Guest June 21, 2018 Share June 21, 2018 12 hours ago, meowmommy said: So glad you're both back on the job! That recap yesterday was hard! Ain't it the truth. I don't know how SRTouch and co. do it. When I try to rehash a case my blood is boiling so high I can't think straight. I really do appreciate the recaps. Just splendid. Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 21, 2018 Share June 21, 2018 14 hours ago, AEMom said: I'm always amazed at the things that people decide "Yes! This is worth cheaping out on. Hey, there are many celebrities who bargain-basement hunt for plastic surgeons, with predictable results! 13 hours ago, Florinaldo said: And why is it most often women on these shows who expect cheap to come out gilded with gold? What really burns my butt is women - no matter how old - who do dumb things like this and then say, "I'm just a helpless little woman/single mother. I don't know anything about cars/renovations/paying bills and he wouldn't let me test drive the car/wouldn't give me a receipt for the 1500$ cash I handed over! Oh, boo hoo! Poor little me! I just don't understand all this man business!" etc. That always irks JM too, in a major way as she also doesn't think a grown woman acting like a little girl is fetching. 14 hours ago, AEMom said: This guy was starring in Chapter 572 of the book "Ultimate Loser Boyfriends on TPC and the Women Who Love Them." Someone needs to make a YT vid like that. So profound was his stupidity that JM was actually shocked into momentary silence, not something that happens often. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch June 21, 2018 Share June 21, 2018 (edited) ??? dog attacks cat - watched more than I normally would for a dog vs cat attack case, but saw enough to gets pissed off - oh, and case runs long... ?? very simple case, legally, but nice to hear litigants talking where I don't need CC - and P opens calling the judge "your honor" and using big words like "rapport" like he actually knows WTH they mean instead of like they're special words brought out to address the court when you're trying to make bail... ?? plaintiff gets rear ended, and D has zero defense dog attack: from intro heard as I was getting coffee, I understand D's dog got out and attacked a neighbor's (P) cat - which resulted in big vet bills and kitty losing some toes. Instead of immediately hitting the button, I actually watched part of this one. From bits and pieces I DID see, feisty female defendant might have been worth watching had subject of case been something else - but, no, here she just makes excuses for not containing her dog - and from little bit I saw during ruling D woman has as much trouble controlling herself as she does her dog. D intro denied their dog was in the attack, say their pooch gets along fine with their 12 cats - so it would not have attacked the cat. Sounds like wishful thinking from people who have forgotten their dog IS A FREEKIN' DOG. Mini-rant - dogs and cats, as much as we may love them, are not 4-legged humans. A dog might attack for many reasons which make perfect sense - to the dog - but no sense at all to us humans - NEWS FLASH - your dog doesn't reason like a human (is supposed to) and often acts instinctively. In this case, dog is a "designer mutt" a mix of a terrier and a scent hound - both hunting dog breeds which may be great with "their" family cats while viewing all over neighborhood animals as potential prey. It's up to us, the human, to train, socialize, protect, and just plain maintain control of our animals - cats included. I bailed on this case after MM's opening summary because it seems - to my mind - neither side are responsible pet owners. Went back later and watched a little more - heard cat owner say cat is strictly an outdoor cat, and heard about dog's breed - then started getting mad and deleted the recording. As the walking can opener serving 5 cats, I place at least as much blame on the cat owner as the neighbor with the dog - guess MM saw/heard something else, as she awards $1125 to cat owner. To me, controlling your cat is as important as controlling your dog. If, for no other reason, because your cat's life expectancy soars once you stop letting it roam. But, in most jurisdictions cats are allowed to roam and dogs have to be contained or leased. Was tempted to rewind and listen to more to see what exactly MM said that had D so mad in hallterview - but, nah, on to next case. heater repair dude wants to be paid for work: plaintiff claims he was hired by Defendant to service furnance in 4 of defendant's rental properties - says he did the work, but D hasn't even paid for parts that he replaced - suing for $725. D argues he did a poor job - 2 of the 4 (or 5) furnaces didn't work right and she hired someone else to repair the repair P did. From preview seems she not only didn't pay, but she just ignored the bill, and stopped all communication with P - no call to complain, just ignored the old repair dude. Ah, MM is going to get hot about this one - she's going to look at old dude and get her elder bias going - then think what if someone treated her daddy like D treated this kindly old dude.... wellllll, some old dudes are crafty old bastards who are more than willing to scam their customers - we'll see where this guy fits. Testimony starts and dude sure starts out sounding reasonable - and my, such an improvement over the trashy semi literate speech which we normally hear. Ok, no way (assuming intro close to actual case) does D not end up paying for the work - but from the intro I'd expect this was a one time repair job - no, P says he's done work for D several times over the years and they always "had a good rapport..." which makes the clip as we went to commercial even stranger where MM is questioning D about ignoring the guy... ok, dude sure sounds like he knows his furnaces - about all I understood when he was listing his repairs was one furnace needed a thermostat. There is a hole in his case - seems the agreed upon price was $500+ because he was giving her a discount - now that he has had to go to court he wants to do away with any discount - which is why he's suing for $700+. Defendant also sounding more intelligent than the normal litigant I've come to expect. Her case paints a slightly better picture... she didn't just ignore the guy - says she started to pay, but there were problems with some of the furnaces not working, so she called repair guy back multiple times, but he failed to fix the problem. Says after he didn't get it working, and with her tenants getting upset, she ditched the old guy and brought in another technician - who sold her 2 new furnaces for close to 6 grand. Soooo, she figures P's time, effort, and money for parts to fix the furnance was wasted, and she shouldn't have to pay. P has a problem with how he does his service calls, or at least how he's presenting his case. He wants to be paid for these repeat service calls, but he doesn't have the individual invoices or anything to show customer approved the work - and D is claiming she thought these additional charges were covered under the first service call. Ah, but he says he told defendant how much these service calls and his repairs would cost - and wonder of wonders, D admits he verbally told her what it would cost - but she doesn't remember his verbal estimate. Hmmmm, maybe I was starting to give her more credit than she deserves - I was thinking she was being a good landlady when she decided to ditch the old 20-30yo furnaces and spend 6 grand on new ones - then I realise her tenants were living with heat that sometimes quit in the middle of the night from at least December til February - and she stopped calling P back to fix the bad finances in either December, or January depending on who you believe. Hmmm thinking of that old Danny DeVito movie where, as punishment for not maintaining his building he has to move in. Anyway, no surprise here, D has to pay the agreed upon discounted price of $510, not the 'pissed at you price' of $700+ he's suing for. car wreck: plaintiff says he was rear ended by defendant, has spent months chasing D, but still owed $1738.42 - ah, back to normal - bet D is unlicensed/no insurance and says not my fault. Drats, D says he has insurance - but still, not his fault - says he was cut off, swerved into P's lane to avoid a 5 car pile up, P stopped short, D innocent and expected his insurance to cover any damage when his car barely tapped P's bumper - ah, but it doesn't take much more than a tap to damage today's car safety bumpers, there can be little visible damage, but still big repair bill. Ah, here the claim has grown from just the damage ($1200) to damage, time and attorney fees ($1700). Ok, still not back on schedule after first case ran over - so this case will be a quick one. P testimony has him driving along - not stopping short - and first hint he has of a problem is when D hit him square on from the rear. D - knew it was too good to last, I turn on CC so I can read his testimony instead of listening to all the hm, haws, and filler words from this Einstein. We have the infamous white board - but only one toy pickup truck and both sides had PUs. Sure seems like D is making it up on the fly as he moves the toys around - maybe should have thought before he started as he pretty much admits liability. Sort of see why his insurance would deny the claim if this is the story he told them - barely tapped P, P stopped short, etc while P is presenting a big repair bill and denies stopping - enough inconsistencies to let insurance deny the claim. (Actually, sounds like D, despite saying he was letting insurance cover things, was trying to avoid insurance and trying to pay out of pocket the cheap way possible.) Here... well, here MM pokes holes in his scenario and makes story sound silly, and in zero time he's admitting fault. MM wastes time commenting on cracked phone screen making it hard to see damage, but really, I wouldn't pay much attention to the picture and would want estimates from the body shop - too often bumper damage is hidden from view. Ok, so now D isn't disputing liability, he just argues amount of damage, saying P padded damage claim. But - but - P was nice and actually went to body shop recommended by D, and the shop that he recommended gave an estimate which essentially matched where P took his truck. Ok, giving P too much credit - he SAYS D's friendly shop was, maybe, $100 cheaper on labor - but just flapping gums as he can't prove what he's saying. Meanwhile, same thing from D - says his friend would have done it for $750, but no evidence backing that up.... besides, P was under no obligation to go with D's shop recommendation, and P's estimate of $1258 doesn't sound that inflated to me. Ah, and more to that story... P says he was willing to let D's shop do the work, but wanted D to pay the bill and D was a no show. After a week, P gave up on D paying. Ok, as expected - D has no defense and has to pay the repair bill - also as expected, the add on time and aggravation bill is out - says he paid $300 for a lawyer to do the small claims court application - nope, not happening, and dude knew that wasn't happening as he almost smiles when MM questions him about it. Ah, and another litigant says he learned something from his appearance - D tells Doug you need to bring evidence... what a strange notion! Edited June 21, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 21, 2018 Share June 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: dog attack: Screechy defendant looked unhealthy; even Doug refrained from his usual tendency to touch litigants, as if he also perceived her as unhygienic. She kept saying they had had many dogs over the years and thus MM had no right to say they were inept dog owners. Numbers are not proof of anything in this instance: from what we heard and saw, they may well have been incompetent owners for each and every animal of theirs. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: heater repair dude wants to be paid for work: Another customer arbitrarily witholding payment. No, I am wrong, it was not arbitrary: she is a congenital dishonest cheapskate, pure and simple. And she probably spent the money on that god-awful wig (or was it hair extensions?) she was wearing. I am sorry that MM could see no legal way to cancel the agreed-upon discounted rate. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: car wreck: From the get-go the case seemed like the slam dunk it turned out to be, so I could not bother to suffer the defendant's mumbling and confused reasoning. 6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: What really burns my butt is women - no matter how old - who do dumb things like this and then say, "I'm just a helpless little woman/single mother. At one time women were encouraged not to express their initiative or intelligence, so this might be an understandable attitude coming from older people. But even young women on these shows act as if finances, contracts, technical stuff, etc. are all beyond the ability of their poor wittle female brains cells. I suppose it works with people they know and it means they don't have to make any effort or take responsibility since there is always someone around to save them from their weak distaff nature. Edited June 21, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
Broderbits June 21, 2018 Share June 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: She kept saying they had had many dogs over the years and thus MM had no right to say they were inept dog owners. Numbers are not proof of anything in this instance: from what we heard and saw, they may well have been incompetent owners for each and every animal of theirs. I wouldn't trust either the plaintiff or the 2 inept defendants to care for a house plant, much less a cat or dog. Nasty people, all of them. 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 21, 2018 Share June 21, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: dog attack: I actually watched this, because it didn't sound too heinous. I can't remember when I've despised both litigants equally. Plaintiff is an annoying, pompous windbag who has his script in his head (no doubt spent several evenings with his girlfriend composing it)and, damn it, he's going to tell his story, starting with the Great Flood. JM had to all but taser him to make him get on with it. Def is a weird little person who should never own a dog or probably any living creature. Anyone who knows anything about dogs knows that chasing a dog teaches it to run away. Pompous windbag proudly states his cat is out all the time, "patrolling." I get it. My ex-feral cat (I lost him last year at the age of around 18) was always out from April til Nov. I tried keeping him in and maybe I could have, at the cost of my sanity. Mostly he stayed on my wooded half acre, but I worried and knew and accepted that if anything happened to him - cars, kids, dogs or other cats - it was my fault and mine alone. Anyway, def thinks it's totally normal for his dog to get out and run loose around the neighbourhood to get poisoned, run over by a car or attacked by a cat. Raccoon-eyed weirdo (who also has a dozen cats!!) says his dog is "too smart for her own good." JM tells him, "NO - she's too smart for YOU." Windbag didn't bother sticking around to see what happened to his cat when plaintiff's dog was in his yard - he needed to put his shoes on and by the time he came back, both cat and dog were gone. He also didn't bother looking for his cat but it eventually came home with a badly injured foot. Neither litigant knows what happened because neither stuck around to see. Two unbelievable assholes. BUT, best was def's witness(His mommy?) a malignant, venomous hag who started screaming at JM that she has a nerve saying they shouldn't own a dog and how dare she say that? They had TWO dogs before, well-trained, and this one is a puppy so of course they have no control over it, and on and on. I couldn't believe JM didn't tell Douglas to give her the boot, but I guess this is one of the elderly JM thinks deserves respect - a rude, nasty, vicious, disrespectful harriden. Even her baby boy told her, "In another court you'd be arrested for this. " She would too. Virulent hag continues to screech in the hall with Doug, who really doesn't want to talk to her. UGH all around. Poor animals, stuck with these dimwitted cretins, when the animals have more brains than all of them put together. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: heater repair dude wants to be paid for work: Def - sporting an incredibly tacky looking, discount Barbie doll wig and huge plastic pearls - is another one who wants to go the cheapest route possible, putting Bandaids on ancient furnaces and then won't pay when the old dinosaurs give up the ghost. The elderly man did the work. It's not his fault if people think they can keep old applicances or cars running forever with a few little touchups here and there. Pay him! 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: car wreck: plaintiff says he was rear ended by defendant Def, a nasty, dumb slob, waddles into the room wearing a huge, giant shirt with wonky B/W stripes on it that nearly induced me to have a seizure. He's a liar who smashed plaintiff in the rear and says "My guy" said the repairs to plaintiff's car would cost 750$. What - JM wants proof of that? Oh, gee he doesn't have that! His version of the accident would make a 10-year old snicker in disbelief. Disgusting person. But plaintiff, who wants 1200$ presents JM with his smashed phone with pictures of his car. Of course she couldn't tell if the cracks were on the car on the phone. He was too lazy to print out the pictures, because hitting the "print" button is a lot of work. "Can't you tell from that?" he asks. Well, no, she can't. Since def. slob can't produce a stitch of evidence to the contrary - I guess he's even lazier than plaintiff - P. gets the amount on his estimate, the 1200$ 6 Link to comment
meowmommy June 21, 2018 Share June 21, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Pompous windbag proudly states his cat is out all the time, "patrolling." I get it. I get it, but I don't get it. If you let your cat run loose, you need to accept the risks involved with letting your cat run loose. This has nothing to do with the legalities of who's at fault when something bad happens. I've lived with cats who have been allowed to run loose, and I don't recommend it. I made the mistake of taking my cat Sasha out on a harness and leash and now he's fucking addicted. He hangs at the door, scratches at the door and meows every evening for me to take him out. It's too damn hot during the day (this is AZ, after all), and in the evening I can't see the coyotes who roam this nice suburban neighborhood and who would be glad to have my precious big boy for a light snack. Anyway, if you let your cat out, you had better assume bad things will happen. Especially this asshole who doesn't seem to have any emotional connection to his cat. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I couldn't believe JM didn't tell Douglas to give her the boot, but I guess this is one of the elderly JM thinks deserves respect - a rude, nasty, vicious, disrespectful harriden. Even her baby boy told her, "In another court you'd be arrested for this. " She would too. Word to this. And another case where MM's inconsistency infuriates the hell out of me. Just because the hag bag is sitting down doesn't mean she gets to scream and holler and get incredibly gentle treatment from MM. Even after she's been told to shut up, still interrupts and MM says nothing. Wishing MM really could hold people in contempt instead of just treating them with contempt and telling them to leave, which is all you can do in a pretend court. 3 hours ago, Florinaldo said: She kept saying they had had many dogs over the years and thus MM had no right to say they were inept dog owners. Numbers are not proof of anything in this instance: from what we heard and saw, they may well have been incompetent owners for each and every animal of theirs. Bitch needs to watch Animal Hoarders. Volume is definitely not reflective of competence. And no doubt hag and her baby will continue to bring in and self-righteously mismanage dogs. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ok, still not back on schedule after first case ran over - so this case will be a quick one. You say it like it's a bad thing. I still say TPC could benefit from the JJ model--two cases per half hour instead of three cases in one hour. But then we wouldn't have time for Levin's useless bullshit and MM's Dr. Phil service. I know, horrible prospect. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: He was too lazy to print out the pictures, because hitting the "print" button is a lot of work. "Can't you tell from that?" he asks. That always amazes me. That and, when there's something on the phone you plan to show MM but can't readily download, like a video, and you don't have it queued up for her, but instead start the search when she asks for it. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: another litigant says he learned something from his appearance - D tells Doug you need to bring evidence. Shocking, isn't it? I wonder how many litigants end up on TPC who've never actually seen it or another teevee court show, but simply are enticed by the producers who skim the small claims court dockets for juicy cases. 2 Link to comment
