arejay September 18, 2018 Share September 18, 2018 So, cool! Today's first litigants are Dave Chappell and Robert Deniro, after both having spent some time in the WayBack Machine. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch September 18, 2018 Share September 18, 2018 (edited) running late - only recapped 1st case not paid for work/roomie case: these two first struck me as pretend litigants - playing parts as part of an acting class exercise. P couldn't find a white dress shirt, so he's here in a white hoodie/frumpy jacket with the hoodie drawstrings acting as a stting tie. His story is that he when he came back from Cuba he was broke, unemployed, homeless, and about to end up going home to - horror of horrors - Boston. Ah, but his good buddy, with the greased - greased as in a whole freekin' tube of brylcream.... dude, remember, a little tab'll do ya... let's him move into to his place and helps him out by (maybe) hiring him to do some websites design work - really willing to go the extra mile to keep his bud from having to slink back to - Boston. Testimony begins - not sure if P knows what he's talking about, but at least I don't need CC like I do with so many litigants... by not exactly the normal use of the word "collateral" I would expect for TPC. I actually googled it, and "branding collateral" is an actual marketing design term. Anyway, down and out P says D promised him a place to stay and big bucks to work on some big project for D's business. Says he did the work, and now ex-good buddy refuses to pay the final $2400. Hmmmmm.... maybe this little acting school exercise is a real bid for advertising hustler MAKSUD AGADJANI and his company, TraxNYC http://bondstreet.com/blog/traxnyc/ .... still not sure this a legitimate case, but his company does have an online presence https://m.traxnyc.com sooooooo, maybe case is for real. Sooooo, P came back from Cuban, and for 5 or 6 months he lived with D in his apartment and worked on the Web design for D's custom jewelry business. Sounds like a pretty good deal for P if the $2400 represents a third of what he was promised and housing was provided - was he paying rent or getting that free as well? Anyway, after living and working together for 5 months they get into a kerfuffle over some marketing idea (P thinks D stole his idea and refused to pay him). Long story short - P quits work and moves out... Guess after 5 months he had established enough of a rep/contacts in NY that he could branch out and get work. Uh, when MM asks and P is describing what he did for D, sounds like he never finished the project - so why should D have to finish paying. Really, maybe it's past time to look at the employment contract, but there isn't one - and P is complaining that he was tired of working for free, but sounds like he was paid thousands (not sure if housing was free). Sounds more and more like P is an ungrateful little ? who is suing a friend who helped him get on his feet. Dude just said he was hired do do some big project - which was never really defined starts out same way, given place to live, 5 grand upfront, then two $1650 payments, and after big fight overy who knows what is suing for the last $1650 ... which has grown $750 into $2400 lawsuit. 'Bout time to change sides, as P has lost me and D keeps raising his hand. Ok, same beginning to the story. P broke and needed job and place to live or going home to Boston. D is something of a self made business hustler, had this business, and an extra bedroom he rents out as AirBnB, so he offers good buddy the room and a job. Ok, dude WAS living rent free... anybody else wonder what P charged AirBnb customers for the room and how much income that represents. Anyway, summarizing here.... D agrees he hired P because P is talented. P wasn't given any guidance, just told to come up with a marketing app which would blow D's socks off. Then, for 5 months they really didn't talk about it, no progress reports or guidance from D. P says he came up with this great app, but instead of appreciating it and paying him the rest of the money, D took his idea - Big kerfuffl - P moves out - lawsuit.... ok, back to employee contract - not one, but there are texts - bit as usual, texts are incomplete and open to interpretation. D says final payment was only to be made once app was up and running. P sent a text saying here's a logo, password, etc and, BTW, need a date for final payment so he can make plans on moving out. D text response - OKAY.... but does that mean ok, money on way, or ok, still need to launch the app and make sure it's satisfactory. Ah, think MM nails it when she asks D if he isn't paying because they had their tiff. P is saying he doesn't have the app. D says the app is complete, fave D everything needed for launch, app sitting on a third party server waiting to be launched, and that P is paying for the app to sit on the server waiting for D to use. D getting upset with way things are going and gets mild slap down for interrupting MM mid-question. Ah, now D is showing his Queens hustler side - fast hand talking, interrupting and trying to talk over MM - with Queens born and bred MM coming right back at him. Also, MM is privy to the written answer to the complaint, which she starts to point out doesn't match his testimony - but she gets sidetracked as they go at it talking over each other. She does have a point that just because this app is ready, doesn't mean it may not need tweaking. But thing is, it was D who severed the working relationship and is sitting on the app. Ok, sounds like D is going to win the last payment - but where does the extra $750 come in.... ah, seems when they were good buds he was promised a deal on some jewelry from D's shop. Put something on layaway, but now after the kerfuffle he wants the money he paid toward the pendant back... sorry says MM, that's a separate contract, you can't cancel that contract just because you're on the outs with D. Sooooo, P gets the final payment - but only after D gets the password to launch the app (he gave it to him once, but D lost it and then they quit talking) - but doesn't get back money for the jewelry. Edited September 18, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 18, 2018 Share September 18, 2018 3 hours ago, arejay said: So, cool! Today's first litigants are Dave Chappell and Robert Deniro, after both having spent some time in the WayBack Machine. This case was totally weird, but a nice break frome cell phones, Single Mothers, baby RoomMates, backyard breeders and pathetic women trying to buy the love of losers. Your description is nearly perfect, except I thought the def. - in spite of being Jeweler to the Stars - bore more of a resemblance to Ratso Rizzo, if Ratso were a fast-talking hustler, than DeNiro. Bizarre, all of it. Plaintiff states the def. is not good at communication. Look who's talking. From him we got a jumble of Cuba, hitting rock bottom (what the hell did he do in Cuba that plunged him into such turmoil?) homeless, big projects he cannot describe, living rent-free in def's "residental... uhhh... place? apps and none of it made much sense, to me anyway. The super-oily - in both senses of the word - def communicates much better but I didn't understand him either. We could have skipped all the rambling nonsense, even though it was kind of fun, since it all boiled down to money def. contracted to pay and didn't. Oh, and I've visited Boston. They made it sound like some Purgatory or other hellish place to which people must go as a punishment. Maybe in comparison to the idyllic "QUEENS" it is, but I loved Boston. Def agrees to pay plaintiff 10K for something about which he has no knowledge or understanding. I guess being Jeweler to the Stars means you don't trouble yourself with petty details. He was only paying him all that money to get him out of his residental place. Homeless plaintiff, when he does get thousands of dollars, chooses to buy some expensive jewlery with it. Priorities, folks! I did take a look at SRTouch's link. I'm a big fan of diamond rings so enjoyed seeing them, but they're just a little out of my price range. Car accident: The def was such a liar, so shifty and such a weasel I chose to feel shame for him, since he's not capable of that emotion. He really wanted to bring that little girl (daughter/granddaughter?) to hear JM being forced to call him a liar, which is what he is, and not even a good liar. His story was so idiotic a child could see through it. He's a Pickle Eating Champion as he discussed, beaming with pride, with Doug in the Hall. Wow. Something of which to be truly proud, I'm sure, because I always found contests to see who can cram the most food down his/her gullet the fastest to be so entertaining. Actually, I find such contests to be utterly disgusting and sick-making. Def, I'm sure your family will congratulate you on your superior and honorable performance here today, just as they undoubtedly do when you suck up pounds of pickles. Ick. Then we had plaintiff suing horrible landlord for security deposit. Plaintiff finds water on the floor and a wet ceiling in her place. Calls landlord, who phones the guy (Howard?) living above P. He goes down and looks. He sees no water anywhere and it's his professional opinion that P must have turned on the hot water during the night and any problem was her fault. No, upstairs tenant isn't a plumber, but take his word for it that P caused whatever might have happened, even though there wasn't anything that happened. HE never left any water running! Landlord never does send a plumber over. She sees no reason to pay for that since Howard resolved the issue. Give the deposit back, you cheapskate slumlord. 4 Link to comment
aemom September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 On 9/17/2018 at 5:48 PM, AngelaHunter said: Was this the dumbest, most naive cop in the world? And what was with his silent child bride, decked out in a mother-of-the-bride dress? Appearances can be deceiving, but the wife looked about 18. I was positive that it was his daughter. Please tell me that was his daughter, otherwise.... eww. Schnickelfritz pointed out that they referred to the wife many times, but the woman never spoke, so I'm just going to believe that was his daughter. 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: This case was totally weird, but a nice break from cell phones, Single Mothers, baby RoomMates, backyard breeders and pathetic women trying to buy the love of losers. You forgot dog bites! ;-) I actually thought for a lot of the testimony that there might have been something of a romantic nature going on. 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Then we had plaintiff suing horrible landlord for security deposit. Plaintiff finds water on the floor and a wet ceiling in her place. Calls landlord, who phones the guy (Howard?) living above P. He goes down and looks. He sees no water anywhere and it's his professional opinion that P must have turned on the hot water during the night and any problem was her fault. No, upstairs tenant isn't a plumber, but take his word for it that P caused whatever might have happened, even though there wasn't anything that happened. HE never left any water running! Landlord never does send a plumber over. She sees no reason to pay for that since Howard resolved the issue. Give the deposit back, you cheapskate slumlord. Nobody had any plumber proof, so I was a bit surprised that MM just found in favor of the plaintiff so quickly. She usually does a bit more probing than that. 2 Link to comment
