of drama and a 17-year friendship down the drain. Que sera sera. For the family with no heat: On 5/23/2018 at 5:30 PM, AngelaHunter said: That landlord was beyond outrageous. I remember in a big ice storm having no heat/electricity for 2 weeks, but at least we had a woodstove. To pay 1900$/month and have the landlord basking in the balmy weather of SanFran and telling them to suck it up was despicable. Why should this cost her a cent? Doug in the Hall told her what a shitty landlord she is, and that the plaintiffs couldn't even take a shower for nearly a month and this woman just shrugs, like "No big deal." I remain eternally thankful I don't rent. And Sears? Here in Canada they finally went belly up and not a moment too soon. Who cares if people are freezing to death? Don't expect them to be able to fix their own products. Space heaters are something to use in addition to regular heat here in the north. With no other heat source, you can sit nearly on top of one it and might warm your front while your back freezes. When large aquariums turn into solid blocks of ice in your living room, space heaters are a joke. Twenty years ago we also had an ice storm and had no power for a week. The temperature went down to 4 degrees Celsius in our house and we alternated living with different family members who got their power back before we did. It was a horrible week and to this day, I get anxious when they call for freezing rain in the forecast. Give me 2 feet of snow, but keep the freezing rain. That all being said, this family had it way worse than I did, and I think that MM should have found a way to give them more money than that. In the coldest months, we also need a space heater in our lower level, especially this winter. Man, was it cold especially over Christmas. Interestingly, up until Sears went bankrupt in Canada, they were the company responsible for my furnace and hot water heater (they bought the original company we dealt with). I have to say that I've had to call them for both broken fan motors on the furnace and a hot water heater not working and they came that day and fixed it in all cases. We have a maintenance plan that we pay for that includes service. 21 hours ago, califred said: That landlady was horrid. She should have put them up in a hotel, it’s not ok to not have heat in Jan in NY. I wonder if they could have gone to a hotel without permission (somewhere reasonable, not the Ritz) and sued her and won. On 5/23/2018 at 5:30 PM, AngelaHunter said: I can't remember the last time I actually liked litigants the way I liked the plaintiffs. He told a coherent, linear story and I thought it was cute the way he outed his friend for saying she's 70 when she's 77. The defendant looked really bad here in this case. When the plaintiff's girlfriend said that she was 70 I thought "Yikes, time has been a bit unkind to you." 77 seemed more accurate, though I honestly thought she looked older than he did. They were cute and I'm glad that they got the money and that nobody was hurt. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: MM says she wants to send a message with punitive damages.... so she awards $9.99 for the pot and $500 for punitive--- net $509.99... This was a case where the punitive damages should have gone to some worthwhile charity, because although the defendant was a moron, the plaintiff was an instigator. He shouldn't have profited. Truly a case where MM's description of quien es mas macho completely applies. 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I'd like to know what kind of candidates were running for the position of mayor of NYC if def, a stupid, smarmy, oily idiot who can't speak properly and who, as a grown man, has such poor judgement he has sex with no protection with some crude broad with whom he hooked up came in third!!?? He should have been elected and made every aspect of the movie "Idiocracy" come to fruition. Can't speak properly? Ya mean, "I don't know nothing about no $2700," isn't literate? According to Wikipedia, he actually finished fourth. Just polishing those prevaricating skills. Somehow he got 15,000 people to vote for him. But then, apparently 9 people voted for Fiorello La Guardia, who's been dead for 70 years. I rewatched that movie about a week ago, and dammit, it's practically a documentary. Edited May 25, 2018 by meowmommy 4 Link to comment
