The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

16 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

My personal "NO" is a "PIN' number".  Is it a "personal identification number - number"?

Mine is CAC card - Common Access Card card.

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

My personal "NO" is a "PIN' number". 

Another that annoys me and we hear constantly here: "It was 10:00p.m. at night."

 

13 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

Her house repair cases are the best IMO. 

I enjoy most contract cases. At least with those I know won't be stressed or irritated by listening to tales of child/animal abuse, vicious "physical altercations" or the whining of Sainted Single Mothers, all related in mangled English. I must admit that part of me does enjoy the pure WTF-ery of Dirty Old Men (posing as philanthropists) vs Rough Young Skanks (posing as innocent sweethearts).

24 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

Join me in wineness. 

Always.

[SRTouch]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Today we had a woman who looked disturbingly like an Orc,

You mean the one wearing a feather duster as a whig

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

shaking down defs after def hit her 15-year old hoopty. They paid her more than the junker was worth, plus bought more parts to fix it for probs that had nothing to do with the accident, but that wasn't enough for her. She came here to try and fleece them yet more, because of course her ancient car was in pristine condition before the accident. She gets nothing, but blabbers on to Doug in the Hall. I skipped that.

You lasted far longer than I did. I tried reading the CC, but couldn't take my eyes off P. MM earned her pay deciphering this woman's testimony.

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

You mean the one wearing a feather duster as a whig

You lasted far longer than I did. I tried reading the CC, but couldn't take my eyes off P. MM earned her pay deciphering this woman's testimony.

I expected her to claim that the defendant caused her hair to fall out, and that ugly thing on her head was all she could afford.

[zillabreeze]

34 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

enjoy most contract cases. At least with those I know won't be stressed or irritated by listening to tales of child/animal abuse, vicious "physical altercations" or the whining of Sainted Single Mothers, all related in mangled English. I must admit that part of me does enjoy the pure WTF-ery of Dirty Old Men (posing as philanthropists) vs Rough Young Skanks (posing as innocent sweethearts).

so y'all will enjoy this.. Right smack in the middle of hail damage, insurance contractor nonsense.  Taking pics.  Taking vids..recording phone calls.  Screenshots of texts.  I am so teevee courtshow badass, I could make both JJ and JM weep with joy.

[aemom]

On 10/26/2018 at 5:14 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I  missed the 1st case, due to special bulletin for some new atrocity, act of violence or whatever that happened today.

 

Same here.

On 10/26/2018 at 5:14 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Today we had a woman who looked disturbingly like an Orc, shaking down defs after def hit her 15-year old hoopty. They paid her more than the junker was worth, plus bought more parts to fix it for probs that had nothing to do with the accident, but that wasn't enough for her. She came here to try and fleece them yet more, because of course her ancient car was in pristine condition before the accident. She gets nothing, but blabbers on to Doug in the Hall. I skipped that.

 

"They didn't fix, this, they didn't fix that."  They were scared shitless of reporting it, she knew it, and fleeced them for all she could.  Clearly she was expecting a brand new car out of the deal.  And the hair!

 

The rotten egg water was an interesting case and I was impressed at how much legwork TPC did to try and help the guy out.  I feel bad for him, hopefully one of these tricks will help him.  He was certainly a model litigant:  Nicely dressed, well spoken, has some evidence.

Seriously Levin: Farts or sulphur?!?!?!  I try to FF as best as I can past him, but sometimes I catch the tail end of his insanity.  I can't believe he didn't say: "Sulphur, he hardly knew her!"

 

On 10/26/2018 at 9:50 PM, zillabreeze said:

Join me in wineness.  My personal "NO" is a "PIN' number".  Is it a "personal identification number - number"?

ATM machine. 

Edited October 28, 2018 by AEMom
Forgot something

[Brattinella]

32 minutes ago, AEMom said:

I can't believe he didn't say: "Sulphur, he hardly knew her!"

Post of the day!

[SRTouch]

51 minutes ago, AEMom said:

Seriously Levin: Farts or sulphur?!?!?!  I try to FF as best as I can past him, but sometimes I catch the tail end of his insanity.  I can't believe he didn't say: "Sulphur, he hardly knew her!"

Does not bode well when you start writing jokes for 'the Short One'

[seacliffsal]

On 10/25/2018 at 5:21 PM, AngelaHunter said:

 

 

This was boring, except for JM accusing plaintiff of racism. Anyway, how far behind the times am I? Am I the only one who wouldn't organize and pay for a party (of any kind) for myself? Is this a common thing now, for people to throw themselves a birthday/retirement/whatever party?

 

For years I have thrown my own birthday parties.  I invite who I want to invite, have the party I want, and I pay for it.  There's nobody else to do it, so if I want a party I throw it.  I get to celebrate how I want with who I want.  It's win-win for me.  This year it will be a wine tasting and lunch.

As for the homeless woman who gave her dog to someone else for 1 night-it really bothered me that JM said that the crazier the plaintiff sounded the more she believed her.  I wouldn't trust a thing the plaintiff said as she did not make much sense when responding to JM's questions, and the whole scenario didn't make any sense.  I think JM felt sorry for her, didn't like the defendant for some reason and decided that he must have been lying.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In this morning's new case with the Pit Bull attack on a little kid-OK, so MM let that lying dog owner get away with lying to her, and continues with the case?    When he called an obvious Pit a Border Collie, he should have lost on the spot.   I'm hoping animal  control and any landlord the defendant may have watched this, and go after him.      She should have awarded $5,000, not $500.      The fact the Pit Bull advocates will be up in arms, the dog is supposed to be dog aggressive, and instead nailed a passing 6 year old should tell the owner, and others that the dog is dangerous.    I hate every time one of these stories comes up, the Pit Bull lovers say it wasn't a typical specimen of the breed, when a human aggressive dog should be put down.   Anyone want to bet the dog is unneutered?   I hope this idiot owner will get a clue before something happens to another kid, or his kid, but you know he won't.  I bet that kid will be terrified of dog's his whole life, and buying him a stuffed dog is not going to change that.    And buying him a dog is stupid, because I'm betting he'll get to watch that same Pit shred it within the first month, when the dog runs loose in the neighborhood.  

Phi Beta Krappa-Levin finally comes up with a good one, but I bet someone wrote it for him.     Rutgers frat thrown off campus for booze violations, and then moved off campus, and eventually revoked their charter.      Let me guess what really happened constantly at their parties?   And how much booze and hazing happened.  If you look at the list of suspended, and closed frat chapters at Rutgers, it's a long list.    Plus another frat was caught spiking the punch for a party with the sorority that was their sister organization with Xanax.     Rutgers, not as nice as they could have been.    Graduated student, part of the frat, leased an off-campus frat house, and is suing for late payments, and the plaintiff's part of $30,000 in damages.    And how the plaintiff thinks it's funny that they only found two remaining kegs left behind in the mess they made of the place, when the frat was finally closed by the national leadership is stupid.     It was supposed to be a booze free frat, and I'm sure the drunken and drug fueled parties were epic.    I hope the plaintiff's employer sees this, and knows exactly what they've hired.   I also don't want to know what that stuff in the bathroom is.   Another reason for me to never move within miles of a college campus, or a frat house, or be a landlord.   The plaintiff works in residential real estate.  D. says $3,600 plus, but the state max is $3,000, minus the security deposit.    So the d. gets $1800+. 

The defendant will repair everything, and then rerent to a sorority.   Bet he doesn't know some of them are just as bad as the frats.  