meowmommy September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Your description is nearly perfect, except I thought the def. - in spite of being Jeweler to the Stars - bore more of a resemblance to Ratso Rizzo, if Ratso were a fast-talking hustler, than DeNiro. I vote for Anthony Scaramucci. But I see the DeNiro. 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: He really wanted to bring that little girl (daughter/granddaughter?) to hear JM being forced to call him a liar, which is what he is, and not even a good liar. Why does anyone bring a little child into "court," even a fake court, who isn't a witness, unless the entire reason is to get on teevee. What happened to the brief foray into the 21st century; i.e., use of Google maps? Of course the crappy whiteboard fits right in with the shitty leftover set from the 70s. 57 minutes ago, AEMom said: Nobody had any plumber proof, so I was a bit surprised that MM just found in favor of the plaintiff so quickly. She usually does a bit more probing than that. Perhaps in that instance, MM weighed the likelihood of a pipe leak vs someone accidentally leaving hot water on overnight, and went with the pipe leak. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 32 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I vote for Anthony Scaramucci. I had to look him up. Yes, I see the resemblance but he's not nearly oily or cockroach-y enough. DeNiro, even in "Taxi Driver" was way too appealing, IMO. 33 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Why does anyone bring a little child into "court," even a fake court, who isn't a witness, unless the entire reason is to get on teevee. I think they must say, "Want to come see your daddy prove he's right and smarter than anyone else?" I can't imagine any other reason someone would drag their child here. I guess pickle-binging isn't financially rewarding, since he told plaintiff not to call the cops or his insurance would go up and he can't afford that. Link to comment
meowmommy September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Yes, I see the resemblance but he's not nearly oily or cockroach-y enough. Obviously you need to do more research. ;-) 2 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 9 hours ago, meowmommy said: 10 hours ago, AEMom said: Nobody had any plumber proof, so I was a bit surprised that MM just found in favor of the plaintiff so quickly. She usually does a bit more probing than that. Perhaps in that instance, MM weighed the likelihood of a pipe leak vs someone accidentally leaving hot water on overnight, and went with the pipe leak. I actually came to the conclusion that the guy upstairs left his water on and turned it off when called and played stupid. Especially in light of the fact that no plumber was called. With my logic, it could be either the P or the upstairs neighbor, but I am leaning toward the mysterious neighbor/son/ not son. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 11 hours ago, meowmommy said: Obviously you need to do more research. ;-) I did so and see your point. Gawd. I now think on the Oily Cockroach scale, we have a new winner. :O 2 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said: I actually came to the conclusion that the guy upstairs left his water on and turned it off when called and played stupid. Sure he did, and to cover his own butt probably said the plaintiff was crazy and imagining things. 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 (edited) The three defendants! Wow! They're obviously related, and all shop at the same store, but the one with the freaky red hair looks like she's wearing a red tablecloth, and skinned a zebra for her top. Idiot plaintiff is the sister-in-law of mom of Big Red. Idiot plaintiff talked into buying two new cars she couldn't afford, and it's the salesman's fault? Except plaintiff, Big Red the zebra hunter, left the dealer's Hyundai or Kia shop with a Town and Country. Surprise, plaintiff Big Red has bad credit, what a shock. Even better the defendant hit a brick wall avoiding a cat, and only had a learner's permit at the time. Plaintiff wants $420, to pay deductible. Plaintiff's car got repo'ed, and defendant isn't paying for her car either. So after p.'s car gets repo'ed, and she drives the wrecked car to her house after d. stops paying. Next strange fact, the landlord of where the d. lives claimed against the insurance for the wall damage, apparently defendant wrecked a wall on his property, and wasn't happy. I hope the landlord evicted all of these scammers. P. paid insurance on apartment and car, so the fact the insurance wouldn't pay makes me like Amica (spelling) because they didn't pay for damage by an uninsured driver, and I bet her name wasn't on the policy either.. They're all a bunch of scammers, on both sides, and I wonder if the police know about the learner permit defendant's accident and property damage, and driving alone? Plaintiff gets $420, the last of the deductible the insurance wouldn't pay. Defendant stood there and stared at Doug when he asked them if they learned anything. Too stupid to live is my decision. On a tacky note, who picked the judge's lipstick for this case? It's way too dark. Landlord wants almost $3k for repainting the walls of the house, since tenant painted white walls cocoa brown, and fixing all of the holes the tenant patched that look like they machine gunned them first. I bet that paint they used is the darker brown Walmart stuff, with the primer included, and it looks awful. Tenant wants to get paid for a gate she installed (my understanding is that if you do something permanently attached, it stays with the house). The homeowner says the house was just spackled (looks like I did that job, it's that bad), then the cocoa brown painted over, the husband was a smoker that trashed the place, then the painter had to clean everything to get the nicotine stains off, and there's spackle on the hardwood floors too, in a big stripe. The tenant was month-to-month, didn't want the house to be shown for sale, and so the landlord evicted her. The house was near the shore, and the owner's right that there is a limited decent sale time for those houses. The landlord agreed to a gate, and tenant at that time intended to buy the house, and landlord paid her for the expensive gate. I bet the gate was the start of the issues, and the fact that she never apparently tried to buy the house, and I bet she didn't qualify. Tenants like this loser are exactly why I would never rent a house. Landlord returns $950 to old bat ex-tenant of the security. And tenant can forget the gate, since she didn't pay for it that anyone can prove. Little old lady, who I bet is a total jerk, wanted her window fixed and paid the p. to fix it, he can't prove he ordered the glass, but over the course of time she told the State Police he stole from her. I think I'll watch something else, since the little old lady will probably turn out to be a jerk, and looks just like the lady who moved in down the street. Edited September 19, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
meowmommy September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I did so and see your point. I encourage you and my DD to do necessary research, and voila, one of you complies.... 11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The three defendants! CIA, what time does TPC come on where you live? Here it won't even start for almost another seven hours! 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 (edited) Where I used to live they had Judge Judy for an hour at 9 am (all reruns) with the regular shows at 6pm. TPC was on in the afternoon, so I virtually never saw it. Since I moved here the local Fox channel has: 7-8 a.m. Judge Mathis reruns, 8-9 am, TPC reruns, some not that old either, 9-10 is the new Judge Mathis, TPC 10-11 am with the new episodes. I believe syndication's goal is to confuse the heck out of anyone who just moved here. I've also been reduced to only one hour of Judge Judy, so it all gets really confusing to me. I've been reduced to having a schedule of what to watch when, because otherwise I turn on the wrong channel, or miss the show I want to see. Edited September 19, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
SRTouch September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The three defendants! Wow! They're obviously related, and all shop at the same store, but the one with the freaky red hair looks like she's wearing a red tablecloth, and skinned a zebra for her top. Idiot plaintiff is the sister-in-law of mom of Big Red. Idiot plaintiff talked into buying two new cars she couldn't afford, and it's the salesman's fault? But of course - as MM said, nothing could possibly be fault of this group.... oh, apparently there needs to be a warning that hair color products reduce IQ - significantly. Anybody else thinking of Jabba as D mommy sits there yakking 7 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 (edited) Actually all three on the defendant's side looked like Jabba. I wonder why the other sister or whatever she was came along, except for the trip, because she just sat there looking very stupid, actually the combined IQ of the three of them probably doesn't equal 100. I felt sorry for the SIL/Aunt because those cretins are total scammers. The SIL, aunt certainly made a huge mistake, and she's lucky since she owned both cars that the unlicensed driver only hit a wall, not some kid. Bet the only cat the loony driver avoided was in her imagination, and she was really drunk or drugged or both when she hit the wall. I've heard they do TPC cases like JJ, and shoot a ton of cases in one day, and then mix and match, and the funky lipstick on one case on the judge proved it, she only had that awful color in one case, not all three. I'm a bad person, I will call them triple clones of Jabba the Butt. Edited September 20, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