DoctorK May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: apparently 9 people voted for Fiorello La Guardia, who's been dead for 70 years. The election was rigged! He should have won. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 2 hours ago, AEMom said: I get anxious when they call for freezing rain in the forecast. Give me 2 feet of snow, but keep the freezing rain. You must live in Qc? I know I've been saying those very words (only I think I say "5 feet of snow" and I mean it) every winter since the big ice storm. The words "freezing rain" make my innards clench and send me running for the flashlight and Coleman cooker. Our combustion stove was the only thing that kept us out of a shelter, a place I really didn't want to go. You haven't lived until you're barbequing lasagna on the deck, quaking with terror while trees crash around you and freezing rain is pelting down. 2 hours ago, AEMom said: I wonder if they could have gone to a hotel without permission (somewhere reasonable, not the Ritz) and sued her and won. I think they could have since no heat or hot water in Jan. would make the place "uninhabitable"? 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: Ya mean, "I don't know nothing about no $2700," isn't literate? It is for this show. For a mayor (hahaha!) not so much, although considering the literacy level of the general population, he's doing fine, as long as no one mentions his sex crimes I guess. Actually, he has perfected his slimy, obsequious, Uriah Heep demeanour enough to be a politician. 3 Link to comment
meowmommy May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I think they could have since no heat or hot water in Jan. would make the place "uninhabitable"? AFAIC, that apartment would have been uninhabitable, but it's pretty likely the tenant and his family didn't have the resources to front a hotel stay in NYC, especially with no guarantee they'd ever be reimbursed. I really hate that landlady. She was just so damn indifferent to their situation. Edited May 25, 2018 by meowmommy 5 Link to comment
Brattinella May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: since the big ice storm. The words "freezing rain" make my innards clench and send me running for the flashlight and Coleman cooker. Me too, dear. We had no heat, no power for 7 full days. So did the entire town we live in. Breaking tree limbs I will never forget. We had to burn the branches that fell! Green, full of ice they were. Our garage door was frozen shut, so we couldn't drive out, even if the roads were passable (they weren't). Luckily, after about 5 days, we were able to get to Walmart (two blocks away) and we had our first hot food. UGH what a horrid memory! 5 Link to comment
aemom May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: You must live in Qc? I know I've been saying those very words (only I think I say "5 feet of snow" and I mean it) every winter since the big ice storm. The words "freezing rain" make my innards clench and send me running for the flashlight and Coleman cooker. Yup. They were calling for freezing rain a few months ago and I kept staring out the window to see how much ice was on the branches. The worst part of the ice storm was that the company I worked for had a generator and we still had to report for work. It was hard to concentrate worrying about the house and sitting there with only emergency lighting. 5 Link to comment
aemom May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 (edited) Just watched the last episode. What a collection of miscreants. None of these neighbours seem to be able to calm the heck down and I don't think that anything is going to change with them. MM is right - I think that things will just keep escalating. The millennial culture (and I'm generalizing here) appears to be hooking up with randoms for sex when they feel like it (there is a reason that Tinder is so popular), and relationships be damned. When I was that age, we had AIDS to be terrified of. Now, AIDS is treatable, and the kids don't seem to take precautions during sex very seriously. In their minds there is medication to fix the illnesses and abortions to get rid of pregnancies. Then you have the people who decide to follow through on their pregnancies, and appear to be woefully inadequate of taking care of themselves, never mind a helpless baby. It was really hard to figure out who was telling the truth on this one. They both seemed truthful at some times, and sketchy at others. I suspect that the real truth was somewhere down the middle. The fact that she won't have the baby tested for paternity is very suspicious. 18 hours ago, popcornchicken said: Turns out the baby daddy ran for mayor last year as a Green Party candidate. He’s got some, uh, history. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mayoral-candidate-akeem-browder-talks-sex-offender-felon-article-1.3279786 But boy, after reading this, I have serious doubts about him. She might be happy in the end that he threw her out, because do you really want to be associated with him? Edited May 25, 2018 by AEMom Typo 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Plaintiff is no kid - she's 30, although living with mommy - and a crass, mouthy, base, rode hard, rough guttersnipe who screws def. the first time she meets him, and well, one thing led to another and - abracadabra - she's knocked up She managed to make the defendant look good, in comparison only. Poor kid, saddled with that mother and who knows who as a father. Her explanation for missing the DNA test was unbelievable; either she is an idiot and got easily confused when she went to the courthouse or she was outright lying. Guess which option I tend to believe? 17 hours ago, SRTouch said: Feuding neighbors: MM asked why didn't they go the the municipal authorities to get a ruling or official info as to the parking regulations. I think that the reason is simple: because if they got a definitive ansnwer they might lose one motive for their stupid shenanigans, which they enjoy too much. They don't want to let go of the hostilities, it gives meaning to their sorry lives. Plaintiffs seem to have gone for the battlefield model when they chose a pram. 8 hours ago, Brattinella said: We had no heat, no power for 7 full days. So did the entire town we live in. Breaking tree limbs I will never forget. We had to burn the branches that fell! Green, full of ice they were. That ice storm certainly made a deep impression on the collective memory; although we did not lose power, there were days we could not leave home because roads, sidewalks, stairs, etc., everything was frozen over. All we could do was sit around and listen to the top of trees breaking off away in the forest. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 43 minutes ago, AEMom said: Now, AIDS is treatable, and the kids don't seem to take precautions during sex very seriously. Kids, I kind of understand. They have no concept of consequences and think they're immortal. This trollop is a 30-year old woman, plenty old enough to understand that acts have consequences. 25 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Her explanation for missing the DNA test was unbelievable; either she is an idiot and got easily confused when she went to the courthouse or she was outright lying. Guess which option I tend to believe? She may be mindless, but she's the type who has that innate animal cunning and street smarts, so I go with the outright lying as well. She didn't want the test probably because the real sperm donor is broke, living on the street, or in jail and she figures maybe she can rook the detestable def into coughing up some dough. Maybe when she was shagging him and he was running for mayor (hahaha!) she envisioned herself as First Lady one day. First Lady in the Realm of Idiocracy! 29 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: All we could do was sit around and listen to the top of trees breaking off away in the forest. Night was the worst time. I have a large, heavily wooded lot and sitting in total darkness for 14 nights, listening to the trees crashing, not knowing if they would smash the house, was terrifying. 3 Link to comment
iwasish May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Kids, I kind of understand. They have no concept of consequences and think they're immortal. This trollop is a 30-year old woman, plenty old enough to understand that acts have consequences. She may be mindless, but she's the type who has that innate animal cunning and street smarts, so I go with the outright lying as well. She didn't want the test probably because the real sperm donor is broke, living on the street, or in jail and she figures maybe she can rook the detestable def into coughing up some dough. Maybe when she was shagging him and he was running for mayor (hahaha!) she envisioned herself as First Lady one day. First Lady in the Realm of Idiocracy! Night was the worst time. I have a large, heavily wooded lot and sitting in total darkness for 14 nights, listening to the trees crashing, not knowing if they would smash the house, was terrifying. She reminded me of Mindy Kaling, sadly cause I like Mindy. Her voice/accent and whole demeanor where annoying as hell. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 (edited) ??? no case - snowflake angry when Granny locks her non-contributing butt out - but ? for her total selfish uncaring attitude making for good court TV fodder... ???2nd case interesting no-refund case - but turn on CC (and thank goodness MM spent so much time asking for clarification... ?? 