aemom June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: BUT, best was def's witness(His mommy?) a malignant, venomous hag who started screaming at JM that she has a nerve saying they shouldn't own a dog and how dare she say that? They had TWO dogs before, well-trained, and this one is a puppy so of course they have no control over it, and on and on. I couldn't believe JM didn't tell Douglas to give her the boot, but I guess this is one of the elderly JM thinks deserves respect - a rude, nasty, vicious, disrespectful harriden. Even her baby boy told her, "In another court you'd be arrested for this. " She would too. Virulent hag continues to screech in the hall with Doug, who really doesn't want to talk to her. UGH all around. Poor animals, stuck with these dimwitted cretins, when the animals have more brains than all of them put together. 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: Word to this. And another case where MM's inconsistency infuriates the hell out of me. Just because the hag bag is sitting down doesn't mean she gets to scream and holler and get incredibly gentle treatment from MM. Even after she's been told to shut up, still interrupts and MM says nothing. Wishing MM really could hold people in contempt instead of just treating them with contempt and telling them to leave, which is all you can do in a pretend court. I think that the reason that MM didn't yell at the old woman to leave is that she wasn't sure if the woman had a physical disability or not. If MM threw her out of the courtroom, it might have involved Douglas, or possibly those security guys hustling her out and it would have come off badly. I think she figured that it was just better to ignore her. The old hag also struck me as not quite being "all there" as well. But lady, I don't care if your dog is a newborn - it's not allowed to go wherever it pleases. I wasn't sure if the plaintiff was going to win or not, because nobody actually saw an attack, and maybe it was a squirrel or a raccoon or something else that attacked the cat. He was lucky to win. I feel sorry for the kitty losing part of his paw. I also felt sorry for the furnace guy who was nicely dressed and spoke well. The defendant spoke well too and she had a nice dress, but the wig looked fake. I'm glad he got his money. He did the work, and she wanted to save money after buying new furnaces. The defendant for the car case was a thick as a post. "Duh! I need evidence!" *facepalm* Edited June 22, 2018 by AEMom Clarification 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, AEMom said: If MM threw her out of the courtroom, it might have involved Douglas, or possibly those security guys hustling her out and it would have come off badly. Nothing some careful editing could not have taken care of; in most episodes there are moments when you can spot that a few or several seconds were edited out. I think it was one of MM's blind spots at work because she looked like a fragile elderly person (but a vicious one at that). 16 minutes ago, AEMom said: I wasn't sure if the plaintiff was going to win or not, because nobody actually saw an attack, and maybe it was a squirrel or a raccoon or something else that attacked the cat. He was lucky to win. As MM said, in a civil cases a preponderance of evidence is sufficient, even it it's circumstancial proof; I think she correclty estimated that the probability that right after an encounter with that dog the cat would have tussled with another animal (or walked on garbage as the old hag argued) was vanishingly small. Edited June 22, 2018 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment
meowmommy June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Nothing some careful editing could not have taken care of; in most episodes there are moments when you can spot that a few or several seconds were edited out. I think it was one of MM's blind spots at work because she looked like a fragile elderly person (but a vicious one at that). And even if MM wasn't going to force the hag physically out the door, she still inexplicably tolerated the bitch screaming over her and interrupting not once, but at least twice, after MM had told her she could stay if she sat down and shut up. MM just kept talking and ignored the hag; she would not have done that for the average litigant. Just because you're an old bag of bones doesn't give you a free pass to be incredibly rude and disrespectful. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, meowmommy said: I made the mistake of taking my cat Sasha out on a harness and leash and now he's fucking addicted. He hangs at the door, scratches at the door and meows every evening for me to take him out. Oh, they get just one taste of "out there" and you are finished! My Tommy lived his first year outdoors, wild, and until the end, he could howl and harass me and follow me around, and howl, and paw at the windows, and howl and get on my computer desk, pat me on the face, and yes - howl. If none of that worked he would go and beat up his poor old momma. He knew that always got me to obey him. Now I just have old momma (22) and she wants no part of outside, just sits daintily in the window. I don't have to worry constantly as I did about her boy. 17 minutes ago, meowmommy said: MM just kept talking and ignored the hag; she would not have done that for the average litigant. Just because you're an old bag of bones doesn't give you a free pass to be incredibly rude and disrespectful. I guess she was raised to respect her elders, even if that elder is a vile, nasty, malevolent witch. Had she been 20 years younger and behaving exactly the same way (which she probably did) and using exactly the same words she would have been thrown out PDQ. Just because she got old, this behavior is tolerated. She wasn't just shouting out, but insulting, argumentative and personally rude to JM. Nonsensical to me why that hag was allowed to go on shrieking. I wanted to see Douglas take her to the floor!! Her boy looked to be in worse shape than she is. Why the hell did those two get a puppy? I can just bet it never gets taken for a walk. I guess they figure it gets enough exercise running all over the neighbourhood. I bet the old lady will be the first to squawk and sue when someone hits it with their car. 48 minutes ago, AEMom said: maybe it was a squirrel or a raccoon or something else that attacked the cat. Could have a been. A squirrel once sliced my big cat's gums to the bone. Could have even been caught in a trap, since cruel people do put them out. We'll never know since neither loving owner could bother to wait five minutes to find out. Edited June 22, 2018 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
AlleC17 June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Oh, they get just one taste of "out there" and you are finished! My Tommy lived his first year outdoors, wild, and until the end, he could howl and harass me and follow me around, and howl, and paw at the windows, and howl and get on my computer desk, pat me on the face, and yes - howl. If none of that worked he would go and beat up his poor old momma. He knew that always got me to obey him. Now I just have old momma (22) and she wants no part of outside, just sits daintily in the window. I don't have to worry constantly as I did about her boy. I guess she was raised to respect her elders, even if that elder is a vile, nasty, malevolent witch. Had she been 20 years younger and behaving exactly the same way (which she probably did) and using exactly the same words she would have been thrown out PDQ. Just because she got old, this behavior is tolerated. She wasn't just shouting out, but insulting, argumentative and personally rude to JM. Nonsensical to me why that hag was allowed to go on shrieking. I wanted to see Douglas take her to the floor!! Her boy looked to be in worse shape than she is. Why the hell did those two get a puppy? I can just bet it never gets taken for a walk. I guess they figure it gets enough exercise running all over the neighbourhood. I bet the old lady will be the first to squawk and sue when someone hits it with their car. Could have a been. A squirrel once sliced my big cat's gums to the bone. Could have even been caught in a trap, since cruel people do put them out. We'll never know since neither loving owner could bother to wait five minutes to find out. One of mine was a feral kitten, whose caretaker (I use that term lightly) could not be bothered to tell their landlord after they left, that they in fact did NOT take the momma cat and kittens with them, which they claimed they were doing every time they were asked. (this was all on barn property and we would have made sure they were integrated with the other feeding areas had we known he was going to leave them behind) Anyway, she was 4 months old and wandered to the closest feeding area where my friend fed and got beaten up by one of the other cats. I was able to catch her and took her home, and she wanted no part of outdoors ever. She is soon going to be 7, and has never once tried to escape. Easiest feral kitty transition ever, That old troll needed to be ejected! She was so nasty. A 9 month old puppy needs to be trained, and quite obviously, they hadn't done much of that! But it was his daughters puppy! Is that supposed to make a difference? Geez. I hate animal cases. Both the cat and dog owners were assholes. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 (edited) ?? interesting case about collectible toys - I didn't think P proved his case - but MM decided alternative was to far out and ruled for P... ??? well, this one gave me heartburn and I zipped through most of it - overly entitled P received money from disaster relief and wanted more - gave it 1 ? because MM ferreted out the math and made him return a tiny - tiny - portion of what he received, which left P ""flabbergasted"... ??? Interesting alley mechanic case with mostly intelligent plaintiff, but clueless auto owner suing alley mechanic over botched repair collectible toy case: another of those subjects I have little knowledge or interest in - collectibles. I have a friend that is into Star Trek collectibles in a big way. I once went with him to a store where he paid a couple hundred bucks for a fold out cardboard advertisement piece that once upon a time would have been sitting in stores where the toys were being sold - something I would have tossed in the trash without a second thought. I mean, this thing was falling apart, had water damage, etc - and two or three guys were all excited talking about what a great find at such a great price. This case is similar - except these litigants are into vintage 80's Transformer toys. Seems plaintiff purchased some of collectibles from the defendant that turned out to be reproductions/counterfeits. Thing is, plaintiff in case says he's been a collector for 25 years - and seems like "BUYER BEWARE" type case where he should have known better than to spend thousands without making sure of what he was getting - he says 19 of the toys he was sold are fakes and is suing for $5,500. Defendant's intro says plaintiff came to D's house and spent 3 hours inspecting his collection before buying. While intro for D was going on we get a couple shots of P shifting his eyes back and forth - if I hadn't already seen the preview and known guy is hearing impaired I might have wondered WTH, but actually they have somebody signing for him. Turns out D also partially deaf, so his body language and speech also a little off until you realise he's keeping his good ear towards the speaker and lip reading. As for the case - unless D made some guarantee/fake certificate of authenticity or P can prove fraud, I can't see P winning. Especially, since testimony indicates P has a business dealing in memorabilia - sounds like he was just branching out into toys, but still should know not to spend thousands without an expert verifying what he was buying... seems to remember a case where someone bought a box of barbies and then decided that after the inspection was over the box was delivered minus the best dolls... sort of sounds like litigants buying a car without a test drive or mechanic... I get why MM takes time to go over real vs counterfeit vs reproduction - she's making sure the audience knows - but I zip through that - hope we're not also going to get schooled on how big a difference condition can make - oh and how important "new in the box" can be - I learned that from Sheldon on Big Bang. Anyway, if this is really P's business, hope