Tree trimming-Sotil Tree service was supposed to clear out bushes, brush, remove trees, and the defendant with held payment because they didn't grind stumps, and take away the larger (over 3" diameter) debris.    Unless the contract (they actually have one) says remove tree debris, the snotty defendant is toast.  If the contract doesn't specify stump removal, then it's not required.  Also, it specified in the contract that it was only stuff on the lawn, and the debris wasn't, and stump removal wasn't included, and that's always extra.      The whiny defendant claims she got Lyme disease and poison ivy from removing the debris with help.    I totally hate the defendant, who expects to get extras for acting incompetent.   The judge was going to give the defendant the $400 for renting removal equipment, and gave her a week to supply that, but she never did.

Edited October 29, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Quite the morning I had. First off, no Internet - got that straightened out (just had to turn everything off, let it reset, been working fine since - knock on wood). Made coffee and sat down to watch TPC - WHAT THE HECK?!? How come Doyle is on the screen? And why did Mathis just walk out and sit down? Yep, local provider messed up the schedule - again! Usually we get Mathis after TPC - today we got back to back of the same episode - with advertisements for TPC.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Phi Beta Krappa-Levin finally comes up with a good one, but I bet someone wrote it for him

Didn't hear what Mini-Dirtbag said, but seriously? We have a grown-ass man in college who behaves like an out-of-control child - again - and turns the place into a party house/pig sty. The worst part of all is that JM seems to find something amusing or cute about the outrageous behavior of this adult man and wants to know if they had a really good time at their stupid parties. Plaintiff is annoying too, since he speaks and ends all his statement with a questioning raised voice, just like some vapid Valley girl. I always think I'm so glad I'm not young and looking for love, because the young guys we see here are, almost with exception, silly, sissy babies who haven't progressed beyond a mental age of thirteen.

 

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tree trimming-Sotil Tree service was supposed to clear out bushes, brush, remove trees, and the defendant with held payment because they didn't grind stumps, and take away the larger (over 3" diameter) debris. 

OH, the "debreeze"(which ditzy def. continued to call it, even after JM's repetitions of "debris") left behind. I've had trees cut and the removal or grinding out of large stumps has always been extra, because that is a lot of work and depending on the size of the stump, more equipment is required. Whatever he did or didn't do, def seems to think he doesn't deserve a dime. Oh, she got Lyme disease and poison ivy from completing the job herself and somehow plaintiff is responsible for that. Don't think so. She paid 400$ for the equipment to finish the job but didn't bring the receipt today. She can bring up her bank statements? She never proves it, so I guess plaintiff got what he was asking for.

21 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

For years I have thrown my own birthday parties.  I invite who I want to invite, have the party I want, and I pay for it. 

Okay, so I see it's done. Personally at this point in time I'd rather everyone forget my birthdays!

Edited October 29, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[babs j.]

My DVR is set up to record the new episodes.  I will not watch dog episodes and I thought ep 2 looked very familiar.  Evidently these cases are all very similar.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, babs j. said:

Evidently these cases are all very similar.

I am reaching the point where every case reminds me of another case, like the bull shit reality shows, one script, different faces.

[SRTouch]