SRTouch September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Little old lady, who I bet is a total jerk, wanted her window fixed and paid the p. to fix it, he can't prove he ordered the glass, but over the course of time she told the State Police he stole from her. I think I'll watch something else, since the little old lady will probably turn out to be a jerk, and looks just like the lady who moved in down the street. Nuts on both sides of the aisle. On P side, these folks expect window and frame replaced on Sunday, and when D doesn't appear they're on the phone to the State Police - like within 48 hours of dude taking the job. These folks made the mistake of paying D in full, and weren't about to put up with any delays. Despite the meek and mild front they put on here, they were bulldogs when it came to demanding their money back - showing up at D's parents' house and stopping at the bus stop and trying to collect from D's niece. Apparently they hire D to do the job because he was looking for an apartment and on the application he says he works installing windows - yeah, excellent recommendation. Across the aisle, window guy is working off the books, doing jobs on the side which he should be referring to the company he works for. He whines that the State Police showed up at his real job, and he was canned for taking old folks money and not showing up to the job.... uh, no, like MM said, he wasn't fired for taking the money and not doing the job - he was fired because he was caught doing off the book work (and pretty good bet the glass he "ordered" and materials he was out "buying" were taking from his boss' inventory or put on boss' account - and I wonder if he used boss' tools and drove a company truck while doing these off the book jobs). Anybody else wonder if he might just have some track marks hidden under those long sleeves? Wouldn't be surprised if reason State Police responded so quickly to little old couple's complaint was that they were very familiar with D from past run-ins. Some nonsense about how he was evicted because of this..... who wants to bet reason he was looking for a new place and doing off the book work was because he was already in last stages of eviction process... P get their money back today - and I agree they should - but JJ would have lambasted P for shouting out (and P hubby interrupting and answering out of turn) and probably had Byrd escort them out after tossing the case. MM much to kind - she just can't slap down little old folks. When MM finally says something about her shouting out, little old lady apologizes - then in same breath wants to continue with what she was shouting out. Had me wondering if she's looney, or maybe hard of hearing and used to talking over people without listening. Little aside ---- couldn't help but admire D's - think it was his Pops - witness' choice of outfit - old stretched out pocket t-shirt with big ring of keys jingling jangling under his of roll beer belly fat. Edited September 19, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
zillabreeze September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The three defendants! Wow! They're obviously related, and all shop at the same store, but the one with the freaky red hair looks like she's wearing a red tablecloth, and skinned a zebra for her top. It was a Hosebeast Hoedown!!! Red straw hair chick had funky rodent teeth, too. Waste of air, the whole herd. 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 (edited) The sad truth about residential glass is that no one stocks it any more, because there are many types, and sizes, so they order it in, Monday through Friday only. The people across the street from me had both top (huge) panes of their low-E glass windows taken out, and it took two weeks to order and receive it, and the ordering, and installation was only on weekdays. So the man had to order the glass on a weekday, and it would take quite a while to get the glass, and then he had to install it. That little old lady was a huge b-word, and I bet she goes through life doing stuff like that to everyone who is so unfortunately to deal with her, and I bet her neighbors hate her guts. I agree d. looked shady, but I think little old lady was just as shady. I bet she gets a lot of stuff done for free by people who just want her to leave them alone, and I'm guessing the police have her in their constant complaints file too. Edited September 20, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Anybody else thinking of Jabba as D mommy sits there yakking That horror show? I can't help but wonder if JM ever thinks, "Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse... " Those three horrendous, gargantuan dumb beasts - all disabled of course - yelling about cars that some salesman, who is obviously also a hypnotist, mesmerized/scammed/coerced them into buying. Oh, wait. No he didn't. He "talked fast" so course what option did these idiotic, low-rent behemoths have but to buy two cars they can't afford? The salesman should have known they couldn't afford it, because it's up to strangers watch the finances of dopes like these ones. I too hate it when I go to the car dealer and walk out with a new car I was scammed into buying. Jabba the Mom, whose morbid obesity didn't allow her to stand when testifying: "My daughter is disabled and doesn't understand anything." Well, to me she seemed to know exactly what she was talking about concerning insurance and payments and WTF was that burgundy mess on her head? We won't discuss the dental situation. She's only 34 and shouldn't be held to any contract into which she enters, has a learner's permit and crashed into a brick wall in the driveway. I try to be positive, so just thought, "Thank God I'm not one of them." 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: there's spackle on the hardwood floors too, in a big stripe. Hold on there! There wasn't "no spackle on no floors!" Right. I'm sure the landlord went and put it there himself. 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I think I'll watch something else, since the little old lady will probably turn out to be a jerk, and looks just like the lady who moved in down the street. She was kind of a nasty, vile creature and a total jerk. She wants a cheap job done by some toothless guy who works on the side and summons the state police because he's one day late doing the windows. Toothless window installer tries to say he has no evidence of anything because he was thrown out of his apartment with only seconds to collect his belongings. He lost everything. Sure you did. Both litigants were distasteful. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: MM much to kind - she just can't slap down little old folks. So true, and if any little old lady deserved a smackdown, it was this one. As I've said before, just because you're lucky enough to reach certain birthdays does NOT mean you're deserving of any special consideration. There are old evil people who are no better than young evil people. 8 Link to comment
WhitneyWhit September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 (edited) I always wondered who would actually fall for those car dealership "prize" things and now I know. I'd love to know what the payments on those cars they were "conned" into buying because I can't imagine anyone in that group had anything approaching good credit. Edited September 19, 2018 by WhitneyWhit 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, WhitneyWhit said: I'd love to know what the payments on those cars they were "conned" into buying Plaintiff said her car payments were 300$/month. She called it "75$/week" which I guess she thought was much less than 300$/mnth. I wonder how she could afford that, plus insurance, on her disability money. Nothing they did and no choices they made are their fault, though. It's all someone else's fault because all these middleaged battleaxes don't know what they're signing, they were conned, they don't understand, they're disabled, they were forced, yadda yadda. 5 Link to comment
WhitneyWhit September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Plaintiff said her car payments were 300$/month. She called it "75$/week" which I guess she thought was much less than 300$/mnth. I wonder how she could afford that, plus insurance, on her disability money. Nothing they did and no choices they made are their fault, though. It's all someone else's fault because all these middleaged battleaxes don't know what they're signing, they were conned, they don't understand, they're disabled, they were forced, yadda yadda. Ah, I must have missed that. I remember when I bought my first car, the salesman broke my payments down by week and seemed shock when I could do math and said the monthly amount. I'm guessing this sales person did the same thing and breathed a sigh of relief when he realized he had a customer who believed she was getting a good deal by simply paying $75 dollars a week. 4 Link to comment
Cobalt Stargazer September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: But of course - as MM said, nothing could possibly be fault of this group.... oh, apparently there needs to be a warning that hair color products reduce IQ - significantly. Anybody else thinking of Jabba as D mommy sits there yakking Also, there was this woman sitting behind the plaintiff, who was pretty clearly challenged in various ways. I probably wouldn't have noticed her for all the stupid that was flying around the room, but she kept looking surprised every couple of minutes. I wonder if she's related to The Preener from JJ. 3 Link to comment
meowmommy September 19, 2018 Share September 19, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Those three horrendous, gargantuan dumb beasts - all disabled of course - yelling about cars that some salesman, who is obviously also a hypnotist, mesmerized/scammed/coerced them into buying. I really wished there was a video of that. It must be epic. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: She called it "75$/week" which I guess she thought was much less than 300$/mnth. I noticed that. The only car dealerships I know that talk about weekly payments are those little corner lots that turn over shitty used and salvaged vehicles and run commercials late at night on what used to be UHF channels. I also see red when I see relatively healthy people "on disability," when my hearing-and-speech-impaired, cerebral-palsied, genetic disordered daughter was turned down. Especially if that disability is that they ate their way into a chair. 1 hour ago, WhitneyWhit said: I always wondered who would actually fall for those car dealership "prize" things and now I know. I'd love to know what the payments on those cars they were "conned" into buying because I can't imagine anyone in that group had anything approaching good credit. From other cases we've seen here, it seems like there's good money in selling to people with shitty credit, then repossessing the shitty vehicles and reselling them to another idiot with shitty credit. 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I've been reduced to having a schedule of what to watch when, because otherwise I turn on the wrong channel, or miss the show I want to see. Life with a DVR is much simpler. Although I have a lot of episodes that pile up, especially since I'm not a binge watcher. I'd like to be, but I've discovered that if I watch more than two episodes of any one show on any given day, my brain replays it over and over in all sorts of hideous permutations when I'm trying to sleep. But the DVR means I'm dependent on the information going to the DVR from the network being correct. At least two episodes of a show I had stockpiled, when I went to play them yesterday, were actually recordings of a completely different program. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: She wants a cheap job done by some toothless guy who works on the side and summons the state police because he's one day late doing the windows. I'm trying to imagine the world TPC litigants inhabit, where you call the police for issues that have nothing to do with crime. As if they think the police will make a determination on the merits of their civil dispute and mete out justice in one phone call. 5 Link to comment
Brattinella September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Especially if that disability is that they ate their way into a chair. Wonderful observation! May I steal it? 2 Link to comment