he hires a toy expert to handle his toy buying/selling. Back to case.... D also long time collector - but where P many into comics, sounds like D specializes in toys. D admits he was told 2 hours into the inspection period that P was only looking to buy original - first run production model, and says several of P's choices were removed from consideration. Is that enough to decide dude was committing fraud by not catching additional reproductions or second production models.... not in my mind. There was no guarantee or certificate of authenticity, and to me P needs to prove D knew they were 2nd run or counterfeit. Soooo purchase was made - P takes toys home - a week later he starts questioning authenticity and sends a text to D, which begins an exchange which eventually becomes a request to unwind the deal and get a refund. Case started out interesting but turning into same old AS-IS nonsense and buyers remorse. D, who is the more experienced toy guy, still thinks the toys are the coveted first run models, and wants sale to stand. Here I was getting bored and about to hit the button, (typing that reminds me of the old Gong Show). Then we get a game changer (well, didn't think P had a case anyway) - there's a new element to case. P says he brought all the toys he purchased to court, and has them displayed on his table. MM decides to let D go over and see if he sees anything wrong with these items. Whoa, he quickly starts pulling items which he says are NOT originals, but then stops and tells us there are only a couple originals, everything else P has on table are fake or 2nd run. Uh oh, is P trying to scam the judge or is D introducing a new reason not to unwind the deal by saying P has substituted fakes for the originals... ah, wouldn't it have been nice if they had at least written a list of what was sold at the time (oh and taken pictures 1 you know your phone is not just for dirty pictures) - now D is saying he didn't sell any duplicates and P has a couple duplicates on the table that D is calling fake. Not sure how MM is going to tell who is lying (maybe something in texts) but obvious someone is lying and not just mistaken - and of course if she can't point at the liar the P hasn't proven his case. Ah, but will this be a case where MM decides on "preponderance of evidence" vs "reasonable doubt" she seems to be leaning towards not believing P would make up this scenario and come on tv to get out of the sale - but we see lots of litigants on court TV with flimsy cases where I end up wondering WTH. Yep, that's where she goes - quick ruling (and 5 minutes early) for P..... hey, both sides win, especially as D has the original 5 grand and takes home the toys on the table. Not only does he not really have to pay the award, but he has a couple real collectibles and several second tier collectibles which are worth money, just not as much as first production run toys. Course, the turning point was when D went over and looked at the collection on the table and found so many 2nd run models - that's the thing that made MM rules for P... another litigant was other side's best evidence contractor case: another Hurricaine Sandy case. This time, homeowner (P) hired contractor (D) to elevate his house so next storm wouldn't flood him out. Says contractor didn't raise house level, and floors and countertops were damaged to tune of $3227 - which he wants contractor to pay. Ok, from D intro, we hear D actually hired by State - job cost $300,000 and P paid nothing. He says damage P is suing for was from hurricaine. Hmmmm, wouldn't you expect several inspections, with photos, were done before taxpayers paid hundreds of thousands, and wouldn't those inspections/pictures mention/show damaged counters and floors. Ok, not liking P on general principles if tax payers actually paid $300,000 on his house and he's suing over paying $3000 - even if contractor screwed up and did the damage. I can only guess at reasons taxpayers are footing the bill to raise houses above the flood plain, but can't think of any good reason.... oh, maybe those folks in New Suffolk, Long Island with their house 300 feet from the bay pay boat loads of taxes and insurance and just deserve a helping hand from taxpayers who will never be able to afford to live 300 feet from the bay in a flood plain.. Ah well, can't think to hard about that and watch the case, but is that really the best use of taxpayer money. Another case where MM uses time to teach the audience - this time how to lift a house to put in a new foundation. Oh dear, guess location IS EVERYTHING... did P just say we're talking a 1200 Sq ft house that the taxpayer spent THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND bucks raise?.. hope I heard wrong. Yep, just backtracked - 1200 sq ft says P, and D says 300 grand and 6-8 months on job ?.... Anyway, little bitty 2 story house which must sit on VERY expensive lot 300 ft from the Bay that NY State deemed so valuable the taxpayer, with average income of maybe $60,000 in NY, needs to pay 300 grand to preserve in a flood plain.?...sorry, can't get over the numbers?, I zip ahead before I hear P explains why he's entitled to MORE money. Not going to rewind, but when I stop to hear the judgement it seems not only was P the beneficiary of the taxpayers, he also double dipped. Seems, just guessing because I didn't go back and listen, the relief program paid to fix some incidental damage to the house as it was raised. Thing is, he convinced D to pay $600 for same damage, saying the program didn't issue the check. So, now, still assuming here, when D is sued for additional 3 grand, D goes back and double checks, and discovers P collected from both the State AND his company... almost tempted to go back and listen to MM's reaction to THAT, but I already have heartburn from this case and am satisfied hearing D awarded the amount of over payment. Didn't hear most of the case, but P is speechless during hallterview - flabbergasted he says - and not helped as Doug is laughing at him saying he should never have filed this case. transmission shop rip off?: plaintiff complains D put in cheap used transmission instead of what she paid for - wants $3748.91... ah thanks for the laugh, dude - not sure where D was headed, but he comes marching in, bypasses his lectern, and is almost out of screen at front of courtroom before Douglas corrals him and guides him back - then guy stands IN FRONT of lectern inside of behind the microphone - really, maybe they need to put footprints on the floor like in hallway where litigants are supposed to stand - nah, doesn't work there, so wouldn't inside court either. Anyway, that display may make us question how good a mechanic he is, but from what I'm hearing I'm thinking old junker, falling apart, he fixes transmission and something else falls apart - she wants every penny she spend back, plus plus. Ah, heard enough in pre-ad preview to turn on CC - P sounds fine, but D has accent which left me wondering WTH - oh, and we heard MM asking D for evidence, he says no evidence, and she replies, of course not... not looking good for well dressed mechanic. Ok, case starts out fine... P clear, sounds intelligent, knows what she paid when, etc - just wondering how she ended up going to D for the repair when she says she met dude when she took her car in. She says she paid $1850 (parts and labor) for the "remanufactured" transmission to be installed - actually said "remanufactured" instead of used. Hmmmm, could she be one of those English as second language people who puts the rest of us to shame? 4 days after the repair, engine light comes on and car is duplicating symptoms from before the repair. Thing is, her description of symptoms has me thinking if transmission was the problem. Then she says car had trouble accelerating the day after the repair - hmmmm, now she says engine light was still on when she picked up the car.... maybe not as intelligent as I thought. First she said 4 days after she picked up the car light comes on, now light was on when she picked it up, and car wasn't running right when she drove it away from the shop. Ah, ok, seems it was both - light was on when she went to pick it up, but he fiddled around and got it reset... then car wasn't running right, but light was out for days before it came back on.... back to wondering what else might be real problem as it sounds like she's depending on Leroy and idiot lights that can mean any of several things are messed up. Apparently Leroy is one of so-called mechanics that can't diagnose a problem without his cheap trusty plug in computer... I remember several years ago I had a problem on a road trip from Oklahoma - California and back. Had a problem on way out, mechanic fixed the problem after I had it diagnosed at Ford dealer, fix lasted until I got back to New Mexico, had another mechanic look at it, but instead of letting him fix it (wanted $1400) called regular mechanic in Oklahoma - he assured me it was safe to drive, so I limped home - upshot is, regular mechanic diagnosed problem over the phone, fixed it in an hour and a half (an hour of which was waiting for part to be delivered) once I made it to Lawton - and his fix lasted 10+years (and turned out $1400 fix by NM mechanic would have had nothing to do with my problem)... Uh, definitely not as intelligent as first impression - now she knows car isn't running right, but she keeps driving it waiting for Leroy to find time to work on it - oh and turns out Leroy doesn't have an autoshop - he's doing this off the books after hours at a friend's shop. Guess she has her moments, though. She may not be smart about the car - but preview shows MM getting a laugh when she presents a receipt from Leroy - apparently off-the-books Leroy doesn't do receipts - so she grabbed a piece of paper and gets him to sign one she scribbles out on back of vet visit receipt from dog's last visit. Anyway, now Leroy is getting a turn - almost painful listening to him, might have excused him thinking maybe English isn't his first language - but then remember his confused act as he came into the courtroom, nope, thinking Leroy is a few bricks short. Then I hear him saying from the beginning he was telling P there was more to the problem than just a bad transmission... I don't doubt that, I start of thought same thing and wondered how she decided it needed the transmission replaced... but thing is he charged woman almost 2 grand and now says he knew all along that wouldn't fix the problem!?! Seems transmission was diagnosed bad by "Pep Boys and others" (probably more plug-in mechanics who plug in a computer and get a list of possible problems). I'm thinking that's Leroy - plug it in, then instead of doing cheapest fix jumps right to $2000 repair and work backwards. Ah, this is the part where preview has MM asking for his estimate where he warns transmission may just be beginning of repair - he says no estimate - MM says, course not. Ah, finally! When we have these cases I wish they'd tell us up front what age/model car we're talking about. This time, once I hear 2000 dodge caravan, quicky KBB check (without knowing actual options, mileage etc) looks like a good chance she could gave replaced her minivan for what she paid for the transmission repair. Ok, definitely she wasn't smart when she let off book Leroy work on the car, but I think