1. Shopping cart bang-up: plaintiff suing because she says defendant gave her cart a mighty shove across the parking lot and cart ended up denting P's car. Happens all the time, but this time the P happened to be sitting in her car when it was hit. P suing for $981 - which is pretty reasonable for any autobody work bill. This doesn't appear to be any great precedent setting case. From preview and intro, D doesn't deny shoving the cart in the general direction of the cart corral, missing, and having cart end up hitting P's car.... no, her defense is that it's no big deal, happens all the time, etc... yeah, lady, happens all the time, and each and every time I find a new ding I get upset that someone like you couldn't be bothered to walk a few feet and return their cart where it couldn't damage my property... ok, back to whiteboard and toy cars - and toy shopping cart. Not sure why we need it, though, as it appears D doesn't deny causing damage - no she just figures P sure grin and bear it and stop making a mountain out of a molehill. P filing case probably has as much to do with D's attitude and reaction to being caught in the act. Seems after hitting P's car - with P sitting in the car at the time - D retrieved the runaway cart,  put in the the cart corral, walked to her own car without offering an apology or even looking to see if there was any damage. P got out of her car, looked at the damage (typical car lot ding - couple scratches and small dent) followed D to her car and kerfuffle ensued. D refused to come look at damage, said she didn't have time - drove away (says P was nutcase and using profanity) - pissed off P took down the license number and filed a police report. Ok, D's turn - nope, not hearing a defense. In fact, her story makes it sound worse. P didn't really see much until she felt the impact ofor the cart ramming her car. Now D tells us she shoved the cart in the direction of the corral, it hit a patch of snow and veered off course and ended up hitting P. Obviously not her fault there was snow, and wind, and and - the rest of us should expect these things to happen - besided, she was in a hurry (seems when police contacted her, she told them the same thing) - so, asks MM, what is your defense? D, the snow, the wind, and besides P was driving a 2013 vehicle, so damage could have been pre-existing. Uh, no, still waiting for a defense... if P has a half way reasonable estimate I'd give her the money just to try to wake D up to the rest of us. MM goes off on a rant about D, her arrogant attitude, and her non-defense defense, and we go to commercial. When we come back we get continuation of the rant - not that it bothers D in the least - she just makes faces like she's sucking on a lemon as she rolls her eyes at the lecture. Ok, MM asks for the estimate - and arrogant lemon sucker goes into her final defense - P has a 5 yo car, so how do we know the scratches are from the cart impact.... hey, at this point I'll take P's word and give her extra so she can get her ride detailed. Ok, never a case here, only entertainment was MM lecturing D about her attitude, D couldn't care less, now we're just dragging this out to fill airtime. P wins. D now blames it on an act of God, just an accident she tells Doug, she shouldn't have to pay. Oh, and D's hubby is right there to defend her, not her fault - it was the wind.... D did say 1 thing I have to agree with - she at least made a half hearted attempt to return the cart, which is more than a lot of folks do.
2. bad sod job: P hired long time acquaintance to re-sod her lawn - he put down brown sod assured her it would rebound - her lawn looks like ?. She wants back everything she's out, plus punitive and emotional damages. D claims it's another case where a homeowner expected instant results and then failed to water properly. Says when he tried to come back and address her concerns, she wouldn't let him on the property. Yet another case which looks to go nowhere.  There are just too many things which could have gone wrong. Best sod in the world might not make it if soil not prepped correctly, if over fertilized or wrong fertilizer is used, or - most common cause - it isn't watered enough. So a homeowner has a rough time proving landscaper did anything wrong - and, IMHO most likely reason lawn didn't do well it wasn't watered enough - this lady not only wants a complete refund, she's after punitive damage. Don't expect much - unless the litigants put on a good show. Ok, testimony begins - verbal contract, dude was to lay sod in a bare spot and pressure wash driveway - and get paid $600.... uh, how exactly did $600 balloon into a $3200 lawsuit?...  ok, seems she complained when sod arrived that it was brown - but doesn't have pictures to show us,  and supposedly she sat and watched dude do the job. Says D guaranteed it would green up, and she was to water it twice a day.... more questions as a retired landscape dude - what kind of grass, where were they planting it (both for sunlight and what garden zone) and how much water was she putting on the sod? I mean, doesn't matter if she waters twice a day if she only waters a few minutes at a time - she needs to not only soak the sod, but have water penetrating a couple inches into the soil under the sod... oh well, too many questions - and both sides are boring. When D starts he has a different version of their verbal agreement - but seems his main difference is that he agreed to pressure wash the driveway for free as a courtesy... not sure what else he had to say - I picked up the remote and started zipping ahead hoping to find something interesting. Oookkkkkk, seems part of his defense is that she was trying to cheap out. He told her she needed twice as much sod as she was willing to pay for..... dude, back in my landscaping days I learned these were the type jobs to walked away from - still remember letting a customer talk me into using half as much fertilizer/weed killer as recommended, then wanted a refund because weeds came up and grass wasn't as green as yard I did across the street using recommended settings - hey, almost like this case... ok, seems P ended up hiring someone else to take out the sod D planted, then re-sod the re-sod job - and second time the sod grew. Hmmm, doesn't make D look good - but also doesn't prove her case. Now he's making a point of telling us that he offered to guarantee his job if she let him take care of it, but she refused - MM even read us a text where he tells P that - he texted P that if she would let him on her property to check it out when she complained it wasn't greening up he'd replace any that wasn't growing - and P still refused. Ok, decision time - forget nonsense where P tacks $2600 onto a $600 job - also, when dude offers to come try to correct the problem, you have to let him, not just demand a refund for work he's done (actually, I think I heard he has his daughter helping). Case tossed. P does bring up a point during hallterview - she says part of her complaint was dude never finished the driveway - which she says was included in the $600, but he claims was done out of the kindness of his heart.... hmmm, maybe that's why she got upset.
3. ex roomies fighting over rent/bail/etc: long time friends had a falling out, and are now feuding - if I got intro right, D isn't so much denying owing P the debt, no apparently his defense is that once upon a time, when P was in need, he let P bunk with him for 4 months rent free -both sides agree with that, too, they're just not sure if it was 5 or more years ago. Now, that P wants money, D wants to retroactively charge for 4 months rent.... nope, not how it works - you have to have an agreement beforehand.... ok, preview clip has P admitting part of his claim is for damages which resulted from an "altercation" they had which resulted in holes in the walls - huh, dude is walking with a cane and needed help opening the door to get into the courtroom while D is acting mighty spry. Are P's physical limitations new, or is he putting on a show?... testimony begins - and I find myself wishing JJ was here to say she's ignoring this part of the claim and just going to focus on another part. P starts off talking about the damages to the "first" apartment - says D agree to pay half - never paid - I just want to know when - when he says "first" apartment, that suggests there was a second, so, how long did they room together without D paying - after a point I'd say forget it. Only part I'm wanting to hear, assuming this was sometime in the past during their "decades long friendship" is this bail money. Pretty much, whenever I hear someone put up bail money I expect the 'bailee' to pay back the 'bailer.' Ah, but MM wants to hear about the other stuff - and maybe this time there's reason. Seems after the first apartment, they rented a second one - and that lease was up Oct of '17 - so not that long ago. Part of P's claim is for rent for last month of the second lease, and D's portion of the next month rent when they stayed an extea week past the move out date. (And, oh, neither paid rent for the extra week - excuses, excuses, but comes down to not taking responsibility and screwing over someone else - this time their landlord. Makes me wonder if anyone actually paid for the damages at the first apartment.) Ok, we get an explanation of P's physical limitations and cane - seems he, and 4 other pedestrians, were hit by a hit and run driver while walking down the sidewalk (driver never identified or apprehended). Yep, MM was right to hear the rent issue - heck, D isn't even denying he skipped out on his share of the damage, rent, and utilities - he's banking on it being offset from time he let P stay rentfree  (not sure how long ago, since these two have been friends since 8th grade). Over to D side. Seems the hit and run really affected the friendship, with P feeling D should have been more help identifying the driver/car. Time for commercial - and when we come back it looks like we'll be talking about why D got arrested and needed to get P to bail him out. Typical of so many of these litigants who find themselves in handcuffs and/or behind bars, D has trouble telling us why he was arrested. Oh, he tells us, it was for speeding on his motorcycle. Hmmmm, didn't know speeders got arrested and needed to be bailed out. Oh, maybe it was the fact he was riding around on a suspended license. Hmmmm, wonder why license was suspended? Even then, speeding and a suspended license doesn't usually mean you need bail - could there have been a bit more, like a warrant out for missing a courtdate? Dude is not impressing me. He's claiming there was never a warrant out after the initial arrest, but P argues there was - and part of his claim is a trip he made from his new place in Michigan back to Georgia to get his name off the bailbond. Seems once he told the bails bond guy he was no longer willing to guarantee D's bail, D rented up back in jail. So, he's not really suing for bond money, he's suing for a trip to take his name off the bond. Story isn't making much sense here. D says the whole deal with P flying back to get the bail revoked stems from bad feelings from the hit and run back in Dec of '16. Huh? Didn't they room together another year after that? And didn't P put up the bail a year after the hit and run? D's story makes no sense - only thing I think does is P hearing D has another warrant out. P wins and gets most of what he's asking for - but not the trip back to get off the bail paper. Countersuit - nooooo, no retroactive rental agreement. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

Shopping cart case-Throwing a shopping cart at someone's car from across the aisle is an 'Act of God'?   Nope, and that defendant is despicable.  

 

I thought you could revoke bond over the phone?   OK, that's from watching reality TV shows, so probably not true.    I love that in the bail case the bail got revoked, and because of the other warrant (or more likely warrants) d. got arrested.    

Sod case-I bet that awful woman sprinkled the sod once a day for 30 seconds tops, and then wonders why it doesn't green up.  

Edited October 30, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

10 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I thought you could revoke bond over the phone?   So why did the P have to fly back to Georgia to do that?  

Not sure how that works - my experience is limited to TV and driving by bondsman offices by the jail - yes a part of my upbringing was sadly neglected - parents raised 5 of us and none of us ever needed bail. I thought only the bondsman could revoke the bond. And, once you cosign for a bond it was like any other promissory note. So, maybe dude was coming back to convince bondsman to revoke the bond. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

From watching TV reality (OK, I watched Dog the Bounty Hunter in the first years), the person who guarantees the bond with cash or property (usually house or other collateral) can revoke, but the bail bondsman can revoke it too, if the person is too big a risk in their view.   

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Shopping cart bang-up: 

Could you believe the nerve of that pug-faced witch? We know just what happened. It was cold, she took her cart, aimed it in the general direction of the cart stall and gave it a mighty shove. So plaintiff got her car dinged and scratched - so what? That's life. Her carelessly pushing that cart and it hitting a snowbank or whatever is an Act of God, right up there with tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes. Not a thing JM said to her penetrated her nasty little head. It wasn't her fault! She doesn't  have time for such petty nonsense! Hated her! Also hated her little weasel of a hubby and even her mutant-looking son, although he said nothing.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad sod job:

You just know plaintiff watered the damned sod for 10 minutes here and there, which is worse than not watering it at all. I was surprised JM didn't ask her about that, since that was probably the cause of the yellowing. So... last year I put down a bunch of seed that was guaranteed to grow, and it didn't! A lack of lush grass gave me enormous pain and suffering and emotional distress and I really need to sue someone. Don't any of these nitwits ever watch this show before appearing here? Don't they ever try to find out what "pain and suffering" entails?

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

roomies fighting over rent/bail/etc:

I lived in a few apartments in days long gone by. I even had company, some who stayed for a week or more, but somehow we never trashed the place or punched holes in the walls. What level of human being does this? And defendant can't drive without getting his license suspended? I've been driving longer than he's been alive and, while I've had a ticket or two (once for speeding but I wasn't dragged off to the slammer),  never has my license been taken away. All of the previously incarcerated litigants we see act as though getting arrested is no big deal at all and it still boggles my mind. I would be traumatized.