'nother non case - this time D ate the steak but won't pay the bill entitled granddaughter wants 3 grand: Dr Phil family drama case, ... entitled, freeloading little Angel is suing her granny after Granny gave her the boot. Seems Granny let Angel move in temporarily, Angel didn't like the house rules, they had a kerfuffle, Angel moved out and stayed in a hotel for awhile, now Angel figures Granny should pay the hotel bill. Quite the tragic family history here, brother stabbing brother, accusation of abuse, CPS involvement, estranged family members, race card... grab the tissues as MM puts on her counseling hat ?... oh, and we may need a white board to keep track of mommy, her various bfs, and the parentage of Angel's various siblings and half siblings. Maybe because we recently had old dude litigator who managed to present a linear case that actually gave us the facts in a way that made sense, today's litigants are especially bad. Angel's opening is NOT linear - every 2 steps forward in her story is followed by a step backward to explain WTH she just said. Ok, seems she and Granny had been on the outs for awhile before Angel moved in with grandparents. Seems Angel called CPS when Mommy's then bf was abusing one of her half brothers - and according to Angel, Granny was upset that Angel was opening the family up for "those white people" to stick their collective noses into family dirty laundry. So, she and Granny hadn't talked for awhile, but Grandpa was acting as an intermediary. Current fiasco came about when Mommy decided to uproot the family and move from Compton to Vegas. This was especially upsetting to Angel, as she was a high school senior. So, she cries to Grandpa - he gets Granny on phone - Granny agrees Angel can move into the Grandparents' home while she finishes up her senior year (apparently, she is not a member of the debate team - and has never taken a public speaking elective - if she was on JJ she might have learn that "yeh" and "uh huh" is not an answer). Angel loses a few points, here, as she says she "agreed" to live with Granny - instead of saying how happy and THANKFUL she was that granny agreed to take her into Granny's home. Ok, over to Granny for more of the tragic family history.... seems Angel's dad, Granny's son, was stabbed and killed by uncle/other son in Granny's house while Granny was in other room... truly tragic event which Granny can't speak of (MM has to tell the story, and ask Granny if it's true) and has Angel crying. Ok, tragic, but back to case. Angel moves in in April - so only a couple months shy of graduation... oh, and she plans to go to college - accepted and everything. Oh, and she somehow blames Granny for putting her college dream on the rocks. Huh, as MM points out, how does Granny kicking her out impact her going to college 6 hours, 400miles, away in San Francisco? Ah, good news! She rebounded and is now going to USC - so there is still hope that she'll get into a public speaking class.... oh, but boo hoo ? poor Angel is now homeless. Finally, we're about to get into actual case.... Angel's story is that when Angel was living with Granny, Granny refused to give her a key. Instead, Granny left a hidden key under the mat. When they started feuding and fussing - Granny stopped hiding a key and little Angel had to cool her heels outside 'til somebody got home... mighty inconvenient, you see Granny works 2 jobs and goes to 2nd before Angel got home, so sometimes Angel was locked out for hours and hours. When MM asks what it was they all the feuding and fussing was about, little Angel laughs, honestly she doesn't know. Ok, time to talk to Granny anyway... ok, first thing MM establishes is that, despite P making everything about how Granny this, Granny that, Granny wouldn't give her a key and left poor Angel locked out - all that time Grandpa is living there (wonder if Granny let him have HIS own key). Ah well, Granny let Angel move in to finish high school and things work for awhile. But, Angel is still there come September - when was graduation? And when was she supposed to show up in SF for college enrollment? Never thought Angel had a case, but now I really think this is a waste of time. So, Angel is dithering around, graduates, then over stays her welcome, not leaving for college as she had planned, and back talking Granny when Granny asks WTH? Even worse, she blames Granny for daddy/son's death saying Granny is reason her daddy was killed, she should have prevented the stabbing, etc. Granny gets fed up and gives her the boot, instead of heading off to college as planned (or hopping the bus to go live with Mommy in Vegas), Angel checks herself into a hotel and now wants Granny to pay the bill! Huh, on what theory? Oh, and when MM asks, did you (talking to Angel) blame Granny for death? Angel answers, yes, she said that - it IS Granny's fault daddy is dead! Next little bit is just