she may be stupid foolish with her car but still smart otherwise. Now, we learn when Leroy tells her his cheap plug-in diagnosey machine can't print out problems, she whipped out her phone and took a picture - not something she routinely does, as she doesn't usually take pictures, had forgotten she took this one (Leroy helpfully informed us when MM asked if he had a printout) - and needs MM to figure out how to pull up the picture. Not sure why Leroy helped out, since the picture, once we see it, indicates a problem in the replaced transmission. Ok, she has had enough of trying to cheap out, she heads to a dodge dealer, who actually has a mechanic who diagnoses several problems with the transmission installed by Leroy. Ok, back to P being not so smart as we hear how she decided to sue for almost 4 grand over a repair done to an 18yo car with private party KBB value $1400 - 2300 range.... seems she's suing for what dodge dealer charges for the repair (and now we get to laugh at the receipt on back of puppy's vet visit bill.) Not sure is she actually takes the vehicle to dodge - she ought to just take the 2 grand MM awarded and invest in a newer vehicle. Edited June 22, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, SRTouch said: collectible toy case: another of those subjects I have little knowledge or interest in - collectibles. I have no interest in toys either. Everyone thinks they'll make a fortune with this stuff. Remember Beanie Babies? Anyway, at least this was different. Amazing that the plaintiff was able to prevail, since neither party ever dreamed of doing any type of paperwork for a 5,000$ transaction. Who needs stinkin' paperwork? Plaintiff is so discerning and knowledgeable he buys a bunch of Made in China knockoffs and has no clue about them. What happened to "Buyer Beware" when he had the chance to examine all this junk before he bought it? What did I miss? 10 minutes ago, SRTouch said: contractor case: another Hurricaine Sandy case. Let me see if I got this right: Plaintiff, who lives 200 yards from the Atlantic Ocean - which is damned scary at the best of times - never dreamed his home might get water damaged. It does, and he got to have his house lifted - an astronomically expensive and labour-intensive job - for free(??) and then has the unmitigated gall to bitch because some tiles separated from the subfloor in his john, his kitchen counter cracked and he wants the contractors to pay for that? Duh. When a two-story house is raised off its foundations, there are going to be some glitches andf some damage. And ooh - some drywall is cracked! How the hell is that def's fault? That little no-chin weasel thinks it is, for some super-bizarre reason. OH, it's because he doesn't think he should spend a dime of his own to have his house fixed. I bet the gov. agency who did this for him must have been mightily pissed off at his whining. Not bad enough, but he wants defs to pay for his goddam window screens too! Still not bad enough? The little, overly-entitled creep takes and cashes a check sent to him in error, and then cashes the second check the defs sent him to replace the first, so he's also a thief. Unbelievable. Does he have any idea what a pickle he'd be in if he didn't get all that charity? I'm not sure why he qualified for charity anyway - he has a house near the beach and a post office is situated on land he owns. I doubt he's destitute. Isn't that what insurance is for? If I had my house raised and a new foundation put in for free, I think I might be eternally grateful instead of pissing and whining about window screens. JM ended up detesting him, and he has to pay back the check too. Buy your own damned screens and countertop, you little scammer. 20 minutes ago, SRTouch said: transmission shop rip off?: Plaintiff was incredibly well-spoken and actually watches this show. She knew enough to grab the nearest paper - a vet bill - and a pencil and write a contract between her and def. The object of all this strife is an 18-year old Dodge with a bad t*****. Plaintiff chose to use Leroy, who does the work in his spare time and gets paid in cash so - shhh!- no taxes paid and of course no paperwork, which was fine with plaintiff, until it wasn't. I almost admire people who move to a new country and quickly figure out how to beat the system and avoid obligatory deductions the rest of us must pay, but in this case, I really doubt he did the job at all. Plaintiff goes to Dodge, which she didn't do to start with because I guess def was cheap, and if nothing else, this week has hammered into our heads that "The cheap comes out expensive." 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 1 hour ago, AlleC17 said: Anyway, she was 4 months old and wandered to the closest feeding area where my friend fed and got beaten up by one of the other cats. I was able to catch her and took her home, and she wanted no part of outdoors ever. My ancient momma cat spent her first 3 or 4 years of life outside, giving birth to kittens under sheds in minus 20 degree weather, while she was starving and had to watch all her kittens freeze and die. I understand why she has no interest in the outdoors. In summer I sometimes entice her to come out on the deck. She does, sniffs around and then heads back into the house and safety. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, AlleC17 said: One of mine was a feral kitten, whose caretaker (I use that term lightly) could not be bothered to tell their landlord after they left, that they in fact did NOT take the momma cat and kittens with them, which they claimed they were doing every time they were asked. (this was all on barn property and we would have made sure they were integrated with the other feeding areas had we known he was going to leave them behind) Anyway, she was 4 months old and wandered to the closest feeding area where my friend fed and got beaten up by one of the other cats. I was able to catch her and took her home, and she wanted no part of outdoors ever. She is soon going to be 7, and has never once tried to escape. Easiest feral kitty transition ever, My Spotty wasn't feral - just abandoned like the mama cat in your story. Supposedly, when she stopped being a cute kitten and went into heat the first time owner's gf put/let her outside and she never went home. She showed up on my patio starved with her kittens. Anyway, at the time I took her in (ears full of mites, abcess on shoulder, and down to 7 pounds - now 13 but could maybe lose a pound). She has zero interest in the Big Out - she'll look at birds or sit in the sunny spot - but she won't go out even with the door left open. I brought her into the home 16-17 years ago. Another part of her story is that after I had her awhile and she was healthy, her previous owner saw her through the window and tried to reclaim her. I told him if he paid me what her vet bills was - Ok - and told him where I took her. Probably never went to see what I paid (and they probably wouldn't have told him anyway without my ok). I never heard from him again. Oh, and I was on good terms with vet - at time time I was feeding a feral colony and doing TNR before I knew it had a name and he was one of the volunteer vets who would spay/neuter at cost - sometimes free. Soon as guy left I called Dr and he said if asked Dr would "forget" to mention the discounted price he charged and would quote full boat prices. Surprised me when he told me what he COULD have charged - but he did get to keep 2 of her kittens so he still came out ahead ? Quote That old troll needed to be ejected! She was so nasty. A 9 month old puppy needs to be trained, and quite obviously, they hadn't done much of that! But it was his daughters puppy! Is that supposed to make a difference? Geez. I hate animal cases. Both the cat and dog owners were assholes. Not that I believe these folks will ever train the pup - but as I remember puppy was part beagle. I had a great-Uncle who raised beagles back in the day. He claimed beagles were the smartest and dumbest dogs around - very intelligent, but stubborn and easily distracted dogs who may smell something and forget all about what they were supposed to do. Edited June 23, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 Beagles were bred to follow their noses and that's what they do, first chance they get. It's genetic and they can't control it. Wonky, stupid or feeble (as our defs = dumb dad and shrieking witch ) couch potatoes buy hunting dogs or huskies or big, rambunctious puppies and then let them run loose or dump them because the dogs "won't listen" as though dogs are born comprehending human speech. 20 minutes ago, SRTouch said: I told him if he paid me what her vet bills was - Ok - and told him where I took her. Probably never went to see what I paid The people dumping cats at our rescue saw no profit in spending money on their "free" cat. Having them spayed or neutered or seeing to their medical needs just "wasn't worth it" as though pets are an investment. How many times did we hear, "I have a litter of kittens for you!" Gee, thanks. Poor person just couldn't afford to spay the cat and of course the yowling of a cat in heat is annoying, so just open the door. They COULD afford cars, computers and internet service of course. Vet bills just aren't fun like those things. No wonder I prefer animals to most people 3 Link to comment
meowmommy June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: if I hadn't already seen the preview and known guy is hearing impaired I might have wondered WTH, but actually they have somebody signing for him. Turns out D also partially deaf, so his body language and speech also a little off until you realise he's keeping his good ear towards the speaker and lip reading. That for me was the more interesting part of the case. My DD is also partially hearing impaired and her speech is off, but she has steadfastly avoided learning ASL despite all my entreaties. I think some day she's going to need it. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Everyone thinks they'll make a fortune with this stuff. Remember Beanie Babies? Beanie Babies, Cabbage Patch Dolls, Barbie, baseball cards, all the shit from the Franklin Mint, etc. My motto is collect something because you like it, not because you're expecting to make money at it. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: I can only guess at reasons taxpayers are footing the bill to raise houses above the flood plain, but can't think of any good reason.... oh, maybe those folks in New Suffolk, Long Island with their house 300 feet from the bay pay boat loads of taxes and insurance and just deserve a helping hand from taxpayers who will never be able to afford to live 300 feet from the bay in a flood plain.. That's what frosts my buttons every time some obscenely expensive but Mother Nature-challenged area, like San Francisco, or any beachfront property, gets that whack from Mother Nature. The rich homeowners get a free pass at the expense of the rest of us who have to live in less bucolic surroundings. But my understanding is that all the property within the Hurricane Sandy zone is now required to be elevated, much as most of the houses in Hurricane Katrina's path had to be put on stilts. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: I hear P explains why he's entitled to MORE money. Not going to rewind, but when I stop to hear the judgement it seems not only was P the beneficiary of the taxpayers, he also double dipped. Didn't you know, since the theme of the day is the 1980s, that greed is good? For me, I'd take the $300K and buy a brand new house in the 70% of the country where you can buy an absolutely beautiful new house for less than that, and bulldoze the other house. But that's me. And then the greedy bastard walks out with a smirk on his face. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: They COULD afford cars, computers and internet service of course. Vet bills just aren't fun like those things. And almost every municipality, large and small, offers some kind of low cost vet clinic that does basic things like shots and neutering. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 23, 2018 Share June 23, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: transmission shop rip off?: I thought that the plaintiff was awarded more than she really deserved, but MM probably rewarded her for not only watching the show but even more so following her oft-repeated advice to "grab a crayon and a piece of toilet paper and have them write a receipt". Although her evidence might have been laughed out of the courtroom by JJ who yesterday rejected receipts submitted by a plaintiff because they came from a receipt book and "I have one just like that" said JJ. Why do you keep one yourself if they have no probative value? However in this case, the receipts were very sloppily filled out, with no legible identification and a signature that looked like initials rendered in s****** squiggles, the kind so many people use so you can't decipher their name. 2 Link to comment
aemom June 23, 2018 Share June 23, 2018 (edited) The Transformers case was different because it was a new topic and the ASL was interesting. Really surprised that nobody wrote anything down for 5K transaction. The guy with house lifting seemed to believe that it was up to anyone but him to cover the costs of rebuilding his house. Last spring we had terrible flooding in our area, the likes of which I'd never seen before. They called it a 100 year flood. There are still people today waiting for government payment and they are definitely not getting their houses lifted for 300K. The cheap comes out expensive. She was smart enough to get the dealer paper to say that the t***** was defective and got a receipt from the alley mechanic on the back of a vet bill. She said that she watches TPC and it showed. Maybe more plaintiffs would win these car cases if they brought the right proof. Edited June 23, 2018 by AEMom Clarification 3 Link to comment
Taeolas June 24, 2018 Share June 24, 2018 Yeah, for the collector case, both messed things up. If I were doing such a sale, I'd make sure I photographed what I got and/or what I sold, and of course got a receipt. Of course I've been watching TPC almost as long as I've been collecting Transformers, so I know to do that. :) I do collect Transformers; I've got a bunch of them from the 80's and I've been buying new ones as they are released and rereleased (eagerly awaiting the rest of the Dinobots to get Volcanus now. :) ). Of course mine are toys so most of them are not in the boxes or anything like that; most are well played with. (Hell as I type this, I've got 15 on my desk/printer desk and next to the TV. And not counting the ones on the DVD cabinet, and the end tables and the shelf full of them and.... :P As for this case, I do think it was the plaintiff who was pulling the fast one as the defendant hinted at. Just from the TV, I could tell that most of them were rereleases; the boxes were in too-good condition and the style wasn't the style of the 80's, but more faux-80's. As the defendant insinuated, I suspect that the plaintiff did do a switcharoo, but the defendant probably knew he couldn't push it too far given the situation, especially without proof. Of course, the Plaintiff might have also been fooled too; and didn't know the toys as well as he thought he did. But if he was really a fan, he should've known what ones are originals and reprints/rereleases, as well as recognizing the boxes. So he may have not been as big a fan as he was saying he was, got fooled by the offered toys, then someone else checked his toys and pointed out the differences. Oh well, I think JMM may have done the best she could have done. With no details on the actual sale, she basically rewound it for the most part. And the seller got the reprints back which he'll be able to resell for almost as much I'm sure. If the two litigants hadn't been deaf/partially deaf, I suspect she would've gone for more details and/or been harder on the case in general. A bit of the case is on Facebook. You can see the toys around 12 seconds in. The three in the back are Soundwave, Ultra Magnus and Fortress Maximus. Looks like Galvatron is under Ultra Magnus. You can tell by the boxes they've been around the block for a bit. The rest of the boxes are shiny and don't have any damage to them. There's also something slightly off in the fonts between the old ones and new ones; I can't put my finger on what exactly but they just look different. The ones I can identify there are Sunstreaker, Mirage, Brawn and Grimlock. I can't recognize the Decepticon in front of Galvatron; looks like an insecticon. I think I also see Motormaster and a Seekerjet (Skywarp I think). I do NOT see any of the duplicates they mentioned during the case; but I'd love to see a clearer view of the pile. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 24, 2018 Share June 24, 2018 On 6/22/2018 at 7:58 PM, meowmommy said: And almost every municipality, large and small, offers some kind of low cost vet clinic that does basic things like shots and neutering. "Low cost" is not good enough. "Free" is what they want. We got a cat in our rescue when our vet called to tell us some asshole brought his 9-month old intact cat in to have it killed because it was spraying in the house. Vet says she can neuter him. AH wants to know the difference in the price of neutering vs. killing. Neutering was a few dollars more so he opted to kill. Gotta save a dollar when you can! The only thing that shocked me is that this dirtbag agreed to pay to have the cat killed, rather than taking it out somewhere and dropping it on the street, which is a popular method of disposing of unwanted animals. I guess he really, really wanted it dead. On 6/22/2018 at 7:58 PM, meowmommy said: For me, I'd take the $300K and buy a brand new house in the 70% of the country where you can buy an absolutely beautiful new house for less than that, and bulldoze the other house. But that's me. Seriously, me too. 2 Link to comment
meowmommy June 24, 2018 Share June 24, 2018 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: We got a cat in our rescue when our vet called to tell us some asshole brought his 9-month old intact cat in to have it killed because it was spraying in the house. Did I ever mention how much I loathe people? (Spent part of the morning crying for my Tommy; a year and two months later it's not getting any easier.) At least your vet didn't follow through but sent the cat on to your rescue. I hope she still charged him anyway. Does anyone know if the type of cases we get here, over and over, are representative of the types of cases normally flooding small claims court? Because I want to know what producer thinks dogs mauling other animals is entertaining, and chooses those cases over other ones. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 24, 2018 Share June 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Because I want to know what producer thinks dogs mauling other animals is entertaining, and chooses those cases over other ones. Especially because in virtually every case like this, the animals - I dont' care if they're dogs, cats, horses, pigs, snakes, or goldfish - suffer horribly and even die nearly 100% of the time because their owners are despicable, ignorant morons who shouldn't be given a housefly. Little aside here: My mother got a little "eccentric" in her older years. One freezing January I went to visit her and said, "Ma, there's a fly here in the kitchen." She said, "I know. That's my pet." Okay then. Hey, it was her fly!XD I can't believe no one here cares about Esteban, slimy, super-scrawny little con artist who scammed his friend Clayton (who may or may not have mental problems). Clayton gave him the money to pay back someone Esteban sold a car that couldn't be smogged. Oh, Clayton - you should have let the buyer just beat the daylights out of that little shit, Esteban, to teach him a lesson. Esteban couldn't get the money from his Daddy, since Dad was stuck paying for a car wreck, property damage and who knows what else wee Esteban got up to in Mexico with his "situation". Oh, you wild and crazy twerp, you! So Clayton steps up. Esteban, the little weasel, doesn't think he needs to pay the loan back because Clayton "lives with his parents and his mom makes his dinner every night so he doesn't need the money," says the person who lives with HIS daddy who has to bail him out of his dumbass troubles. Better watch it, little man - you could end up in prison and I don't think you'd like it there much. A tiny little cute thing like you would be someone's "bitch" in no time. On second thought, keep doing what you do! 3 Link to comment
Blissfool June 25, 2018 Share June 25, 2018 The cheap comes out expensive = lo barato sale caro 2 Link to comment
SRTouch June 25, 2018 Share June 25, 2018 (edited) Reruns for a while, so no recaps. Oh, and older reruns - today is from Nov 2016.... geez, 18 months old & I recognise the first case where druggy daughter tells us over and over her urine is clean! I checked and original was discussed way back on pg 51 Edited June 25, 2018 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
galaxychaser June 25, 2018 Share June 25, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Reruns for a while, so no recaps. Oh, and older reruns - today is from Nov 2016.... geez, 18 months old & I recognise the first case where druggy daughter tells us over and over her urine is clean! I checked and original was discussed way back on pg 51 The guy who wanted money for the fishing cabin was pissed. The lady didn’t even own it. Or her father. 3 Link to comment