[Brattinella]

"Act of God"??  I didn't even SEE this episode and I am boiling mad!  How DARE she try to make it anything else but HER fault?  If I were the lady I would put up flyers at the store warning other shoppers about this hooligan!

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think the shopping center owner (virtually no store owns the shopping center and parking, but lease) should ban that woman from their property.     What a raving b*&^% she is.     I'm betting there are a lot of other shoppers in that parking lot that now know where their door damages came from.  

 

I'm sure this episode will be on the quick rerun schedule, since the shopping cart woman was so disgusting.     I imagine the second the rating sweeps period ends, that this one will be on repeats in December. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Brattinella said:

"Act of God"??  I didn't even SEE this episode and I am boiling mad! 

If you saw her, with the attitude and eye rolls, your pot would boil over. It wasn't her fault, you see, because after she shoved the cart and it went flying, it hit something and the wind blew it into plaintiff's car. Why is that HER problem? I think JM wanted to beat her with the gavel.

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, Brattinella said:

"Act of God"??  I didn't even SEE this episode and I am boiling mad!  How DARE she try to make it anything else but HER fault?  If I were the lady I would put up flyers at the store warning other shoppers about this hooligan!

Really and truly, in hallterview she claimed God did it - And hubby backed her up

Edited October 31, 2018 by SRTouch

[nr65000]

I can't think of a case that made me as mad as the shopping cart lady.  The nerve of her insisting that it wasn't her fault is just mind boggling and telling the plaintiff and the police that she just didn't have time for it.  I wish Judge Marilyn would have given the plaintiff 5K just for dealing with this nut.   I watched it last night and I'm still salty.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's new case of car v. bicycle was nuts.   A driver who figures someone in the wrong, disobeying driving rules should get out of her way.   A bicycle rider who proves nothing, wants $5k for something that he went to a personal injury lawyer first, and then comes to court with no evidence?     They were both wrong, but the bicycle rider is a scammer, and the driver is a heartless idiot.     I wouldn't be surprised to find out she's related to the shopping cart attacker.  

Apartment broker case-Why do people use these brokers?     It was an advertised rental, so he could have found it himself, and saved the $1700 he paid the broker.   And why do people sign a lease without reading it?    Stupid all the way around.     

I can only imagine how horrible the shopping cart cretin would have made her husband's entire remaining life if he had disagreed with her.  

Edited October 31, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[zillabreeze]

Aaaaargh!!!  Shower glass plaintiff, 50ish woman with baby voice and vocal fry...too bad she didn't bleed out in the damn shower.   That ridiculous voice and "my husband, my husband, my husband". Thanks for setting back womanhood by 50 years in 15 minutes.

Then silly bitch tries to play coquette in the hallterview.  SHUT UP. SHUT UP. SHUT UP!

I detest women that act like little girls with the heat of a thousand suns.

Unless you're Bette Davis playing an aging child star, then lose the juvenile shit.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's new case of car v. bicycle was nuts.

I can't remember when both litigants were so unlikeable and distasteful as these two. Plaintiff, who sees a lawyer before he sees a doctor, is looking for a windfall. Again, a car appeared "out of nowhere" (I guess that Star Trek cloaking device is real!) and he was really hurt but it didn't stop him from jumping on the hood of her car. Def was an arrogant bitch from hell, who has no time for accidents. Waiting for police is for the little people. She has to open her spa on time! Her clients need their facials on time! Plaintiff has zero proof of anything, since he didn't know he would need any. 750$ for taxis? Don't think so. I'm not really sure what he was saying since his speech was so garbled. I lost him after "ambalamps". WTF?? Where does that come from? Who says that? And is it really legal to ride a bike on the sidewalk in FL?

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Apartment broker case-Why do people use these brokers?

I don't know, but couldn't stand the "I seen, I seen, I seen" lying plaintiff. He doesn't know what he signed and never bother taking a copy of it (he had a doctor's appointment!) but the evil landlord informed him after that he'd have to be superintendant of the building. He would be forced to shovel snow and take out garbage for everyone! He couldn't say no, so he just wormed his way out and JM is so right - he's very lucky the landlord gave him his money back. "It is what it is" he spouts philosophically in the hall, with his little earrings winking in the light. Doug wants to know what he's learned. "Nothing," he says. At least that was honest.

 

2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Shower glass plaintiff, 50ish woman with baby voice and vocal fry...too bad she didn't bleed out in the damn shower. 

Wow, and I thought I was a meanie. Ha! Her cartoon-y Betty Boop act was making my ears hurt and was not cute in the least. OH, if her big strong man, her Galahad, hadn't been there, she'd have stayed in the shower stall and maybe starved to death. No way could she EVER figure out how to extricate herself. She better hope she dies first. Oh, I'm just a poor little lady! JM rightfully sneered at that.

Anyway, I'm not sure any of this was def's fault. Last year when I had my bathroom redone I was shopping around for new tubs and stumbled on a litany of complaints about a certain well-known tub/shower stall manufacturer and read over and over how their shower doors just spontaneously exploded. There were so many complaints against this company that I decided to just forget shower doors and keep my old cast iron tub, which at least won't explode when I'm using it.  I don't know where def. got the doors, but if he used this manufacturer, that's likely what happened.

[DoctorK]

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

their shower doors just spontaneously exploded.

There are a number of ways this can happen, some from faulty manufacturing, some from improper installation. These are all tempered glass for safety reasons, and if the temperature control and timing is off when the tempering is done, the glass can have a lot of residual stresses which may shatter when touched, the temperature changes or water hits it. If the hinges are misaligned, opening and closing the door may stress it enough to shatter. One case is defective manufacture, the other is defective installation.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's new case of car v. bicycle was nuts.   A driver who figures someone in the wrong, disobeying driving rules should get out of her way.   A bicycle rider who proves nothing, wants $5k for something that he went to a personal injury lawyer first, and then comes to court with no evidence?     They were both wrong, but the bicycle rider is a scammer, and the driver is a heartless idiot.     I wouldn't be surprised to find out she's related to the shopping cart attacker.

Seven hundred and fifty dollars of that was allegedly in cab fare. Seven hundred and fifty. How long of a trip, exactly, would that have to have been?

[CrazyInAlabama]

I Googled it, and it is legal to ride bicycles on sidewalks in Florida, but you have to follow the same rules as a pedestrian.    

I have two regular tubs with shower curtains, but my neighbors have the big walk-in showers with the frameless doors.     I told the lady across the street to put a hinge door stop on the main door, because the door opens on the shower door side, and there's nothing to stop the knob from hitting the shower door, and solid glass panes.    

Edited November 1, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's reruns were two of my favorites.    The couch surfer who mooched off of a kind family friend for two months, bought two huge TVs when she couldn't afford an apartment, and after the woman finally left his home, she left her two TVs for months.   The man finally called her and said get the TVs out of here, she said her mother would get them, and the mother called and said her husband wouldn't allow any more of the couch surfer's stuff in her house.    The man kept the TVs even longer, finally called the woman and said the TVs are going to be gone today or else, and when the woman refused to pick them up, he put them on the lawn and they disappeared.   Judge M. claimed she didn't believe he just put them out, but I do.     The couch surfer couldn't afford rent, but dumped her stuff mostly on mom and grandma, and still paid for tons of makeup, fancy clothes, and I'm sure expensive beauty treatments too.    Couch surfer received nothing.     