Angel explaining why she said what she did, and MM sitting there with crossed arms asking why Angel, who isn't paying rent and was being supported by Granny for free, is saying such hurtful things... ok, this might be a 2 (or more) part Dr Phil case. Ok, her reasoning is really non-reasoning anger stage of grief process... but, there's time on the clock so more nonsense about how Granny should pay Angel because she missed work because Granny refused to give her a key so she get inside and get ready for work. Sooooo, after saying snowflake would have been booted from MM's house 2 seconds after saying what entitled brat admits saying, we get MM repeatedly trying to get a cogent answer to why Granny owes ex-guest a penny. Ah, seems Angel had already dragged Granny to court in Compton - and law there is after 30 days residence Angel was legally a tenant (even though she wasn't paying anything) so granny was required to go through courts to evict her. Nope, says MM, Not a tenant because you were never given a key. Oh, new low.... Grandpa asks if he can say something, and what he says if granddaughter Angel threatened to get a knife and do to Granny what Uncle did to son/father. Says they have a recording if that - cross talk with Angel asking to hear recording, cuz she NEVER said that... ok, lecture time, then case dismissed... ?? great exit after quick dismissal... Angel comes marching out of court, doesn't stop to chat with Doug, and walks straight out.... the wrong way - hey wait, you still need to go sign the papers! jeweler wants refund: ??? interesting - but turn on CC - both sides goofed up .... P says he's a longtime custom jeweler - says he bought some stones for a customer order - after purchase decided stones wouldn't work - says it's customary in precious stones supply community for suppliers to offer money back guarentee, but D refused when P tried to return stones a couple days after picking them up. Defendant says he offered to exchange the diamonds, but hasn't given a cash refund in the 26 years he's been in business. Sounds reasonable to me, and we've heard many cases where a business refuses to return money but will give store credit or exchanges.... ah, but doesn't D need something posted or on the receipt telling customers his policy. Hmmm, P says he's been in business 20 years, D says HE'S been doing this 26 years.... why does P look like old gray haired/bearded dude and D look so much younger. Ok, testimony - and turn on CC - little old dude in the skullcap may be great jeweler, but has a strong accent. (D has different accent - not as strong, and easier for me to understand as I served with a couple guys with similar sccents.) Says when he needed a special emerald cut diamonds, defendant was recommended. Says he told defendant what he needed, but he (p) didn't actually pick out the stones. He has the receipt from when he paid, sight unseen, based on defendant's expertise after telling D what was required. Ah, but when he gets back to his shop and actually checks stones, they just won't work. Ok, but why insist on cash back - still seems reasonable for D to have offered exchange. Ah, something of convoluted story - which has MM continually asking for clarification because of accent and jeweler shorthand language. What I'm gathering is, he needed 11 diamonds - gave wholesaler supply dude a $1,400 check for 8, but told D to hold off cashing check a couple days to give him time to make sure stones would fill the bill. Sounds kind of reasonable - thing is, points out MM, right here on receipt (P handed in as evidence) it says NO REFUNDS. Ah, but seems supplier dude has an extra step in here that takes MM a while to get straight: customer tells supply dude want he wants - supply dude gives customer a memorandum of what he thinks customer wants - customer says, right, here's the check for what I want - supplier gives customer the stones plus a receipt.... but receipt is pretty much same as memorandum, but now has the added no refund memo. Customer says he read the memorandum and agreed - told supplier yeah, that's what he wanted, but it's understood I can get my money back if stones don't work - he hands over check and gets stones and receipt - he doesn'the bother to read receipt, so doesn't question the addition of no refund... ah, seems kind of slick - especially when MM points out D had P sign everything EXCEPT the only paper that says no refund. So, MM is hammering away at D - P feeling good about how things are going too he wants to pole on - which has MM telling P no to interrupt when she's "grilling D like a cheeseburger." Ok, not exactly good that D doesn'the give the no refund receipt until after he gets the check - but still, he