meowmommy June 25, 2018 Share June 25, 2018 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: Oh, and older reruns - today is from Nov 2016. I still think they'd get a ratings bonanza if they announced they were filling their rerun schedule with vintage Judge Wapner. Or even Jerry Scheindlin or Ed Koch. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 25, 2018 Share June 25, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: I recognise the first case where druggy daughter tells us over and over her urine is clean! Yeah, I recognized that rat-faced, burgundy-haired character too. I don't care who does drugs (and we're not talking about weed or a few hash brownies here) but "I'm a heroin addict and my boyfriend is a drug addict/jailbird, so hey - let's have two kids. It will be sooooo beautiful!" Why not? Just squirt 'em out and hand them over to long-suffering grandparents to raise. Two kids she dumped just weren't enough, so Genius gets knocked up yet again. Oh, sob, cry, boo-hoo, my inch-thick mascara is running! - evil parents want her to have an abortion. But she loves babies! Why shouldn't she keep having them? Who cares if parents don't feel like raising a third child? They'll get used to it, and they can keep buying me cars too! I didn't agree with JM when she said it's not the parents' choice. When they have to keep taking on the results of her indescriminate ('Let's get it on! Birth control isn't romantic!")screwing and breeding, they DO have a say in how many offspring Daughter Dear pops out, IMO. She repelled me even more on rewatch. And yeah - the last thing I wanted to hear about is her piss. Yuck. The pompous old fool with the cabin was even sillier this time around. In the hall, with his billy-goat beard wagging madly, informing Doug that "Justice is not fair!" was fun. Sucks to be you. 2 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I still think they'd get a ratings bonanza if they announced they were filling their rerun schedule with vintage Judge Wapner. Or even Jerry Scheindlin or Ed Koch. YES! Judge Wapner! I'd never watch the other two. 4 Link to comment
aemom June 25, 2018 Share June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: YES! Judge Wapner! I'd never watch the other two. Good times! I'd come home from high school and watch General Hospital, Soap reruns, and TPC with Judge Wapner while I did my homework. I'd love to see the old reruns again. I really hope we haven't already hit the reruns for the summer and get nothing new until September. 2 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz June 26, 2018 Share June 26, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, meowmommy said: I still think they'd get a ratings bonanza if they announced they were filling their rerun schedule with vintage Judge Wapner. Or even Jerry Scheindlin or Ed Koch. From your lips to God's ears! Edited June 26, 2018 by Schnickelfritz 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 26, 2018 Share June 26, 2018 Is Levin giving us "Most Detestable Litigants Week?" Wouldn't surprise me. I think these people are even worse on second viewing because we already know the whole story. That gross, trailer-trashy, toothless road rage, hulking beast? Well, the cut-off jeans were a nice touch and a nod to her trailer-trashiness, of which she's probably proud. OMG, the repeat of the nasty, lying, hard-rode, overly-dyed hustla who looked like a linebacker wearing tacky stripper heels, tats and a bad wig, and who openly admits she trades sex for used cars and who JM called a "hot tamale???" vs. the 53-year old "good Samaritan" ("No", JM says. "That makes you a FOOL!") momma's boy (he really needs his very elderly Mom here as moral support, at his age? Well, yeah. He also sent his aged Daddy to repo the car.) was way worse this time around. Levin, please. We know you love to troll the abyss, you sleazy little troll, and we know that trash makes you all giddy but we could have done without a repeat of these amoral cretins. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch July 4, 2018 Share July 4, 2018 (edited) Had to turn DVD back to record all episodes - missing MM and JJ. Today I saw rerun of joker who lost his glasses at the barbershop (well, guess it's a salon) and then went on YELP and FB accusing salon employees of being kleptomaniacs and druggies. My program information must have the wrong date for original airing since I don't see discussion of this guy on that date. MM tells him he better take down those posts, since she says salon has a case for slander if they decide to sue. Not only is he accusing them of being drugged out kleptos, he is also caught lying when he claims he was forced to drive home half blind without his glasses and now admits owner may have offered him a ride. Oh yeah, and Doug goes straight for the throat in the hallterview when he greets dude with "in court you sounded totally unreasonable, dude!" Ah, but he explains he just didn't get a chance to present his case - and his lawyer told him what he posted was NOT slander... to which Doug says, "well, Judge sure sounded like she thought it was." 2nd case section 8 dude in shiney yellow outfit suing landlord because he's living in a dump with leaky ceiling and lots of vermin/rodents. Skipped it - but see from rough justice time that dude won his $720 case so place must really be a dump. 2nd case in row with losing litigant whining about mean Judge not letting them present their case. 3rd case - this is why I stopped watching the reruns...these last two cases I just keep fast forward pressed and stop for the odd moment to see if anything worthwhile is being said. This one is an auto shop case where car owner wants 5 thousand windfall for failed $1500 repair. Vehicle is old Chevy with close to 200,000 miles. Case is a bust, legally, but litigants are kind of entertaining (probably a breath of fresh air after rodent infested section 8 case #2). Guess this is one where MM wanted to give away some money. She let's P use his "phone a friend" card, and awards P $800 after talking to the alleged phone-a-mechanic dude. I'm always skeptical of these phone-witnesses... I mean, did Douglas swear them in? and how do we know this guy is an actual mechanic instead of Norm or Cliff at the bar where everybody knows your name? Anyway, spent more time fast forwarding than watching... in hallterview mechanic says engine was dying and a myriad of things were going bad - yep, probably right, but guess case was another of those where owner felt mechanic did unnecessary repair before telling him he needed a new engine. Like I said, MM must have felt like giving away some money - I wouldn't have given P anything based on little I saw. Edited July 4, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 4, 2018 Share July 4, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: Today I saw rerun of joker who lost his glasses at the barbershop (well, guess it's a salon) Yes, a salon where he gets his toupee touched up. Am I the only one who enjoys cases like the anal-retentive Minsky, pitching a bitch-fit over his misplaced glasses? Imagine what "Life with Minsky" is like? His wife looked pretty haggard in the hall. But these kinds of cases are such a relief from the usual sordid, vile and distasteful crap we get. No dogs! No cellphones! No women degrading themselves or battling other women for the breeding rights to fugly loser men! 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: and his lawyer told him what he posted was NOT slander. Right. Stating that people are thieves and possibly drug addicts isn't slander or libel. That's some lawyer ol' Minsky got, but it seems that type of incompetence is common in the legal profession, at least with the majority of lawyers we see and hear about on this show. What Minsky thought the salon staff would want with his super-strong, unattractive prescription glasses I can't imagine. We're not talking Gucci sunglasses here. Oh, and Minsky is a liar too. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: section 8 dude in shiney yellow outfit suing landlord because he's living in a dump with leaky ceiling and lots of vermin/rodents. He looked like he was wearing a circa 1968 Nerhu jacket made from an old tablecloth. He's the person who wanted 300$ for his "antique" curtains, which he had nailed over his window. Do cheap sheer curtains you bought in the 80's at Walmart count as "antique"? JM says emphatically, "NOOO!" 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: .these last two cases I just keep fast forward pressed and stop for the odd moment to see if anything worthwhile is being said. Not much worthwhile, except for plaintiff trying to get a lottery win for his ancient truck. Who would suspect anything could go wrong with it, after he had a tune-up? 16 year old jalopies should run forever. He couldn't go to a job that paid a lot because he didn't have his truck! "Rent a car for a 100$?" JM suggests. Nope. He'd rather lose a day's pay. He wants 5,000$ for his inconvenience and stress. He gets 800$, the idiot. Edited July 4, 2018 by AngelaHunter Spelled "Gucci" wrong because I'm not on Medicaid so don't have any! I need to post here before the wine. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 5, 2018 Share July 5, 2018 I'm probably the only one watching these repeats (and granted they're hard to watch when they are interrupted constantly for talking heads, weather reports and/or the Mass Shooting of the Week) but I adored the rough, hard-ridden, mouthy yet ignorant ("Alltimers'?) harridan who has a "ward" vs. the dollar-store John Gotti. I think I need to turn my home into a "Transitional Facility." From what I've seen on these shows, it's a pretty good racket. 2 Link to comment
Guest July 5, 2018 Share July 5, 2018 On 7/4/2018 at 2:04 PM, SRTouch said: Today I saw rerun of joker who lost his glasses at the barbershop (well, guess it's a salon) and then went on YELP and FB accusing salon employees of being kleptomaniacs and druggies. This was a new case to me so I thoroughly enjoyed watching this idiot justify throwing a hissy-fit over his belief that some "druggie" took his coke-bottle glasses. The perplexing part of this (and there are so many) is simply what happened to the glasses? Were they thrown away? Did someone pinch them to sell them on ebay? Did the stylist take one look at them and declare "I must, must have those frames for myself? What in hells name happened to them? My colleague suggested that he has a whole box of glasses (some, she said, with fake noses on them) and tries this scam all over town. You could see the salon staff were having a hard time suppressing their mirth. Poor chap, even JM was mocking him. Time to switch it up and introduce a new scam. Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 21 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: My colleague suggested that he has a whole box of glasses (some, she said, with fake noses on them) Nose glasses? Oh, stop. Just the thought of those has me in hysterics for some odd reason, and the thought of Minsky stockpiling them? Too much hilarity. 3 Link to comment
Guest July 7, 2018 Share July 7, 2018 I'm laughing like a loon right now. Something about the visual you posted..... Thanks for the good laugh. Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 9, 2018 Share July 9, 2018 Today I wasn't quick enough with the "mute" and heard what I missed the first time, concerning the lowlife who was "going to fight" some other female over a prize man who had warrants on him, and who passes out ("single mother" of course) and lets her 3-year old play with an iron and thought all her doings were cute and that the toddler with the iron was funny. No, your activities are disgusting, as are your mothering skills. I wonder if the child was there when she was screwing some loser she met at a store? The landlord may have misused the term "riff raff" but turns out that was precisely the right term. Anyway - Levin: "I banged her boyfriend but don't bang on my door." And here I'd nearly forgotten what an irredeemable, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding piece of shit he is. Thanks for the reminder, Short-Ass. 1 Link to comment