Then there was the lovely young (OK not that young) lady who decided that since the boyfriend/defendant agreed to marry, that she should go buy a wedding dress, and rent a venue for a day of her choosing.   She wants a ton of money because he called it off, and she's stuck with the dress and non-refundable deposits.      Plaintiff also couldn't explain the $4k that the man put in their joint account, that amount covers what she sued for, and Judge Marilyn says the man already paid his part, and it wasn't his responsibility to pay more.    No one gets anything, and the man seriously dodged a bullet with the desperate to marry anyone former fiance.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

One hour, two cases, and late because of the rain storm.   

 

Today's new one-Plaintiff and gf are suing defendant (gf's ex husband and father of her kids), for plaintiff getting a restraining order against the p. gf.    Both sides say the other is abusive, and I agree with the judge who gave a restraining order against plaintiff for attending school and athletic events of the gf's children, and think the plaintiff is just as bad as the defendants say she is.   There are pictures of huge amounts of scratches, and bruising on the neck of the 18 year old son of her gf, and the defendant ex-husband.      I think the plaintiff mother is doing what I accuse many parents on these shows of doing, and trading her kid's happiness for the new partner.   I wonder if the plaintiff understands that the 18 year old (I think 18, but I could be wrong) is old enough to never go to his mother and bully gf's house again?    Unfortunately, unless it's changed the younger child will still have to go for visitation, and I suspect the 18 year old will keep going to protect his brother.    The plaintiff certainly has a lot of ridiculous excuses for everything she does.    The court has said that the plaintiff should keep her hands off of kids that aren't hers, and there is plenty of proof against her lame excuses.    I think Judge M. is wrong, and the plaintiff is as bad as the kid's and defendants say.   The judge gives zero money to either side. It's too bad the kids still have to go to ex-wife's home, because I believe everything the kids, and the defendants said about the gf's abuse, and think that when the court agrees, that Judge M. should stick her philosophy that everyone should ignore everything for family is wrong.  

I think everything the plaintiff, and ex wife said defendant does, is what the plaintiff Jabba the Idiot does to the kids.   I think the only reason the 18 year old goes to his mother and Jabba's house is because he's trying to protect the 12 year old.    And the defendant gf certainly had enough evidence to get a restraining order to keep the p. gf Jabba away from every event with the kids, and I suspect the defendants will get a permanent order after this case.    As they said on this show before, I wouldn't believe the plaintiff's if their tongues were notarized.  

Next case is soon to be ex, who had defendant co-sign for a truck, and then before the divorce she took the truck back.    D. is disabled vet, and says P. wants her money.   P. wants 2500 that is half of what he put down on the truck.    A-hole p. doesn't even know the exact age of his own kids with the wife (not divorced yet) defendant.      P. is of course trying to get disability, and sponging off of the gf.     Does the girlfriend have any teeth?   Wife d. gets car note on 2015 Explorer, and put down $1k on it.    He made the first payment, and nothing after that.   The car got repo'd less than a month later by the bank, after the d. called the bank and told them to take it.  This is just as loser plaintiff filed for spousal support, even though he's living off of his butt ugly gf, Olive Oyl Jr (she's short).     The plaintiff gf at least looks embarrassed when the long term cheating, and fact he's living off of her, and not paying child support is brought up.       Loser p. gets new phone on her account, after figuring out her password (let me guess password1234?), and he sold that phone.      D. gets just under $1k.    How sad that the wife is afraid to divorce him, because she'll have to pay him support.     I really hate the plaintiff, and his idiot gf. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

13 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's new one-Plaintiff and gf are suing defendant (gf's ex husband and father of her kids), for plaintiff getting a restraining order against the p. gf.   

OMG! Super Freak Show. Massive, brutish Jabba the Nut (who should have shaved her five o'clock shadow before appearing here) made me ill. They're all abusers, and I include def's tear-squirting, snot-sniffing girlfriend because if the kids' allegations that her "fiance",  the Chinless, Ball-less Wonder, abused them as well, g/f is just as guilty, as is the kids' mother. People who stand by and do nothing about abuse may be even worse than the actual abusers, IMO. "These kids are going to hate you all," JM tells them, as if the kids don't already hate this gang of total and utter assholes. Every one of them should have been forcibly sterilized before they could start breeding kids whose lives they've made a misery.

26 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

ext case is soon to be ex, who had defendant co-sign for a truck, and then before the divorce she took the truck back. 

*sigh* We have useless parasite plaintiff, who is totally disabled, can't work at a job of any kind and gets 183$/month when he has three kids to support. His wife who is in a wheelchair (a little more disabled than he is I guess)is the bread winner and apparently his penis can do amazing things, since it convinced her to put her credit on the line for her POS who she knows has been cheating on her for years. Even though he chooses not to work, he really wants a 2015 Ford Explorer which is necessary for him to see his kids, whose ages he's not sure of. Def was so well-spoken, personable and seemingly intelligent but yet is another woman who will do or pay anything to keep her loser around. He's totally without shame, since he's now trying to get "spousal support" from his wife, the one in the wheelchair, because he's somehow even more disabled than she and she owes him. His ridiculous, hideous girlfriend, who has a face like a slapped ass and either no teeth or black teeth, supports him because he's the man of her dreams it seems, or because she can't get anyone else. Oh, she doesn't support him - she  "helps him" because he can't take care of himself even though he looks pretty well-fed and able-bodied. So desperate is she for a warm body, she doesn't care that he's a scamming, lying, cheating (I'm sure he'll never cheat on HER)lazy-ass loser-for-life. who is suing the disabled mother of his three kids.

I'm sure all this bottom-of-the-barrel, sordid garbage gave Levin a little wee woody.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think Judge M. is wrong, and the plaintiff is as bad as the kid's and defendants say.   The judge gives zero money to either side. It's too bad the kids still have to go to ex-wife's home, because I believe everything the kids, and the defendants said about the gf's abuse, and think that when the court agrees, that Judge M. should stick her philosophy that everyone should ignore everything for family is wrong. 

As annoying as JM playing family therapist can be, I noticed that when she asked what kind of example they were setting for the kids when they become parents, she got a defensive 'we're doing the best we can' in response. Um, no, you aren't, you bottom-feeders, and it makes you look even worse that you're airing your nasty underwear on TV for everyone to see exactly how much you're not doing your best. If you were raising goats, maybe (and maybe not even then) but not children who don't have a choice.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm wondering if the kids actually said the father and his fiance were abusing them, or if that's what the ex wife and Jabba the Butt said?      It sounds to me like the incubator and Jabba were claiming the kids were abused, but the only evidence I saw was the picture of the older boys neck, and that was Jabba.     That whole case was so bizarre, and I feel sorry for the kids.    

I really think Jabba is as bad as the kids, and the defendants say she is, but as long as the ex-wife is living with Jabba, nothing will change.    I noticed Jabba said virtually everything, with the ex standing right there and acting like she wished she was somewhere else.     I don't think the defendants got a restraining order banning the new gf from the kid's activities without proof, and I bet there were plenty of witnesses to her harassment and interference with the kids.     I'm hoping the next court date results in a permanent order against Jabba, and a revisit to the kids having to live at her house for part of the week.  