was willing to exchange the stones (he says a week to 10 days, but P says 2 days). So, why does P says he went elsewhere and spent 2 grand to get the stones.... in fact, IIRC, the check was for $1,400 - why is he asking for 5 grand? Ah, jeweler dude has an explanation, says when he got picked up the stones he was that goat that was all D had on hand? P already had his customer's money, so when he found the stones not working he immediately goes back - he was already told D didn't have the needed stones, so he wanted his money so he could buy them elsewhere. Told he couldn't get the money back, but next day is taking his business elsewhere - ok, making more sense. Another question - he needed 11 diamonds, D sold him 8 - was the 8 just to get started and 3 more to follow... or could it be P was willing to pay other supplier 2 grand to get all 11 matching stones? Ah, looks like P has been making some headway with the judge, so D starts some mud slinging - saying P was drunk when he came back demanding a refund... huh? Is that new or just first time we're hearing it? Oh well, times run out... I think P should get his refund since he wasn't given written notice of the no refund policy, according to D's own testimony, until after he paid. And it makes no sense to take the stones that may not even fit without a money back deal - oh, and I didn't mention it, but when P explained what he wanted he gave D wax molds of the needed stones - which D admits he ignored when he was picking out the stones he was selling P. Actually, I was kind of on the fence until the "he was a screaming drunk" accusation - which is totally don't buy (screaming yes, but seriously doubt drunk.) Ok, time to talk numbers - how did the $1,400 check ballon into 5 grand. Ah, maybe I could see covering his costs (apparently he had to borrow money to pay other supplier when D refused the cash refund), but P only paid D for 8 stones - how much of this additional charges are for the other 3 stones versus the 8.... and where or those 8 stones anyway? Does P have them? Or, does D have them after giving P store credit? Ah, when P went to get a refund and was told no refunds, he had hissy fit and left stones with D. Ok, back to on the fence.... I'm ok with rewinding and undoing the sale - D already has diamonds back, return the money (and hopefully fine tune his paperwork in the future) - D had wax molds showing exactly what was needed, and sold stones that didn't fit - ah, but P should have backed out as soon as he got the receipt, but didn't bother to read it... my question, does D have to pay anything above and beyond $1,400? Nope, says MM, he has to eat anything extra. Hallterview - D says judge all wrong... P still upset with cussing/drunk accusations nonpayment for services: ?? lopsided Plaintiff (her left shoulder and breast seem to be a couple inches above her right side) says she runs a valet service and defendant was her customer. Says D owns a busy pizza joint, and she has a valet service which parked his customer's cars. Things were good until D stopped paying. According to D, he canceled the contract because P's valet were unreliable, and didn't follow his instructions - so he fired them. Kind of simple case. D has been operating successfully for 5 years, then conducted a customer survey asking for any complaints/suggestions for their service. One complaint was that pizzeria had limited parking available, so owner experimented with hiring P valet company. Lasted 6 months, at a cost of $2,400 a month. Different stories on why contract ended.... P says he thinks D learned costs were going to go up because a neighbor wanted money to keep operating as they were.... D says straw that broke the back was a Saturday night when all the valet's were no call/no shows - says it wasn't unheard of for 1 no show, but on that night no-freekin-body came to work. Not much question in my mind why this case is short (intro begins at minute 46). Best P has is a maybe reason why contract canceled. OTOH, D is definite and absolutely believable about why he was fed up and ended the contract.... really, only question for me is whether D paid for entire time period before the fateful night of the no shows. Ah, but P disputes the numbers. Says it wasn't flat $2,400 as D testified. Instead, P says, D was charged $70 per valet per night - and when D canceled contract he had a $3,000 balance. Hmmm, says last payment was made in September, so he's version has valets working a couple months without payments being made. Hmmm, that should be easy enough to prove/disprove and puts ball in other court. Back to D - any reason he should get free service (even crappie service) for two months? Ok, no real defense.... what he throws out hoping two of stick is that he it cost him money to set up the valet stand, the valet service was crappy, so he should get out of paying the $1960 balance he admits is outstanding.... nope, stealing from JJ, he ate the steak... pay your balance. Edited May 25, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