KittyMom4 July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 On 7/5/2018 at 6:32 PM, PsychoKlown said: This was a new case to me so I thoroughly enjoyed watching this idiot justify throwing a hissy-fit over his belief that some "druggie" took his coke-bottle glasses. The perplexing part of this (and there are so many) is simply what happened to the glasses? Were they thrown away? Did someone pinch them to sell them on ebay? Did the stylist take one look at them and declare "I must, must have those frames for myself? What in hells name happened to them? My colleague suggested that he has a whole box of glasses (some, she said, with fake noses on them) and tries this scam all over town. You could see the salon staff were having a hard time suppressing their mirth. Poor chap, even JM was mocking him. Time to switch it up and introduce a new scam Thank you! For the life of me I couldn't figure out what he thought someone would want those coke-bottle, fugly glasses for! I'm pretty sure there is no market for cheap frames but, hey, what do I know? I think you've got it figured out! On 7/4/2018 at 5:43 PM, AngelaHunter said: Not much worthwhile, except for plaintiff trying to get a lottery win for his ancient truck. Who would suspect anything could go wrong with it, after he had a tune-up? 16 year old jalopies should run forever. He couldn't go to a job that paid a lot because he didn't have his truck! "Rent a car for a 100$?" JM suggests. Nope. He'd rather lose a day's pay. He wants 5,000$ for his inconvenience and stress. He gets 800$, the idiot I am always so grateful I go to a mechanic with a conscience, many years ago I had a 13 year old Nissan Maxima with 250,000 miles on it. I loved that car, I used to say that everything on it was new except the frame since I'd replaced practically every part. Well the day came when the compressor went and my mechanic told me that it would cost more than the car was worth and he could not in good conscience go through with the replacement. The Maxima got traded in (very likely for parts since it wasn't worth anything else) and I purchased another new-to-me vehicle that I will drive until it dies..... 1 Link to comment
SRTouch July 11, 2018 Share July 11, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, GoodieGirl said: I am always so grateful I go to a mechanic with a conscience, many years ago I had a 13 year old Nissan Maxima with 250,000 miles on it. I loved that car, I used to say that everything on it was new except the frame since I'd replaced practically every part. Well the day came when the compressor went and my mechanic told me that it would cost more than the car was worth and he could not in good conscience go through with the replacement. The Maxima got traded in (very likely for parts since it wasn't worth anything else) and I purchased another new-to-me vehicle that I will drive until it dies..... Totally agree... just turned 64yo and have only owned 5 cars/pickups (also a few motorcycles, but only two street legal)... of those cars, the first was in the mid-70s, 4x4 3/4 ton pickup - loved that truck, but it got 8 Mpg coasting downhill, and for those who need a reminder gas shortages, only able to fill up on certain days - and my guzzler was a GMC with dual 20 gallon tanks on opposite sides of the truck - which meant it took two trips through the line to fill both tanks. Only kept the truck 2 years, bought it in Alaska and drove it down Alaskan Highway when transfered to Ft Ord, still ran great, but gas shortages killed it That vehicle was traded in for a car I bought new, hated it from the get go, but drove it over 200,000 miles before it died... next was another PU, bought new, and put on over 200,000 miles... next used Altima, which I traded in when repairs (timing belt, Ac compressor, etc were going cost more than car was worth. ... which brings me to my current ride, a used Hyundai crossover. Oh, and same thing with cell phones - on my third with no plan to upgrade til it dies. Edited July 11, 2018 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
KittyMom4 July 11, 2018 Share July 11, 2018 7 hours ago, SRTouch said: which brings me to my current ride, a used Hyundai crossover. I'm driving a 2009 Hyundai Sonata, bought used in 2010, I don't love it like I loved my Maxima but it has been very reliable, 200,000 miles on it with very few repairs and great gas mileage. It's been paid off for 3 1/2 years and it's showing some rust spots but I can't bear the thought of having a car payment. 2 Link to comment
meowmommy July 12, 2018 Share July 12, 2018 On 7/5/2018 at 3:32 PM, PsychoKlown said: This was a new case to me so I thoroughly enjoyed watching this idiot justify throwing a hissy-fit over his belief that some "druggie" took his coke-bottle glasses. I don't remember this case. I have my DVR set not to record reruns but maybe I should change that--I missed about three months of shows from January to March because I was moving. 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: Oh, and same thing with cell phones - on my third with no plan to upgrade til it dies. Unfortunately cell phones have become so much more than ways to call people, so unless you really just make calls, you're pushed into upgrades. The damn apps keep getting "upgraded" by the developers, eventually to the point where they're incompatible with even recent older phones. About ten minutes after I bought the iPhone 6S Plus, they came out with the 7 and now I guess they're up to 10, pardon me, X. I've been fighting Apple trying to force iOS 11 on me because more than half my apps will not work on it, and I assume eventually nothing will work on my phone unless I upgrade the iOS to 11 or 12 or worse. I gave my DD my old iPhone and she can barely get any apps to work on it at all. On 7/9/2018 at 2:14 PM, AngelaHunter said: Levin: "I banged her boyfriend but don't bang on my door." And here I'd nearly forgotten what an irredeemable, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding piece of shit he is. Thanks for the reminder, Short-Ass. So glad it's a family show. Someone tell me so I don't have to look it up--seeing as he's missing looks, brains, talent, personality, and intelligence, how did this asshole get a career? 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 12, 2018 Share July 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: Someone tell me so I don't have to look it up--seeing as he's missing looks, brains, talent, personality, and intelligence, how did this asshole get a career? Other than his enamoured lovah-boy, I guess it's sheer doggedness and the support of the drooling, brain-dead morons who watch his despicable TMZ. I've quoted this before, but it bears repeating: Alec Baldwin on Levin - "He is a festering boil on the anus of American Media." Sounds like Levin is quite charming to the little toadies and idiots who work for him too. https://jezebel.com/alec-baldwin-on-tmz-founder-he-is-a-festering-boil-on-1759182329 Edited July 12, 2018 by AngelaHunter 1 Link to comment
Guest July 12, 2018 Share July 12, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, meowmommy said: how did this asshole get a career? Just more proof that it's not what you know but who you know. Edited July 12, 2018 by PsychoKlown Link to comment
Brattinella July 12, 2018 Share July 12, 2018 10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Other than his enamoured lovah-boy, I guess it's sheer doggedness and the support of the drooling, brain-dead morons who watch his despicable TMZ. I've quoted this before, but it bears repeating: Alec Baldwin on Levin - "He is a festering boil on the anus of American Media." Sounds like Levin is quite charming to the little toadies and idiots who work for him too. https://jezebel.com/alec-baldwin-on-tmz-founder-he-is-a-festering-boil-on-1759182329 Very interesting reading; thanks for the rabbit-hole! :) 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 12, 2018 Share July 12, 2018 3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: Just more proof that it's not what you know but who you know. The guys I worked with used to say that, with one minor edit.;) 1 Link to comment
Guest July 12, 2018 Share July 12, 2018 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: The guys I worked with used to say that, with one minor edit.;) I dig ya' Angela. I dig. Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 12, 2018 Share July 12, 2018 44 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: I dig ya' Angela. I dig. Maybe Levin went with the edited version since I cannot imagine what else about the obnoxious, creepy, repulsive wee irritant could influence anyone to give him even 10 seconds of their time. Or maybe I'm just blinded by my hatred of the little, tiny troll. I still wonder how he feels at the end of every show when the full-screen "Don't text and Drive" appears. Maybe he needs to add, "Unless you're a superstar like Harvey. Then it's okay." Today's repeat made me think that movie script writers need to watch this show for ideas. Even the best writers could never come up with this scenario: Plaintiff runs an alley/gas station car rental service for deadbeats. Although he rents to shady characters who can't rent a car at any known rental agency due to "situations" like stealing the car, not paying the bill, not having any credit, taking the car halfway across the country, meeting at a bail bondsman place, etc, it never occured to him to get his rental cars insured, even though one of his cretinous "clients" might kill someone in his car. What a concept! He might look in to insurance though. Maybe. Def. is an amoral, sociopathic, lying, low-down hustler who has so many lies, a phantom POS boyfriend who wrecked the car, and so much attitude it boggles the mind and her exposed cleavage and zillion tats help not at all. Really, a 3rd-rate, zany comedy could be made from this absurdity. Anyway, this is why I keep watching this. JM truly does have a passion for justice and I do admire that, even though every word she spoke was wasted on the vile def. I'm just sorry we never got to see def. with her hair half-done being arrested. Link to comment
Guest July 13, 2018 Share July 13, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: JM truly does have a passion for justice and I do admire that, even though every word she spoke was wasted on the vile def. I'm just sorry we never got to see def. with her hair half-done being arrested. I was transfixed on this case. First, the plaintiff's shirt was not of this world. But I liked him even though his business was highly suspect. I won't elaborate on the defendant, AngelaHunter did an excellent job of describing that waste of space. I actually was late to a scheduled meeting because I couldn't tear away from the screen. I honest to pete thought that we were going to see a mug shot of that idiot. I wasn't about to leave with that being a possibility. I was disappointed that there wasn't one but Doug's brazen statement of "You're stupid" was almost as worthy as a half hairdid mug shot. Then, she snaps back "you're stupid too". LOL!! I was waiting for Doug to get slugged. He really must have hated the defendant because he usually tempers his anger...not today. After seeing this defendant I might have to relinquish my title of PsychoKlown. If only we could see the mug shot for verification..... Edited July 13, 2018 by PsychoKlown 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.