Edited November 2, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

If you were raising goats, maybe (and maybe not even then)

Definitely not. No defenseless living creatures of any kind for Jabba.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The second case on the new episode is going to make you scream with laughter.      The defendant is wearing a spaghetti strap sundress, but because of the load on the top, she's also wearing a regular bra under it, and still manages to have yards of saggy cleavage at the same time.       At least the dress and the bra match.    Two women talking about switching cars back on a car sale, and someone supposedly threatened to blow up the other's house.    P. traded her car for d.'s truck, and if either breaks down in 30 days, they will swap back.      They traded titles and registration.     No plates on the truck, so p. didn't drive it, and plaintiff has no proof of the car breaking down, and the backyard mechanic didn't give her anything to show the judge.  The d.'s new car, a Sebring had issues and when they went to swap car/truck back, but d. wanted money too for repairs.     D. kept the car and a few days later the car was gone, P. admits she had the car towed back to her.   P. didn't leave the Mountaineer she traded for either.  Apparently the Sebring actually belongs to the grandmother of the plaintiff, and she supposedly forged the title.     I bet the cops loved mediating this fight.    P. also claimed the man with the d. had a gun, but he didn't.     

The car actually had a salvage title,   I wonder if the plaintiff is the woman who was on Bridezillas, and wore a strapless dress with her regular industrial sized bra a few years ago?    That was an elegant look too.

First new case-Homeless relatives with lots of expensive stuff move in, fight constantly with the couple that are legally there.   Of course Judge M. dislikes that the woman tenant told the ungrateful relatives that they had to agree with the schedule of the legal tenants to pick up their expensive stuff.   I guess when you bounce a tenant you should cancel your life so they can get their stuff.   Don't know who received cash, but loser tenants get their TV and stuff back, with supervision from the police

Nothing case of landlord v. tenant-Landlord withheld $500+ security, and says the place was trashed, and no move in pictures.     Move out pictures aren't so bad, and tenant gets his security back, plus interest for the six month period it was owed to him, and court costs.      Landlord still has no clue in halterview with Doug.  

Edited November 2, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The second case on the new episode is going to make you scream with laughter.      The defendant is wearing a spaghetti strap sundress, but because of the load on the top, she's also wearing a regular bra under it.

It actually made me scream in horror. The bulging yet sagging breasts, the completely exposed bra, the nails, the EYELASHES, the janky-ass wigs on both of them? OMG. Plaintiff tells JM that she couldn't be bothered getting evidence for her own case and that JM should just go call her street mechanic who would surely back up her BS story. JM declines that helpful suggestion. So much drama over old beater wrecks.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

First new case-Homeless relatives with lots of expensive stuff move in

I can't even comment on this gang of useless, ignorant, uneducated wastes of space and oxygen, who are all breeding and all jam-packed into one place. Okay, maybe I can. Google-eyed baby momma def is proud to tell JM she'd managed to reproduce with her sperm donor(ewww!), Tweedledum, who smuggled a life preserver in under his shirt, and then she has the gall to snottily ask JM, "What's wrong with (telling them I'd throw all their stuff in a dumpster)that?"  Tweedledum is informed by his tiny little weasel of a brother - squirting crocodile tears -  that his lady love is cheating on him? I'd like to see the guy who'd want some of that. As always, I'm amazed at how all these broke-ass people who squirt out babies they can't afford all have a ton of expensive stuff they cart around when they get thrown out of whatever dump they were living. A virtual reality something-or-other? Hey, I want one of those! The sad part is that there are children who are going to have to go through life calling these semi-human creatures "Mom" and "Dad."

JM is losing her edge. At one time she would not only have told bra-exposing def, "I'm not interested in your breasts!"  and made her go put something on, but would have also told the Elvira-like plaintiff in the disgusting roommate mess to spit out her freakin' gum which she chomped on during the case like a cow on its cud.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Nothing case of landlord v. tenant-Landlord withheld $500+ security

Landlord is another ridiculous asshole who needs a swift kick in his ample buttocks.

Kudos to JM for being able to make sense out of all the illiterate "texes."

Edited November 2, 2018 by AngelaHunter
Durrr... Tweedledum. I'm so confused

[CrazyInAlabama]

During sweeps month (November, February, and May) anything goes.  Boobies that should be covered are allowed to fly free in our faces, cases are let go on forever so every freaky detail is told, and the camera people probably have eye damage from the freaky hair colors, makeup, and sagging body parts with stretched out tattoos.   

I was amazed that plaintiff two, of the sundress, and regular bra, managed to still get huge amounts of cleavage displayed at the same time.   That was some engineering feat by the bra manufacturer.  

[SRTouch]

9 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Dweedledum is informed by his tiny little weasel of a brother - squirting crocodile tears -  that his lady love is cheating on him? I'd like to see the guy who'd want some of that.

One thing about court tv... no matter how stupid, spoiled, toothless or butt ugly, they all seem to find multiple Romeos/Juliet's to hook up with (and fight over/with)

9 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

As always, I'm amazed at how all these broke-ass people who squirt out babies they can't afford all have a ton of expensive stuff they cart around when they get thrown out of whatever dump they were living.

And then turn around and sue the good Samaritan who let them sleep on the couch for not safeguarding their priceless crap when they're no longer welcome.

 

NOTE: now have 3 unwatched episodes - maybe this weekend I'll get caught up.

[AZChristian]

After reading the comments here, I told Mr. AZC that we could NOT miss the sundress/bra lady.  It was horrendous enough to watch the whole case and see her from the front . . . but after the halterview, when she turned around to walk away from the camera, we could NOT keep ourselves from guffawing.  That's one of the worst outfits I've seen on court shows, and I've watched a LOT of them.

And the gum-chewing defendant in the other case . . . when she walked, she looked like Carol Burnett as Mrs. Wiggins.  

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

After reading the comments here, I told Mr. AZC that we could NOT miss the sundress/bra lady.  It was horrendous enough to watch the whole case and see her from the front . . . but after the halterview, when she turned around to walk away from the camera, we could NOT keep ourselves from guffawing.  That's one of the worst outfits I've seen on court shows, and I've watched a LOT of them.

And the gum-chewing defendant in the other case . . . when she walked, she looked like Carol Burnett as Mrs. Wiggins.  

Ok, enough.... American Pickers can wait, I have to watch Mrs Wiggins.

 

UPDATE ADDED: Oh, wrong forum again.... imagine my disappointment - I just watched an hour of JJ (OK, would have eventually watched it anyway) expecting at any minute to see Mrs Wiggins. Finally come back here and - WTH - this is TPC! ?

Edited November 3, 2018 by SRTouch

[howiveaddict]

Maybe they made halter wearer put on the bra so no one was accidently killed by a loose, flying boob.  

I noticed Tweedledums spare tire. Maybe he's carrying the next baby for them.  Plaintiffs, looked kind of anorexic and sickly.

[DoctorK]

14 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

Maybe he's carrying the next baby for them

What amazed me was that his shirt looked like it was custom tailored to show off his oddly shaped (like the figure eight) body: big around the upper torso, snugged in just below his man boobs, then opening up for his huge lower torso. I'm well beyond pleasingly plump myself so I am commenting mostly on his shirt and the way it emphasized his build. I think we need to start a gofundme for many of the litigants to buy them mirrors.

[aemom]

As often happens, I'm a little bit behind, but I had to comment on a few of the cases.  I still haven't seen Friday's yet.  I'm looking forward to the clothing horror show y'all are talking about.

The shopping cart lady was one of the most heinous, entitled creatures I've ever seen.  I happened to catch a JJ episode about 2 years ago, and the fool who wrecked some woman's car, said that he didn't have to pay to fix it, because it wasn't his car.  JJ asked him 7 different ways, and each time - "nope, not responsible to pay to fix it."  This woman was just as clueless and stupid as he was.  I'm glad the P sued her ass off and made her look like a fool on national TV.