aemom May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, SRTouch said: entitled granddaughter wants 3 grand: Angel's story is that when Angel was living with Granny, Granny refused to give her a key. Instead, Granny left a hidden key under the mat. When they started feuding and fussing - Granny stopped hiding a key and little Angel had to cool her heels outside 'til somebody got home. I actually did find this a little weird. If I had a family member coming to live with me, I would give them a key. If Granny wasn't willing to give Angel a key, then she was clearly leery of letting her stay to begin with. Assuming she did say all those horrible things, then Granny was right to boot her out. However, despite MM's lecture, Angel went storming out past Doug , so I'm not hopeful that her behaviour will improve. 13 minutes ago, SRTouch said: jeweler wants refund: which has MM telling P no to interrupt when she's "grilling D like a cheeseburger." I was amused that of all the food items MM could have chosen, she told the Jewish plaintiff that she was grilling the defendant like a cheeseburger - a very un-kosher food item! He totally deserved to win. Valet case was rather boring. I think it was a case of buyer's remorse - he wasn't seeing enough of an increase in business to make it worth his while. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, SRTouch said: entitled granddaughter wants 3 grand: Dr Phil family drama case, Would even Dr. Phil want such a sordid case as this? Oh, of course he would. Gee, mom or Granny or whoever - doesn't want white people to get in their personal business when that business includes child abuse, physical altercations, someone overturning a sofa that plaintiff was sleeping on or some such garbage, and domestic violence that ends in stabbing and murder. But hey, that's their family business. I've had disagreements with my brother but never did it end in a stabbing. I just have to say that if anyone had stood there and said, "She didn't want Native/obese/old/Latino/Asian/black/Jewish people in her business" JM would have been on that like a duck on a June bug, but not a word said here. But oh, well. this was beyond distasteful. Child abuse is everyone's business, not a private activity, and I just hope that whatever helpless child was being abused by Momma's bed partner with Momma's tacit permission, found some protection somehow. I was so disgusted by the child abuse "Mom's boyfriend hitting" a three-year old(?) I didn't pay much attention to most of the nasty drama. 13 minutes ago, SRTouch said: jeweler wants refund: You wonder how these people did business when surely they both had difficulty understanding the other. But I guess they did. I was unclear on all the details, other than that plaintiff thinks court is like the lottery office where he can get the maximum money for no reason at all. Plaintiff sticking his nasty tongue out? I don't know what grosses me out more - that or the horrific jacked-up grills we see here. Litigants, please keep your tongues in your mouths. Trust me, no one wants to see that shit. 19 minutes ago, SRTouch said: nonpayment for services: This was relief - a pleasantly boring case where people were civilized, coherent and no one perpetrated acts of violence on anyone else. Relaxing, it was. 5 Link to comment
meowmommy May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Relaxing, it was. Well, except for Hallclown's intro, which rivaled Levin for the number and quality of unfunny puns. 2 hours ago, AEMom said: However, despite MM's lecture, Angel went storming out past Doug , so I'm not hopeful that her behaviour will improve. Odds are high that Angel may follow fellow USCer OJ in the stabbing business. Good thing her grandmother didn't give her a key; now she needs to change the locks. BTW, for all that MM is always so touchy about how litigants address her, she addressed the defendant's husband as Grandpa. He's not MM's grandpa and he deserved to be called by his name, or addressed as sir. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 25, 2018 Share May 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Well, except for Hallclown's intro, which rivaled Levin for the number and quality of unfunny puns. I am always grateful for my mute and FF, which spares me this nonsense. You know Levin writes the scripts for the hallclown puppet. He's not old enough to stick in Levin's stupid "louse" and "cad" - stuff no one has heard for 60 years. I think the last time I heard anyone called a"louse" was in a Cagney movie. 7 minutes ago, meowmommy said: MM is always so touchy about how litigants address her, she addressed the defendant's husband as Grandpa. I love JM, but HATE it when she calls people "Momma" or "Grandpa." It's not right at all. 3 Link to comment