Bazinga September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 (edited) Why is the concept of "put it in my name" never viewed as a fraud being perpetrated on the finance company and insurance company (or in other cases, the mortgage company, the credit card issuer, cell phone company, etc.)? JM just hears the plaintiff say she bought the car in her name though it is really for the defendant and moves on. Why aren't the plaintiff and the defendant both viewed as having unclean hands, just like the pot dealers last week, with their case dismissed instead of having the mess they created by scamming sorted out by the court? Here JM mildly admonished the plaintiff for doing something stupid financially but it really is a fraud, a crime, being committed and that got ignored. Because defendant has bad credit the finance company and/or insurer would not deal with her or would deal with her only by charging more. To bypass that happening, the plaintiff perpetrated a fraud on said companies. She has unclean hands and the whole deal is illegal and any loss she suffered should not be compensated by the court in real life or on TV Court, IMO. In short, why are some scammers rewarded for being part of a scam, while others are not? At minimum, both plaintiff and defendant should have been ripped apart for committing fraud not just vaguely have the fraud pointed out with no admonishment at all. Just my opinion. Going back to last week. I hated the way JM indulged and tolerated both the girl who allowed the rapper, whose real name she didn't even know, to drive her car and the rapper. She treated them like they were both so cute and were Romeo and Juliet rather then both being stupid and liars. His overall behavior was both ridiculous and disrespectful. Here she played along with him while he acted out the driving; treating his nonsense as oh, so cute. The defendant repeatedly said to JM, "Look..." without her even noting it because she liked him and wasn't looking to pounce on him. Talking to a judge that way is disrespectful, IMO. Others get admonished for much less, such as that plaintiff trainer who barely interrupted but, oddly, got called a baby who would not allow anything negative to be said about him. I hate the inconsistency and that some really, really undeserving people get catered to because JM for some bizarre reason thinks they are "cool" or something. JM also has a bias for old people, usually female, and young females who do stupid things that remind her of her daughters. It was actually surprising when JM didn't treat the twenty-something year old woman who got the car from the cop without paying in full as a silly teenager who needed to be coddled and helped deal with the big bad world. Edited September 20, 2018 by Bazinga 5 Link to comment
AZChristian September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Bazinga said: Why is the concept of "put it in my name" never viewed as a fraud being perpetrated on the finance company and insurance company (or in other cases, the mortgage company, the credit card issuer, cell phone company, etc.)? JM just hears the plaintiff say she bought the car in her name though it is really for the defendant and moves on. Why aren't the plaintiff and the defendant both viewed as having unclean hands, just like the pot dealers last week, with their case dismissed instead of having the mess they created by scamming sorted out by the court? Here JM mildly admonished the plaintiff for doing something stupid financially but it really is a fraud, a crime, being committed and that got ignored. Because defendant has bad credit the finance company and/or insurer would not deal with her or would deal with her only by charging more. To bypass that happening, the plaintiff perpetrated a fraud on said companies. She has unclean hands and the whole deal is illegal and any loss she suffered should not be compensated by the court in real life or on TV Court, IMO. In short, why are some scammers rewarded for being part of a scam, while others are not? At minimum, both plaintiff and defendant should have been ripped apart for committing fraud not just vaguely have the fraud pointed out with no admonishment at all. Just my opinion. It's not a flat-out fraud. The finance company doesn't care WHO is driving the car, as long as the person whose name is on the contract has good credit. All the finance company cares about are their monthly payments. Regarding insurance . . . when hubby and I worked in auto insurance, this is how it worked: If someone buys a car and provides the insurance, as long as the insurance company knows who is driving, it's all legal. But the other driver has to be named as a driver on the policy, and the application has to show the actual location where the car will be "garaged." Then the insurance rates will reflect the age, sex, and driving record of the primary driver. The fraud comes if they keep the insurance in the owner's name and address, and doesn't reflect that the car is primarily driven by someone else who doesn't live with them. (Which is usually the case in most of our courtroom TV shows.) 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Bazinga said: Going back to last week. I hated the way JM indulged and tolerated both the girl who allowed the rapper, whose real name she didn't even know, to drive her car and the rapper. She treated them like they were both so cute and were Romeo and Juliet rather then both being stupid and liars. His overall behavior was both ridiculous and disrespectful. Here she played along with him while he acted out the driving; treating his nonsense as oh, so cute. The defendant repeatedly said to JM, "Look..." without her even noting it because she liked him and wasn't looking to pounce on him. Exactly what I mentioned at the time. There was nothing at all cute about either of them, especially def who was rude and had no idea how to conduct himself in a civilized setting. JM's treatment of him still puzzles me. 7 hours ago, Bazinga said: In short, why are some scammers rewarded for being part of a scam, while others are not? I'm no lawyer, so maybe there is an explanation for this, but to me getting insurance in your name for someone who doesn't even have a driver's license is indeed perpetrating a fraud on the insurance company so I don't know why plaintiff was compensated for her deductible after idiot crashes into a brick wall. In my non-learned opinion, shouldn't it have been tough luck for her? She took the gamble that her fraud would be undetected and lost. 7 hours ago, Bazinga said: It was actually surprising when JM didn't treat the twenty-something year old woman who got the car from the cop without paying in full as a silly teenager who needed to be coddled and helped deal with the big bad world. I wondered about that too, but I think maybe in this case, plaintiff was such an unrepentant liar and amoral scam artist, JM could find no sweet words for her. I'm sure the drug-laden car had something to do with her lack of sympathy as well. ETA: AZChristian you posted while I was typing. Thanks for the explanation re: Insurance. Edited September 20, 2018 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
Bazinga September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: It's not a flat-out fraud. AZChristian, thank you for the explanation. Still, to me, this is wrong/dishonest, whether the company in question minds or not. I don't think such behavior should just be brushed over by JM. I still stand on my point that they both are perpetrating a scam and the courts should not be in the business of putting right such scams. Along the same line, was there no liability to the finance company in this case? Did simply surrendering the cars wipe out the entire debt without there being a deficiency the plaintiff was liable for regarding both cars? If no deficiency, they got cars to drive for a number of months without payment covering all the time they possessed said cars. Quote She took the gamble that her fraud would be undetected and lost. Right, that is the big admonition when someone puts a car in their name--what if the person ran over a child, you would be responsible? Responsible if it is something catastrophic but not for the deductible. Makes no sense can pass liability on to another in one case but not the more extreme situation. Edited September 20, 2018 by Bazinga 2 Link to comment
AZChristian September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 15 minutes ago, Bazinga said: Along the same line, was their no liability to the finance company in this case? Did simply surrendering the cars wipe out the entire debt without there being a deficiency the plaintiff was liable for regarding both cars? If no deficiency, they got cars to drive for a number of months without payment covering all the time they possessed said cars. Right, that is the big admonition when someone puts a car in their name--what if the person ran over a child, you would be responsible? Responsible if it is something catastrophic but not for the deductible. Makes no sense can pass liability on to another in one case but not the more extreme situation. Some car lots build the cost of repossession into the price of the car to begin with, as they are dealing with people for whom repo is a way of life. But, yes, if there were a deficiency in what was owed vs the depreciated value of the car, the plaintiff could have been held responsible for that. But (if I remember correctly), she was not asking to be reimbursed for that in court. So the judge didn't care. It sounds like the plaintiff's car insurance did pay off for the damage to the car and the wall, so all the plaintiff was suing for was the deductible, which was all she had to pay. Thank goodness there was no personal injury to an innocent bystander. HOWEVER, if the insurance company is watching this case, they will learn what they SHOULD have learned during their primary investigation. This WAS, in fact, fraud if the plaintiff told her insurance company that the defendant was just a friend who borrowed the car that day. In the now determine it was fraud, the insurance company can sue the plaintiff to get back whatever money they paid out for this accident, and the plaintiff will find herself without any car insurance from that company. 2 Link to comment
Brattinella September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 My ex stole my car and rode around in it until he T-boned another car at speed. My car was totaled and impounded. Asshole ex took off on foot. Guess who was responsible for the damages? 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 (edited) On 19/09/2018 at 11:13 AM, CrazyInAlabama said: The three defendants! Wow! They're obviously related, and all shop at the same store, but the one with the freaky red hair looks like she's wearing a red tablecloth, and skinned a zebra for her top. These three are ready-made casting for the Weird Sisters in a production of Macbeth, or in any fantasy film which features the often-used mythological figure of a triad of monstrous crones or hags. They already have the looks and they know how to lie, so they must have some acting talent in them. However, that read hair would have to go. Who in their right mind can think it is a good look on such a head and individual? On 19/09/2018 at 11:13 AM, CrazyInAlabama said: Little old lady, who I bet is a total jerk, wanted her window fixed and paid the p. to fix it, he can't prove he ordered the glass, but over the course of time she told the State Police he stole from her. Were I in MM's seat, I am not sure I could have resisted the temptation to throttle that double-crossing dishonest prig; she likes to present herself as a respectable nice old lady, but in truth she is a vile witch. The defendant certainly has little business sense, but he did not deserve to have the cops called on him for a one-day delay, something anyone with a bit of common sense knows can easily happen in renovation projects, but that is a quality the customer was desperately lacking in this instance. Edited September 20, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