The shower door lady's voice made we want to stick a fork in my eye.  She had to be at least 50 years old and spoke like a toddler.  She was aggravating as all hell.  Honestly, I think that there was something wrong with the glass and that the manufacturer should have been on the hook for new glass and installation, not the D.

 

The case with Jabba and friends: MM was right.  Those kids are going to hate them.  Very interesting how the actual parents of the kids said virtually nothing and the others had to do all the talking.  Way to abscond your parental responsibilities and let your relationships proceed to this point.  

 

The woman who bought the car for her soon-to-be-ex-husband (I hope):  Chapter one-zillion of women who are hypnotized by something to continue to support the dregs of society.  That woman was the biggest doormat you can buy.

 

The bike/car accident.  Both P and D were real winners and I'm glad that MM saw through all the bullshit and made a fair ruling.  This case reminded me of what happened to my husband a little over 20 years ago.  It was late November, so getting quite cold most days.  He was driving to work around 5 am and the boulevard near his work was deserted and he stopped at a red light.  Standing on the corner was a man who was clearly homeless by his appearance.  When the light turns green and my husband starts to drive, he runs full throttle towards the car and dives spread eagle onto the hood.   His head bounces off the windshield and cracks it, breaks the side mirror, and dents the hood.  My husband is in shock and there is nobody around.  This is before cell phones, so he can't even call 911.  The guy says "so what happens now?" and is bleeding from the head.  My husband says, "well I am taking you to the hospital."  He puts the guy in his car, and starts driving to the hospital and while stopped at another red light, a cop car pulls up behind him.  He shuts off the car, takes the keys, and runs back to quickly tell the cops what happened.  They tell him to proceed to the hospital and they will follow him (hospital was very close at this point).  When he pulled into the hospital parking lot, the cops zoomed up on either side of the car.  One took the man into the hospital, and the other stayed with my husband to take his report.  She told him that it wasn't that unusual for these things to happen.  With the colder weather, these guys are looking for a warm place to stay.  She told him that we could try the pursue his insurance for payment, but that it was unlikely that he had any insurance, or even an address to contact him and that we should probably let it go.  I was flabbergasted when my husband called me later that morning to tell me the whole story.  Our insurance covered the repairs.

In the US, you can sue the pants off anyone, so I totally believe that these scam artists will try to get just a little bit hurt to try to win a bonanza.  He contacted a lawyer before a doctor.  That tells you everything you need to know.

Edited November 4, 2018 by AEMom
Typo

[AZChristian]

15 hours ago, AEMom said:

The shopping cart lady was one of the most heinous, entitled creatures I've ever seen.  I happened to catch a JJ episode about 2 years ago, and the fool who wrecked some woman's car, said that he didn't have to pay to fix it, because it wasn't his car.  JJ asked him 7 different ways, and each time - "nope, not responsible to pay to fix it."  This woman was just as clueless and stupid as he was.  I'm glad the P sued her ass off and made her look like a fool on national TV.

We were out looking through stuff at the annual community patio sale on Saturday.  At one place, a woman was complaining that her car had been damaged in a parking lot.  Apparently, she believes that if she's backing out of a parking place, anyone coming down the lane has to stop and let her finish backing out "as a courtesy."  Some guy had the audacity to try to squeeze past her as she was backing out.  So "he ended up with a dent in the side of his car."

I bit my tongue.  It is my understanding that in that situation, HE had the right-of-way, and SHE needed to stop and let him pass.  He may be rude (in her mind) to not wait for her to get out of the space, but she was wrong to keep backing up.

I hate parking lots with lots of old people (as any parking lot near us is).  Hubby and I choose a parking spot further from the store so that we can do a "pull-through" and not have to back into traffic.  Between entitled parkers who back up at will, and those who wouldn't stop if a pedestrian cut in front of them, we hate parking lots.

[aemom]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

We were out looking through stuff at the annual community patio sale on Saturday.  At one place, a woman was complaining that her car had been damaged in a parking lot.  Apparently, she believes that if she's backing out of a parking place, anyone coming down the lane has to stop and let her finish backing out "as a courtesy."  Some guy had the audacity to try to squeeze past her as she was backing out.  So "he ended up with a dent in the side of his car."

I bit my tongue.  It is my understanding that in that situation, HE had the right-of-way, and SHE needed to stop and let him pass.  He may be rude (in her mind) to not wait for her to get out of the space, but she was wrong to keep backing up.

He had the right of way.  He could be nice and stop, but he doesn't have to.

People in parking lots are crazy in general.  They drive way too fast.  I remember when my kids were little, they had to hold my hand and not run ahead of me.  I explained to them:  The drivers cannot see you when they are sitting in their cars because you are too small.  Every time I see little kids running through a parking lot, I get a wave of nausea.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I bit my tongue.  It is my understanding that in that situation, HE had the right-of-way, and SHE needed to stop and let him pass.  He may be rude (in her mind) to not wait for her to get out of the space, but she was wrong to keep backing up.

That's definitely true.  But, if he also does have the duty to avoid an accident. So, if he knew that she was going to continue backing up and hit him, he was also in the wrong.  Of course, one would assume that he did not know that because people generally don't go around getting hit on purpose.  But, yes, backers up always have the responsibility of not backing up into somebody's way.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Man stole wave runner from storage unit after owner dies-Plaintiff claims it was given to him as payment for a landscaping job.    This all happened in 2012 when the husband died.   and widow claims it was for her kids to use.   She didn't even know the wave runner was gone until 2015.  Suing for cost of a wave runner she didn't even know was gone for three years?     How much can a wave runner from 1997 be worth by now too?   Defendant has bill of sale, registered it in his state, and the police investigated a long time ago, and said there was nothing wrong with the transaction on the wave runner.  I really dislike the  plaintiff, who just can't get over the wave runner being gone legally, from six years ago.     The plaintiff proved nothing, and gets nothing.   Poor Doug L. has to talk to the woman, and she's still saying the other person is a thief.      She should get the hell over it.   And her attorney who came to court never says a word, and won't talk to Doug.    

Another sitting plaintiff. who claims the defendant assaulted him about a condo issue, injured him, and looks like he's drunk or stoned.    Both men are on the condo board, and I bet that their condo association meetings are little power grabs.    The storage rooms on  each floor are communal, and the defendant wanted locks on the outside door to keep homeless or other non-residents moving into them.   The plaintiff voted against the locks because it's inconvenient, and people store items like gasoline in there before storms.     Sounds like plaintiff is a permanent victim, and a jerk.      Defendant claims plaintiff has been feuding with the other residents, and condo board members for years.     The police and EMT reports said no injuries seen, and d. claims p. has history of claiming other condo board members assaulted him before.     The plaintiff's sister gets up and says she wasn't there, but her brother is a truthful person.  No witnesses, no proof, and Judge M. does her no proof, but you're probably not as blameless as you claim routine to defendant.    Plaintiff is still whining.   I bet the plaintiff is just as bad as the defendant said he is.    