aemom May 26, 2018 Share May 26, 2018 26 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I love JM, but HATE it when she calls people "Momma" or "Grandpa." It's not right at all. She does it a lot. She calls litigants Sweetheart or Honey but completely loses her shit if someone calls her Miss. It's quite hypocritical. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 26, 2018 Share May 26, 2018 1 hour ago, AEMom said: She does it a lot. I don't mind when she does it to the very young, but not to older or elderly people. Someone should yell, "I'm not YoMomma!" No one should be calling her "Miss" and she shouldn't be calling strangers "Mom" or "Grandpa." This isn't the Waltons.:p 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 28, 2018 Share May 28, 2018 reruns for awhile - today we see November 8th, recapped and discussed on pg 87 .... no recaps with this latest batch of recycled cases... in fact summaries are from previous recap as these were not deemed worth a second look see. #1 lost dog - P headed to Caribbean/Puerto Rico for a trip and entrusts her beloved pup to D. Turns out that was a BIG mistake, as D loses (or sells the dog) - oh, but she/he has A JOB he/she had to get to, so couldn't be expected to actually look for the missing dog. Dog missing very suspicious - turns out D comes from a long line of back yard breeders - P knows she/he needed rent money - and thinks her dog was sold. Oh, and if knowing D needs money and is known to sell puppies from her family's back yard breeding operation isn't enough to dissuade P from leaving her beloved dog in D's care, you'd think the knowledge that D has dogs which he/she never walks might - but no, P leaves her little Romeo after D promises to walk P's dog even though his own stay locked in a room. Whole case very iffy on both sides - including P claiming to have proof she paid almost twice what her proof proves she paid. # 2 rental beach house: plaintiff had been renting this house annually for her family vacations ($3,200 for a week). This last summer sort of a disaster - hot and humid with non working AC, fridge quits and the food goes bad - replacement fridge doesn't fit and ice maker flood kitchen, etc. D offers partial refund (sent a $400 refund), but P wants a free stay - even though she stayed the week. MM thinks $400 not enough off the $3200 rental, and orders additional refund ending with a 50% discount. #3 cell phone: typical cell phone nonsense case (who else watches that commercial where some fool is buying a cell phone plan and is told about the free lines/phones and customer starts asking strangers their names and tells them they get a line.... and you're watching and yelling "LITIGANTS!") Oh, not only do we have nonsense where recipient of getting on Step Mommy's plan doesn't "feel" she owes (convoluted nonsense about how step mommy "owes" back child support from when D was a kid).... but stepmommy P provides the evidence that stepmommy is padding the bill hoping the judge will take her word for balance instead of reading the bill. 3 Link to comment
NYCFree May 29, 2018 Share May 29, 2018 On 5/18/2018 at 9:27 PM, SRTouch said: Ok, something I'd have changed shortly after moving in if I had been the defendant... dude moving in with a couple strangers he found on CL.... no locks on bedroom door or anyway to secure my property in my room... dude, instead of complaining about roommates not respecting your space and and setting computer your to take video when door opens, how about stopping at Home Depot and buying a frickin' door handle with a lock. Heck, I don't consider myself paranoid or anything, but.... just wow... a screwdriver and less time than you spent setting up the camera and you'd have no worries.... well, except half nekked roomies banging on door at 1am In New York City, internal locks on bedrooms inside apartments or houses are illegal because they are against fire code. Also, NYC specific, rent stabilized apartments and rent controlled apartments are two entirely separate beasts, rent controlled apartments have been continuously occupied by the same renter, or renter's family since before 1971. People who live in rent controlled apartments have been bought out for upwards of a million dollars. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.