SRTouch September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 23 minutes ago, Brattinella said: My ex stole my car and rode around in it until he T-boned another car at speed. My car was totaled and impounded. Asshole ex took off on foot. Guess who was responsible for the damages? Uh, the fool who got in his way - his mommy - oh, I know - you for not hiding your keys better And how did i miss this case? 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: monstrous crones or hags. Monstrous and just ghastly! 20 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Howerver, that read hair would have to go. Who in their right mind can think it is a good look on such a head and individual? Maybe she thinks it diverts attention from that nasty trainwreck in her mouth. Edited September 20, 2018 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
SRTouch September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 (edited) bogus buyers remorse case: intro for P has her buying some earrings - changing her mind - trying to take them back for a refund - suing for purchase price of fifteen-freekin'-dollars. D intro is the old multiple choice defense (1) item marked 50% off, so P would only be entitled to $7.50 (2) there are no exchance/refunds on costume jewelry (3) changing her mind is not good enough reason to get her money back. Simple solution to this BS case - read the store policy (which is posted where customers can see/read it). All I can say is these two better put on a good show or MM needs to give the staff a good dressing down for wasting her time. Testimony starts - not a good start.... P explains she had to go to a dear friends funeral - and stopped to shop for costume jewelry on the way... Guess she figured looking at all the classy 50% off crap would pick up her mood. Oh boy, she just blew her big dollar case - when MM asks her a trick question - how much did you pay? Poor P forgot she's trying to go for the bonanza and replies 7 bucks. Uh, so why are you suing for $15, asks the judge? Ah, explains P, when she went to file the claim she was told claim had to be at least $15 to be filed. So, says DA'JUDGE, you lied and said it cost $15? Yes, says P. Wow - shortest case in like --- FOREVER! 4 minutes in, and P admits she lied when filing the case. Should be hearing a full blown rant and a shouted NEXT!!! zip zip case over for me, but, MM drags it out another 10 minutes. Oh, SURPRISE! case dismissed. no privacy in this room: P says he rented a room for his daughter while she was going to college, but the nutty landlord insisted on walking through the room because it was a shortcut into the kitchen. Dad wants back the 2 grand he paid in advance for rent. Whoa! When D comes in dude looks like a wraith from Stargate Atlantis - scraggly gray hair, gaunt face, dressed all in black, wearing trench coat whoa, daddy, did you SEE this guy before handing over money to rent the room for your baby girl?!? Intro for D has him saying he wants $2256 because Pops gave him a taste of his own medicine. When daddy learned dude was using his baby girl's room as a shortcut, dad went over and let himself in while dude was asleep. Seems dad was fighting mad, and D ended up calling cops accusing dad of breaking in and waking him up. Let me guess this was a room from CL, right? Well, maybe not CL, but it was something found online. Dad goes with daughter, they look at room, not greatest but good enough for a semester as she's started school in Jan. They do ask about the route from rest of house to the kitchen - it's a converted room, not originally a bedroom, and only way to kitchen is through her room or outside around to a side entrance.... yeah, dad, sounds great, greepy old stranger dude with access to daughter's bedroom... it's ok, though, when Daddy asks, creepy stranger says he'll go around outside.... oh, and casually mentions to JM none of his previous tenants minded him taking the shortcut through their room - oh my, this could easily become a case where MM views college girl as one of her daughters. Who will she be madder at? Daddy for renting the room or creepy Wraith? Things go bad from the first night. P's daughter, Miranda, says first night in her new room she had a male friend/study buddy stay over since they worked late on some project. Next day Wraith dude, Greg, says not cool, no over night guests.... ok, some parents may like Gregg playing house dad - but unless there's a no overnight clause in the rental agreement really not his business.... nope, according to Miranda, it was agreed (and daddy later confirms) she COULD have sleepover guests. First night not a big deal, according to M. Says they talked about it, and Greg expressed concern about her 'guests' maybe ripping off his stuff - but not a big deal, and she didn't complain to pops at the time. Ah, but then Greg starts using the shortcut instead of going around like he told daddy he would - apparently doesn't matter if she's home or not, Greg might just waltz into the room when he's in a hurry to get a PB&J samwich - no knock, no 'cuse me, too cold out, just old dude wandering through her boudoir. She gets fed up, and starts blocking his access, and he has a mini temper tantrum slamming doors early one morning waking her up. Yep, seems he's something of a door slammer and M tells us of a couple times when he screams "Jesus ...... Christ!" Still not enough for M to complain to daddy, though, until the biggy - the ultimate sin to any college kid - and apparently a Wraith - a blow up over who is hogging the broadband! Now, THAT was enough to bring daddy into the mix. Finally, we hear something from Wraith Greg, who up to now has been making faces but silent. MM turns and asks him the question - was there ever a time when you suggested you could walk through this 19yo's bedroom. Hoboy, instead of answering, Greg begins with, "first of all..." maybe he'll redeem himself, but to me that's the wrong tack. I'm still on my first coffee and time for a refill, and not really interested in listening to this guy dance around trying to excuse what to me is pretty much inexcusable. Really, to me she gets out of the rental agreement.... but she lived there 3 weeks, does she have to pay a prorated rent or does she get it all back since it seems like there were problems from the get-go. Oh dear, this case started early after first bogus case, but I'm over it.... maybe when we hear from daddy after the break things will pick up. So.... she complained to dad two weeks after moving in, dad sends Greg an email saying WTH?!? and Greg gives M grief about running to daddy, saying it's HIS house and she needs to live by HIS rules and stop crying to daddy. Oh yeah, dad's testimony is kind of funny when he says he just had to laugh when Greg complained about M hooking up with some dude - dad says she doesn't even like guys (kind of funny, but also cool that M and her dad are laughing about what would have once been a big dark secret). So, anyway, when dad finishes laughing about Greg's answer to his email, he sends another message saying they need to have a conversation, he's already planning to come visit baby girl, let's sit and talk when I get there. Well, talk doesn't go too well when the three get together. Seems Greg tells pops he has no say, deal is between M and him in his house. Dad says, nope, long as I'm paying the rent I have a say. Things blow up, screaming match, M grabs a few things and moves out - then comes back a week later for rest of her stuff, but locks changed. Over to Greg... wow, sometimes I say litigants are trying to dance around, but Greg IS DANCING! he puts on quite the performance, but not buying it. Even though M lived there 2 weeks and had stuff there for three, I say D breached the agreement first time he walked through her room unannounced, so has to return the full amount of rent. Oh, and there's also some dispute about picking up the rest of her stuff. Seems after the big kerfuffle, as soon as dad and M leave Greg changes the locks - when they come back for rest of her stuff the key doesn't work and he won't let them in... soooo part of his counterclaim is that she left room a mess and now he can't rent the room - not that he even wants to ever rent it again. Oh, and he wants to be reimbursed for the illegal lock change. MM's decision - p HAS to pay something since she lived there for a couple weeks - even if not exactly happily - so MM says that's $300 and Gregg has to return $1700. bad car deal: hmmmm funny case. First off, did all three of these people buy this car from their good friend's mother. Seems after putting down a deposit, they take take it to a mechanic who finds all kinds of stuff wrong and tells them to take it back. Really, according to dummy intro dude they claim it had no spark plugs or transmission fluid - what, did they tow it to the mechanic? They want 2 grand. In walks defendant - ok, intro MUST be even more nonsense than usual. Didn't P intro just say they bought this car (with no sparks plugs) from friend's mother? Maybe the guy who just walked in has power of attorney. Nope, his intro is that he sold his car, P never finished paying for it - so his countersuit is rest of purchase price plus a boat loads of money for slander... can't wait to hear what the car with no spark plugs or t***** fluid sold for and how both sides inflated their damages. Testimony - well, seems they padded their damage by tacking on repairs, parts, & a locksmith (?). Ok - first question answered - intro wrong (or I misheard and too lazy to rewind to hear clown a second time) car not sold by mother of friend - no, the mother is the friend and her son was the one who sold the hooptie. Yet to learn exactly which of the three P actually bought the pile of rust. P #1 doing the talking says she was great friends of D's mom, they're both active in animal rescue in their area, yada yada. Says she asked D mom (seems mom is central figure in case - wonder why she's not here) about the junkers in mom's driveway. Anyway, Mom gets son - D - on phone, asks how much do you want for this good looking clunker - oh, lucky day, only $1000 which is exactly what P #2 is getting back on his taxes (P#2 is step son of P #1). Ok, strange car deal getting stranger... two days after paying $1000 for this junker and apparently taking possession, seller asks for $500 more. Oh, and after taking possession P decides to take the no-spark plug car to a mechanic because it isn't running right (ok, that has to go wrong - maybe intro jerk meant bad spark plugs)... oh not really, says p#1, they hadn't really taken possession or paid any money yet.... huh? Play the tape back, cuz I swear I heard her say they paid a thousand and took possession. Oh well, seems these fools did something right - they grabbed a scape of paper and scribbled out a purchase agreement. Oops - toss pretty much everything P#1 told us - the scrap of paper says they bought said junker with $1000 down and a balance of $500 owed. Hmmmm maybe I was too quick to blame this one on intro clown as P#1 can't keep her story straight from sentence to sentence.... over to D.... nope, can't take this bobble head with his "I do a lot of buy here pay here" nonsense (out of mommy's driveway?) Geez, 15 more minutes of these group... nope, zip zip... hmmm D wins, but, somehow, someway, he ends up getting $640. Did he get the $500 plus $140 for slander? Don't think that's it, MM said his countersuit was denied. No, not interested enough to rewind (also never heard where P#3 came in) Edited September 21, 2018 by SRTouch 1 5 Link to comment