Edited November 6, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

1. Dead husband's stolen waverunner: P story that when her 52yo husband passed away he had a waverunner in storage which was supposed to go to the kids - but dastardly D stole it out of the storage, claiming dead husband promised it to him - she wants $2240, the value she places on the jetski. D says he was hubby's employee/coworker - says he did some work for hubby, and waverunner was signed over as partial payment - claims he has a bill of sale, title, and registration.... I don't expect much from this one - first impression is grieving widow stuck in anger and blame steps of grieving and hanging onto her anger at D instead of accepting her loss and moving on... so, testimony begins and we learn hubby died of cancer in '12 - this was an old ('97) machine, and trailer, which was stored at business warehouse owned by hubby - 3 years after husband died P notices waverunner is gone from the warehouse.... have to wonder who owned the warehouse those three years - also, even if the '97 machine was in pristine condition in '12, what kind of shape would it be in after sitting for 3 years.... ok, P doesn't even know when husband bought the thing - was it purchased new or used. Seems business and warehouse still in the family - P's brother in law now runs the business. When husband died D had been working for the business for two years, hired in '10. Anyway, wife came to warehouse three years after hubby's death, notices waverunner gone, asks around and D tells her hubby gave it to him before his death. No way, says wife, hubby told her many times that it was for the kids... uh, maybe hubby realized it was just deteriorating sitting in the warehouse for years, and gave it away without telling her... so, since she discovered D had the waverunner back in '15 she's been demanding its return. As P is sorting through her papers looking for copies of certified letters she sent asking for it back, MM asks who dude she brought with her is - turns out she brought along an attorney (apparently P doesn't realize how poorly 99.999% of attorneys fare on court TV - and I can't help but wonder if these are billable hours even though he doesn't say anything). Now we hear MM reading the letters P wrote demanding the return, and his answering letters. His claim is that he was given the waverunner and trailer as payment for landscape work he did at P's residence, and that there were three witnesses, all three were hubby's employees and D's coworkers - but admits he never told P who the witnesses were, and when MM asks it turns out D later sold the waverunner to one of them.... hmmm, while time P was talking I was leaning toward D - now this bit about witnesses looks bad - I mean D was hesitating like he was having trouble coming up with names (in fact so far only name he came up with is dude he sold the waverunner) and surely if it went down like he claims he would have the witnesses here. D also wrote that he had the bill of sale, title and registration - but again never showed copies to P. So, after she sent certified letters asking for the return of the property, he just sent unsubstantiated claims that husband gave it to him, he has unnamed witnesses  (people who were husband's employees and maybe still employed by family business) and claims to have paperwork transferring title but to this day has not shown it to P or her attorney.... uh, why the hell not!?! Especially as her next step was to call the cops and report it stolen. Cops went and looked at the paperwork - saw it was registered to D, decided it was a civil matter and washed their hands of the mess. Sooooo, maybe time for da'judge to look at what D has in his folder - or maybe not as we have time to fill. Hmmmm, yep, he has the bill of sale and proof he registered it. Ok, now MM asks what kind of landscaping days did that was worth over 2 grand - ok, swinging back towards defense side - seems he did excavation for a pool they were installing, put in an irrigation system as well as landscaping. Acutally, says total for the work was more than the value of waverunner, and deal he worked out with hubby was D got the waverunner and paid hubby $500 on top discounting 2 grand off the bill. (Later we learn part of P's anger is because D was repeatedly asking to be paid the remainder of the bill too soon after hubby died - and it turns out he wasn't paid in full until a year and a half after hubby died and P upset because he was sending Past Due notices.) Problem is, this was a barter type deal, the $500 was cash, no receipts, and besides it was 5-6 years ago. Ok, for first time ever, P is shown the bill of sale and asked by MM if it looks like hubby signed it. Of course, after quick glance, she says no, not his signature - commercial break before we find out if anybody has verified signatures from dead husband to compare to the one on bill of sale. Yep, P has an old (as in a signature from when hubby was 22yo - so would have been 30 years before the bill of sale).... I don't know about everyone else - but if you look at my signature on my original enlistment papers and compare that to my retirement papers 20 years after enlistment, you're going to wonder if they're signed by the same person.... OK, she does come up with a couple more recent signatures - but MM points out they're all a little different, just sort of a scrawl, and the bill of sale signature isn't that different than the rest....nope, I have problems with defendant not providing the witness names and copies of these documents as soon as he received that first letter years ago, but P hasn't proven anything to me.... still have a couple minutes, so we get MM  asking why D doesn't have statements from the witnesses and some hearsay evidence from P about a conversation she had a year ago with the guy who ended up buying the waverunner 3 years ago - says he didn'the see the need since he has bill of sale and registration. I'm over this one, unless there's a major switcheroo to blindside us this should have been called long ago - and yet it's running long.  Uh, no, no blindside - in fact we learn that D continued to work for brother in law for a year after P sent police to interview D and the guy who ultimately bought the waverunner. P gets all weeping eyed and makes impassioned statement - but still no prove of diddly. Case dismissed
2. suit over assault at condo board meeting: P intro claims D assaulted him at a meeting and P required knee surgery - P one of those litigants who are intro'ed while sitting - while time intro going on I'm watching to see if this mouth breather I'd ever going to shut his mouth. Oh, and yet another litigant wearing a jacket and tie who doesn't know how to wear a tie and button his shirt - made worse by fact he's sitting at an angle to camera with his jacket buttoned and all bunched up. Anyway, he wants the full 5 grand. D (who looks about a third the size of the mouth-breather) doesn't deny there was a kerfuffle - admits he called the P an ass, but says P turned to walk away in a huff, tripped over a curb, and fell all on his own without any help from D. Ok, not sure how long I'll stick with this one. Turns out maybe reason the mouth breather (MB) wasn't facing the camera is because he's cross-eyed - and if that isn't bad enough, he can't give coherent testimony. MM doing her usual job of listening to this mess, something to do with a gight over putting locks on storage rooms for the condos, but for every half sentence he gets out she has to interrupt and get a clarification. Ok, little different than intro - not at a meeting - their kerfuffle happens outside on the grass by the parking lot. Seems MB wanted to talk to D about the locked storage room issue - saw D driving a golf cart while P was driving his car - stopped, got out of his car, and went to "discuss" the issue. According to MB, as soon as he approached D and said he wanted to talk about the storeroom issue, D hopped off the golf cart and came and pushed him. Oh dear, wonder if Douglas gets paid more when he plays the dummy in these demonstrations. MM has hobbling MB give Douglas a shove like he claims D gave him - not sure why, as D intro claimed he didn't even touch the MB and we have no contrary evidence or witnesses. Then, says after D pushed him down, D was "a gentleman" and offered to helped him up. huh, says MM, how is he being a gentleman if he shoved you then helped you help? Apparently MB had a pre-existing medical problem, so when he fell and heard a "click" he knew his knee was hurt and called 911 and told D and a bystander who offered help that an ambulance was on the way. He starts looking for police/paramedic reports and MM crosses the aisle to hear D's story. D admits their "conversation" was heated, says he called MB a name, and MB turned to leave and fell (hey, about as close to intro as  I've ever heard)...  hit pause to type that and decide my favorite Martian, Ray Walston, wears glasses these days. Anyway, this is looking like another case where P wants MM to award a bunch of money just because he says so with no pesky evidence. So far, D is the more believable (though as MM points out, he'sawful smug) - and P needs to prove - not that he was injured, but that D caused the injury. D brings up a previous time when P supposedly accused a board member of assault - really just hearsay, but we get to hear it because the allegation made it into police report of this supposed assault. Soooo, medical evidence he had knee surgery, but no evidence D did anything to cause it. Looks like another one where MM is going to have to stretch things out - clock now at 48 minutes, so if there is a third case it will be JJ fast. Nope, no third case, and I end up zipping through most of MM talking about Florida old folks on condo boards. We go to commercial before hallterview  (maybe to give losing P time to get out to hallway) any, I don't wait.

Edited November 5, 2018 by SRTouch