Katy M September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Uh, so why are you suing for $15, asks the judge? Ah, explains P, when she went to file the claim she was told claim had to be at least $15 to be filed. So, says DA'JUDGE, you lied and said it cost $15? Yes, says P. Wow - shortest case in like --- FOREVER! 4 minutes in, and P admits she lied when filing the case. Should be hearing a full blown rant and a shouted NEXT!!! zip zip case over for me, but, MM drags it out another 10 minutes. Oh, SURPRISE! case dismissed. How much does it cost to file? And how much do you get paid to be on The People's Court? She actually did end up with her bonanza. She should be charged with perjury or fraud or something. 2 4 Link to comment
zillabreeze September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 21 hours ago, meowmommy said: 'm trying to imagine the world TPC litigants inhabit, where you call the police for issues that have nothing to do with crime. As if they think the police will make a determination on the merits of their civil dispute and mete out justice in one phone call. My neighbors dog walker set off her alarm a few days ago... the squad car parked in front of my house because I have a huge shade tree. I was mortified and couldn't wait for them to leave, lest the other neighbors noticed! I know it's irrational, but I just don't want to be THAT HOUSE in the hood. These trashy people have no sense of shame. 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: bogus buyers remorse case: intro for P has her buying some earrings Is this the dumbest case ever? The only things I enjoyed were JM's utter, sneering contempt for the plaintiff and that she gave the def free advertising for her business, just to give the plaintiff the finger. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: no privacy in this room: OMG. Did neither plaintiff see any problems with moving into a bedroom, which is a thoroughfare to the kitchen, with The Crypt Keeper, who looked like he failed his "Beetlejuice" audition? But he's such a well-known musician and/or producer that he needs to rent out rooms - not even real bedrooms - in his home to make ends meet? Yes, Dad, we already figured out that your daughter is not into guys. ETA: How could I have forgotten the best part?? Beetlejuice tells JM that Miranda brought RATS into his house! She brought them IN HER BED and is harbouring them there! Her bed was full of rat droppings! Methinks ol' Greg took much LSD back in the 60's. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: bad car deal: That was some cast of characters, and like most litigants, never heard of "As Is" for sales of ancient beater cars. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Did he get the $500 plus $140 for slander? No. The "slander" came from a phone call from the plaintiff's cousin or someone like that, telling him that they thought he cheated them because he didn't give them a lifetime warranty on the clunker, and that gang of misfits showed up on his Daddy's doorstep demanding restitution or the car back or whatever. I don't know. JM informs him that opinions are not slander. They get to keep the geriatric Ford Taurus and def. gets the money owed on it. Edited September 20, 2018 by AngelaHunter 3 Link to comment
meowmommy September 20, 2018 Share September 20, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: intro for P has her buying some earrings - changing her mind - trying to take them back for a refund - suing for purchase price of fifteen-freekin'-dollars. D intro is the old multiple choice defense (1) item marked 50% off, so P would only be entitled to $7.50 (2) there are no exchance/refunds on costume jewelry (3) changing her mind is not good enough reason to get her money back. What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is the plaintiff wearing? That combination of tasteless, hideous, gargantuan earrings and completely mismatched, tasteless, hideous, gargantuan necklace ought to warrant capital punishment. In case there was any doubt that people go on this show just to be on tee-vee, here we have the case of a clueless moron who pays a $15 filing fee for a $7 case, mugs and smirks as Hallclown gives us the case, cheerfully admits (because she's too stupid to understand MM's question) right off the bat that she lied in her filing to be allowed to sue, and then continues to smile and smirk as MM reams her out. Why it was even worth it for the defendant to respond, much less show up in court, I also don't get. I can only imagine how this would have played out in a real court in NYC. With a judge who doesn't get TPC judge money. 3 hours ago, Katy M said: How much does it cost to file? And how much do you get paid to be on The People's Court? She actually did end up with her bonanza. She should be charged with perjury or fraud or something. Even though they make a show of taking an oath, this isn't a real court and therefore the laws against perjury don't apply. Now, if she'd gone to real court... 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Wraith Greg, who up to now has been making faces but silent. Which was the creepiest part of all. Like something out of a silent horror movie. But when he gave the dramatic reading of what plaintiff dad supposedly did and said when the daughter was moving out, well, priceless. Worthy of a Razzie. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: I say D breached the agreement first time he walked through her room unannounced, so has to return the full amount of rent. He kept talking about "my house." When you rent out all or part of your house, you give that up, minus any particular terms in the lease. She lived there for less than three weeks, but somehow she got "old rat droppings" under the bed...but no rats were anywhere else in the house. Maybe she kept the rats in her suitcase? 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: P doing the talking says she was great friends of D's mom, they're both active in animal rescue in their area, yada yada. Says she asked D mom (seems mom is central figure in case - wonder why she's not here) about the junkers in mom's driveway. It took me a minute to figure out that plaintiff has her name tattooed on her neck. In case she forgets who she is, or she gets her skull bashed in a dark alley, I guess. And then the defendant with his giant chain OVER his tie. Boy, today is the fashion show on TPC. Do any of these litigants ever watch this show? The concept of as-is is apparently completely foreign. MM has to explain it over and over, ad nauseum. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: hmmm D wins, but, somehow, someway, he ends up getting $640. Did he get the $500 plus $140 for slander? Don't think that's it, MM said his countersuit was denied. I think the $140 was for the taxes, because apparently they thought he should pay the sales tax on their purchase. 6 Link to comment
zillabreeze September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: OMG. Did neither plaintiff see any problems with moving into a bedroom, which is a thoroughfare to the kitchen, with The Crypt Keeper, who looked like he failed his "Beetlejuice" audition? Plaintiff Daddy looked like a very loving, responsible parent. How in holy hell did he not grab his daughters arm and run like hell when Crypt Keeper opened the door on DAY FUCKING ONE????? I missed the location. Was it Chicago or NYC where kids actually rent closets? Not that that excuses anything, but for dawgs sake how did such normal well spoken people think that was a good idea? My head didn't go Crypt Keeper. It went straight RiffRaff, Rocky Horror. Maybe daughter was interested in doing The Time Warp on Saturday nights??? 7 Link to comment
aemom September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 On 9/19/2018 at 6:29 PM, AngelaHunter said: Plaintiff said her car payments were 300$/month. She called it "75$/week" which I guess she thought was much less than 300$/mnth. I suspect that it could indeed be $75/week - so on a 5 week month, it would be even more - $375. So the car will actually cost you more than you think, and there is no way that these "geniuses" would've figured that math out. That's how you knock a 25 year mortgage down to 18 years right off the bat - pay the mortgage weekly, not monthly. On 9/19/2018 at 7:58 PM, meowmommy said: I noticed that. The only car dealerships I know that talk about weekly payments are those little corner lots that turn over shitty used and salvaged vehicles and run commercials late at night on what used to be UHF channels. I also see red when I see relatively healthy people "on disability," when my hearing-and-speech-impaired, cerebral-palsied, genetic disordered daughter was turned down. Especially if that disability is that they ate their way into a chair. I hear you meowmommy, on fighting the government for disability for people who deserve it. But I love that you still have your sense of humor with "eating their way into a chair." If you lose your sense of humor in these circumstances, you may as well just throw yourself down and cry. On 9/20/2018 at 3:00 AM, Bazinga said: Why is the concept of "put it in my name" never viewed as a fraud being perpetrated on the finance company and insurance company (or in other cases, the mortgage company, the credit card issuer, cell phone company, etc.)? JM just hears the plaintiff say she bought the car in her name though it is really for the defendant and moves on. Why aren't the plaintiff and the defendant both viewed as having unclean hands, just like the pot dealers last week, with their case dismissed instead of having the mess they created by scamming sorted out by the court? I read the comments earlier about contract stuff, but I also think that she's heard this story so many times already, that she would just be beating a dead horse, but also, when it comes to pot, which is illegal in the US, you can't have any sort of contract. Buying a car is legal, so there is probably a large grey area. The painting and gate case went down the way it should. The little old lady with her window. She was a prissy, snotty, little thing who wants everything done HER WAY, RIGHT NOW! And she will smite you if you don't. There was nothing cute or adorable about her. I suspect that the toothless defendant was really going to do her window, but he just got in way over his head with her, and then was just trying to run away from her as fast as he could. This episode was a dentist's dream come true. There was thousands of dollars worth of work just waiting to happen on at least 2 of the cases. 4 Link to comment
patty1h September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 (edited) $15 Earrings Lady looked so familiar - when I saw her face I thought this was a rerun. I think she may have been on before or on some other court show. She probably spent more than the cost of those earrings on carfare or the gas she burned getting to/from the court to file this preposterous case. She must have a lot of free time. Courts should have fines for folks who file frivolous suits like this. The rockstar landlord gave me Walder Frey vibes (Game of Thrones fans will get that). Who would want that face busting in at all hours, shortcutting to the kitchen? Edited September 21, 2018 by patty1h 3 Link to comment
DoctorK September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 2 hours ago, patty1h said: Walder Frey vibes Honestly, I think the landlord looked quite a bit scarier. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 3 hours ago, patty1h said: The rockstar landlord gave me Walder Frey vibes Oh, shit - hahahaha! I still think he looks most like Meth-addict Beetlejuice. He was even wearing the same jacket! 2 Link to comment
SRTouch September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 (edited) breakup turns into lawsuit: P suing ex saying when they lived together he supported her for 5 months - she kept promising to repay him for her share of the living expenses when she got her tax refund - ah but when she got her check she bought the latest/greatest iPhone. Intro clown hasn't even finished introducing this clown and I already dislike him for his smirk - and getting an abuser vibe from the dude. Only good thing is that he's not here looking for a bonanza - only asking $600. D comes in - and right off the bat intro says dude was an abuser. Says as soon as she moved in the abuse started, and she got out as soon as she could. Oh, and she has a $750 countersuit - seems when she got away, he kept some of her furniture. Sort of mixed signals from her - doesn't even look at P as she comes in, mostly keeps her eyes downcast - but then not completely cowed down, either, as she has a half smirk on her face as intro paints him as an abuser and the gallery glares at him. Once testimony starts we learn she was moving in (with her 4yo son) with P within a few months of first date. We're still with him setting up the backstory, and I've already had to turn on CC because D has given a couple 1 word answers so softly I had to hit the rewind button. Oh, and these two could be a study in body language. He strikes me as brash and overconfident while he's laying out his case - while she stands in fig leaf position and gives her 1 word answers - then she crosses her arms under her breasts as she describes how he punched her in the back when he felt she was too slow to get ready for their St Paddy day plans to go to the parade.... yeah, not completely cowed, she may be one of those who push as hard as she can, then plays the victim. Anyway, her story is this was second time he had put his hands on her (luckily, when son was not around) so she split that same day - but had no one to help move her stuff so left the furniture. He isn't denying it's hers or that he has it - so countersuit easy - she gets the furniture (not money for the furniture). MM has D looks for texts which she says will show her asking for her furniture and P putting her off (she never finds it and later MM says she doesn't believe they exist because MM thinks P still wants her). While D looks for that, MM proceeds to lambast P for evidence he brought which she says really REALLY makes him out to be an abuser a**hole - MM acts surprised that P would have turned in these copies of videochats where he apparently gets pretty verbally abusive... I'll never understand the a holes who admit to being verbally abusive and to saying horrible vulgar and disgusting things to someone, then try to excuse it by saying, oh, I LOVE him/her SO! So, anyway, she is out of there - apparently even going to police for advice as she says they advised her to move out and leave the keys behind. Guess when she tries to get her furniture is when the nasty chats take place, and she tells him to keep the furniture and sell it in exchange for any money he felt she owned. 'Course, dufus can't let it slide, and he files this lawsuit. Hoboy, more on the St Paddy Day kerfuffle - apparently after the punch dufus, who was already drunk, wanted to hit the bar - and wanted her to drive - she didn't want to go - and btw, she says she didn't have a license, only a learner's permit, so couldn't legally drive anyway, so he physically forces her to the car, she gets away, he hops in and tries to run her down with the car. Yep, dude is turning out to be verbally, physically and probably a stalker type who she'll need to hide from til he finds a new victim love. Hmmmm, seems cops who responded were lazy busy that St Paddy Day, so instead of writing up the incident as domestic abuse just treated it as escorting her to get her stuff. MM isn't too happy hearing this (course she's privy to the abusive videochats that dufus thought would aid his case) and advises D to pursue the case. Back to P - oh my word, did dufus really say that! MM asks the idiot if he really punched her, and the idiot says, yeah, but it was just a mild punch. Uh, Douglas, please go over and give dufus a mild beat down. Happily, times about up. I hate abuser/stalker type aholes, so I'd be happy dismissing his claim and giving her the furniture (tempted to say the furniture AND the $750 she asked for.) But.... she admits she promised to contribute towards the bills, just doesn't want to say how much. Ah, P has her admitting in a text to his cousin and brother (don't think they're the same guy) that she owes dufus $600. Hoboy, MM was all ready to award P the $600, but dufus just said he punched D because.... pauses, trying to think of a good reason... MM suggests D was asking for it.... and dufus says yeah, but immediately tries to retract that answer. Nope, says MM, that answer just cost you $600 (way to go, MM, must be some of your experience dealing with lowlife abusers stepping up getting dufus to insert foot into mouth.) End result - abusive jerk gets nothing - she gets her furniture (which she was willing to walk away from to be rid of dufus so really a bonus.) Ah, but hallterview has me back to thinking she might be the sort to enjoy pushing her guy's button waiting for the explosion. car repair case: P says she took her car in for transmission work - says D had her car for a year - work still not done - he won't release her car - wants 5 grand. D says he fixed the t***** - P still owes $300 for the repair - the 17yo junker has all kinds of other problems - P won't come get her heap out of his way - asking for final $300 of repair bill. Can't wait to learn more about this car as MM does her little summary before letting P give us her story - seems P filing papers claim car is worth 4 grand - while intro indicated it is a 17yo junker with bad t***** and host of other problems. Ah 2001 Honda Accord - 4 grand for an Accord with bad t*****? (And later we hear it had been sitting for two years eith expired registration.) Lady really thinks highly of her junker. P says she called around - D was low bid - work supposed to be done in a week - not done after a week - or two weeks - after 2 months she starts getting mad. Her story is she's calling every week or so and getting the run around. Anyway, she says at two months she calls and is told they haven't gotten to it yet - WTH - she says when she said to refund her deposit as she was planning to come get her junker she's then told they've pulled the t*****, she can't get the car without paying for the labor. Commercial break, and when we come back D gets a chance to tell his story. MM isn't happy with D, no doubt because she already knows guy's shop doesn't bother with silly stuff like paperwork. I mean, why bother with written estimates, work orders etc, just trust him your honor, he runs an honest shop... which by the way, supposedly dropped the origin estimate $500 to get lady to bring her car to them for the work... oh, and neglected to bring the person P was dealing with directly to court today, so not only no paperwork, but only hearsay testimony...) ok, something of a switcheroo here once MM stops grilling him about no paperwork. First off, he is the guy who spoke with the lady - most of the time - oh, and another tidbit - car tags had been expired for two years when the car came to his shop - so either lady was driving it illegally or it was sitting and all the gaskets were dried out - lady admits car sat at least a year... hey, when I went to Honduras my car sat in the motorpool for 10 months - it needed new everything and it only had 214,000 miles on it!... Ok, now D's version making a lot more sense. They did the transmission work they were paid to do, but her car was unsafe to be on the road. Ah, but then as he keeps talking he loses me again. Says the work was done, but when lady told it needed more repairs a big screaming and cussing match and he hung up on her. Weeks go by, manager tries to patch things up, but lady doesn't want to hear it and refuses to come get the car since she doesn't want to pay an additional $300 for t***** after being told it needs a lot more work. I'm believing his story, but then he says after completing the t*****, when customer refused to finish paying and picking up the car they pulled t***** back out - not once but a couple times. Apparently, going back and forth about removing the new parts they put into this rebuilt transmission. Ok, as MM says, if they had done it right and impounded the car that's one thing, but as it was P could have waltzed in with the final $300 payment wanting her car during one of those times when they had the t***** removed and not been able to take the car. So, when they hear about the lawsuit, they put the car back together, and according to D it's ready - again. I'm believing D - not only because of my own experience of letting an old car sit, but because he's freely admitting he screwed up taking it apart again before i,pounding it. P - not believing her at all. First, her damage claim is nonsense. Valuing a car which couldn't be legally driven at 4 grand, then wanting the $700 she spend on the t***** (which dude says is now completed) and if I remember, she wanted $300 for not being able to drive the car this past year - the same car she couldn't drive for previous 2 years. Decision time.... P gets a week to pick up the still non-running, unsafe to start, junker with newlyrics rebuilt t***** - he gets the remaining $300. stolen TV: P says he stored a couple TVs in his friend's storage unit, but when he went to reclaim his property one was gone. Next time he's at the friend's place he spots the missing TV mounted on the wall. He wants the $400 he figures TV is worth... when will these people figure out that electronics - like cars - nosedive in value before you get them home from the store. If the item is still around, expect it to be returned, not replaced with brand new item... D doesn't deny taking the tv. Says she didn't have a TV, so saw no problem borrowing his (well, usually you need to ask when you borrow something). Ah, seems HIS TV was busted, so she junked it and bought a new one - huh, thought his story was he spotted his TV mounted on the wall? Of course - more intro nonsense. Anyway, her story was she borrowed (without his knowledge) his TV that must have been broken before he put it in storage, and then her roomie trashed it before she could sneak it back to the storage unit. Wow, is that really her defense or just nonsense intro clown came up with. Ah well, only 15 on the clock for this silly case. Ok, first thing testimony brings out - when he stored stuff in her storage unit he paid her for the privilege - but she didn't give him a key. After getting the run around for awhile, she let's him to get his stuff when he rents a uhaul. When he wants to know why a TV is missing she imitates old Sgt Schultz from Hogan's Hero's and "knows nothing". He goes to her place, her 5 yo grandson lets him inside while granny is napping, and P throws a fit wanting his 55" toshiba flatscreen and he ends up calling the cops. Cop has him wait outside, goes in and talks to D, eventually comes out with a empty TV box and tells dude his TV is gone, she has a brand new fresh out of the box TV. Hmmmm, bout now I'm ready to give dude replacement cost - but haven't heard from her yet. Nope, from clip as we go to commercial I hear she tries the entitlement defense - he had TVs in storage not being used, so he shouldn't have a problem with me using one - so what if I threw one away - he's still got three TVs... all kinds of things wrong with her argument. Not the least of which is she's assuming his TV had a cracked screen when he put it in storage and no chance that she cracked it when she took it without permission - and then threw it away and tried to pretend she didn'the know what happened to it. Oh my, this lady still in denial mode - now she didn't throw it away, her ex roommate took it outside - she tries to claim she doesn't know it was tossed, just roomie took it out and she doesn't know what happened to it. Next, it really wasn't a 55", and isn't worth what he wants for it (true story - years ago a sergeant I worked with borrowed my circular saw - with my permission - & burnt it up cutting railroad ties... like this lady, he didn't tell me my saw was damaged - no, SFC B went to Sears and bought a replacement - actually a better saw because mine was an older model not in stock and the better saw was on sale. I didn't find out about the damaged burnt up saw until I asked if he had returned the wrong saw.) Anyway, gallery and P get a laugh when MM asks, if it wasn't 55" what size was it? And P, good friend of 10 or 20 years depending on who's talking, says oh it was little, like 19". Ok, now MM has to try to place a value on the missing TV - he claims it was a recent purchase - no, no receipt and paid cash, so no way to know if it was 55" or 19" when it was purchased or what it cost. Heck, only reason we even know a TV existed is these two say so. Ok, we know she's an entitled liar, but so far I'm believing him. Ok, MM does some online shopping - a Toshiba 55" (which he claims he had) is currently $299 at Best Buy. He tries to argue, and sure he might have paid more, but MM warns him not to get greedy. Yeah, dude, you have no evidence of what you had and are getting replacement cost instead of market value - you should be celebrating, only reason you're getting what you are is because your friend comes across as such an entitled lieing brat (with a 5yo grandson.) Edited September 21, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: breakup turns into lawsuit: Here's a guy with a goofy grin. A short, giant-schnozzed, ugly, uneducated and abusive (as JJ said in one case, "Sometimes when they're short of stature they feel they have to be aggressive") loser he may be, but he's got a new girl now! Of course he does. Women of today - at least many we see here and I'm sure it's reached epidemic proportions - are creating this kind of egotistical super-freak by being willing to put up with nearly anything short of murder to keep them. Anyway, he punched her, yes, but it was just a mild punch, so what's the problem? He can't help it. He's a tough guy! He was getting his stinking 600$ back, until he just couldn't control his rampant stupidity and informed JM that the def "deserved" the punch, so JM pulls a JJ and informs the wormy little shit that just cost him 600$. I don't know how Doug in the Hall could stand looking at him. I couldn't so cut off the hallterview. And I dearly hope def. has discovered the wonderful world of birth control, because more kids she does not need until she does a major overhaul on her common sense. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: car repair case: P says she took her car in for transmission work I find it amazing when things turn around as drastically as they did here. Here I was thinking def. was another slimy sleazy mechanic trying to take advantage of poor woman. Not the case. She expected him to work miracles on her non-running, 17-year old POS car, all for 1,000$. She even did the old, "Yes I have evidence I called him and asked for my car constantly, but I don't have that WITH ME." Lucky her, she gets her old beater back (and better hope the leaky fuel line doesn't set her ablaze) and has to pay def the 300$ she still owes him. Sorry, plaintiff - the 5K lottery was not yours today. Really, does no one watch this show and know in advance that non-repair of their ancient hoopties does not entitle them to "Pain and suffering"? What a dumbbell. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: stolen TV: The only interesting part of this was def's outrageous attitude and shameless, blatant lying. Sure, she took the plaintiff's TV cuz she wanted to and oh, no - the screen is cracked. She didn't do it! So her roommate took it outside and who knows what he/she did it with it? She never bothered asking. The only troubling thing here is that she seems to have custody of a 5-year old grandson (who knows where baby momma or daddy are?) and lies dozing in bed while the kid runs wild and opens the front door to anyone who knocks. Grandma, who seemed to think JM wished to see her cleavage, appeared to believe her behavior was somehow amusing or endearing. Ugh. Edited September 21, 2018 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
aemom September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 (edited) 21 hours ago, meowmommy said: What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is the plaintiff wearing? That combination of tasteless, hideous, gargantuan earrings and completely mismatched, tasteless, hideous, gargantuan necklace ought to warrant capital punishment. In case there was any doubt that people go on this show just to be on tee-vee, here we have the case of a clueless moron who pays a $15 filing fee for a $7 case, mugs and smirks as Hallclown gives us the case, cheerfully admits (because she's too stupid to understand MM's question) right off the bat that she lied in her filing to be allowed to sue, and then continues to smile and smirk as MM reams her out. Why it was even worth it for the defendant to respond, much less show up in court, I also don't get. I can only imagine how this would have played out in a real court in NYC. With a judge who doesn't get TPC judge money. Clearly, she should have tried to return the jewelry she was wearing as well because it was so hideous. Black hoop earrings sound pretty tame. I think that she would have been better off keeping them and wearing them, but perhaps the tackier, the better as far as she is concerned. I cannot believe that she filed over $7 earrings. On 9/20/2018 at 5:32 PM, AngelaHunter said: Is this the dumbest case ever? The only things I enjoyed were JM's utter, sneering contempt for the plaintiff and that she gave the def free advertising for her business, just to give the plaintiff the finger. I noticed that too and had quite the chuckle. On 9/20/2018 at 5:32 PM, AngelaHunter said: OMG. Did neither plaintiff see any problems with moving into a bedroom, which is a thoroughfare to the kitchen, with The Crypt Keeper, who looked like he failed his "Beetlejuice" audition? But he's such a well-known musician and/or producer that he needs to rent out rooms - not even real bedrooms - in his home to make ends meet? I actually think that he looks a lot like Steven Tyler. I wondered too why such a well known musician would need to rent out rooms in his house, so I googled him. I was surprised. I found him very quickly. Gregg Sutton. He's actually released albums going back at least 40 years and written many songs for artists. So he wasn't full of crap on that point. But, perhaps the royalties ain't what they used to be. I would never let my daughter (if I had one), rent a room in any single man's house - no matter his age or appearance. How did anybody think that going around outside to get to the kitchen wasn't going to get old pretty quickly and cause a problem? The car people. The litigants who sue after buying an ancient car are just getting dumber and dumber. This one now expected the taxes to be paid by the seller. "He told me that it was a good car." *Eyeroll* She shouldn't bother tattooing her name on her neck, but the following phrase instead "Don't be such an idiot," and do it backwards so that she can read it in a mirror and then follow the advice. Edited September 21, 2018 by AEMom Made a booboo 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 18 minutes ago, AEMom said: I would never let my daughter (if I had one), rent a room in any single man's house - no matter his age or appearance. Seriously! When I was a very young woman looking for an apartment (and never mind my mother's opinion), but I (young and dumb as I was)would never, ever have moved into a home owned by Beetlejuice or any man, even if the path to the kitchen wasn't through my bedroom. Lack of sense and brains is not always someone else's fault. And I just have to say I was so elated as I listened to college student Miranda speaking in proper English, but then Miranda let me down terribly with her "had went." There really is no hope as we know we'll see college graduates in the future speaking like illiterates and that it will be perfectly acceptable. There will be lawyers saying, "My client had went..." 5 Link to comment
Cobalt Stargazer September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: The only interesting part of this was def's outrageous attitude and shameless, blatant lying. Sure, she took the plaintiff's TV cuz she wanted to and oh, no - the screen is cracked. She didn't do it! So her roommate took it outside and who knows what he/she did it with it? She never bothered asking. She pretty much told JM that the plaintiff "already had" three television sets, so she decided that she could just take one because he had more than he needed. It's a TV set, wench, not a loaf of bread. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 9 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said: She pretty much told JM that the plaintiff "already had" three television sets, so she decided that she could just take one because he had more than he needed. Of course. I just acquired a 3rd set, none of them of the 55" variety our litigants, even those who are penniless and/or homeless, still manage to buy, but if someone broke in and stole one of them I'd just think, "Oh, that's okay. I have two others." Def also seemed to think that if she only pilfered a 19" (sure it was) that made it super-okay to steal it. 2 Link to comment
meowmommy September 21, 2018 Share September 21, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: And I just have to say I was so elated as I listened to college student Miranda speaking in proper English, but then Miranda let me down terribly with her "had went." There really is no hope as we know we'll see college graduates in the future speaking like illiterates and that it will be perfectly acceptable. How funny because yesterday I was starting to type the exact same thing in my comments, and then she said "had went"--there went my delete button! 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.