The People's Court - General Discussion

SRTouch · January 25, 2019

two case day - second about dog breeder whose dog gets out, kills livestock and is shot and killed (quoting Forrest Gump: "Thats all I have to say about that."

family loan/feud: intro has P loaning brother in law money to get off drugs and get life straight - apparently it works, as a year later the dude is making money hand over fist in construction and spending like there's no tomorrow - except he isn't repaying P... have to question intro clown's narrative - calling $10,000 purchase of a truck extravagant? Was 10 grand the down payment? If truly extravagant, he'd be spending way WAY more than 10 grand - to me 10 grand sounds like a reasonable price for reliable truck for someone in contruction... D intro is the familiar "gift not loan." Says sister, P's wife, gifted him money for an apartment to help him get straight. testimony: P says he's been married to D's sister for 8 years, and has known D over 10 years - claims he loaned D money - D admits the drug abuse problem, and that he received money - says he was heroin user, and money was for new apartment - oh dear, had to be a kid involved - seems D was in court mandated rehab when his wife was in a car accident (while high, D says) so daughter was placed in Child Protective Services - kid 7yo now, so 5 at time... wonder if that's mommy in the too-tight stretchy dress by D's side... daughter ended up with D's grandma - D says when he was released he started working to regain custody, started out at crappy $12 an hour job and sister offered to put down security deposit so he could get an apartment - offered as gift in his mind since no repayment requested.... we see this all the time - to me, even if no repayment was requested at the time, I would feel honor bound to repay the money as soon as I knew it was expected... uh huh, when pressed D tells MM he never said he wasn't going to pay it back - uh, so how did this become a lawsuit!?! - ok, says he offered to pay $100 a month but P wanted it - like right now - in a lump sum, and started cutting D out of family get togethers.... uh huh, puts a different spin on things, actually sounds pretty reasonable, let's hear just what P thinks was so extravagant that he purchased.... like I already said 10 grand sounds reasonable for truck, also, he may have needed some quality tools (a claw hammer can cost 10 bucks or a hundred depending on quality) for the contruction work, plus work clothes, steel toed boots, etc... oh boy, P looking bad right now - wife/sister sort of central to case, and when MM asks where's your wife? Is she in the courtroom? P quick to say no while lady in front row behind him raises her hand - dude, says MM, you're under oath and you're lying to me!... Well, not exactly what she said, but when these cases are settled after 20 minutes (including several minutes of commercials and Shorty blathering on the street) it's not good to get caught lying to the judge... MM calls up wife/sister... ok, back to not looking so good for D - once he gets the money and starts getting straight brother and sister are getting close - calling/texting all the time, lots of support from sis, so proud of you, bro, glad you're getting it together, etc - ok, MM obviously knows the whole back story - once he got the good job it wasn't just tools and a work truck, sounds like D was going on vacations and buying stuff (fancy clothes for gf, jewelry, fancy smoker for backyard gathetings, etc) he really didn't need, meanwhile sis and her hubby and two kids barely scraping by - ok, text time - despite D claim that he didn't ask for money, MM quickly finds the text where he asks for help and they even discuss amount needed - even discuss Protective Services not wanting the gf in apartment (seems she's also in court ordered drug program) - MM calls gf up, claims she's been out of rehab, clean and sober for 4 years, and it wasn't that CPS didn't want her around so much as they wanted a chance to do thorough background check... gf making sense for now, but then lots of addicts sound good until you start digging.... MM establishes that guy gets a good job, getting things straight, apparently regains custody - MM asks, why not start paying sis back - hmmmm and hawwww - really nothing that makes sense... I'm firmly back on P side... oh my, MM reading more texts - P hubby trying to argue with sis to give D more room/time, and sis saying she's having to borrow money from hubby's family to make ends meet while hearing about D paying for necklaces and tattoo for him and gf - geez, if this was Judge Mathis we'd hear him accusing D of still using because of his "crackish ways"..... ok, about time for commercial break and MM family counseling and order D to pay up.... geez case running long.... after commercial brother and sister hug, all better - pay up, bro!
livestock killing dogs..... skipped, but not quick enough, as I hear P shot and killed one of the dogs during the attack - oh, dear, and made mistake of stopping to hear Defendant's intro - she's smiling as intro clown says she's countersuing for $4100 (100 more than she's being sued for) because P admits killing her dog - and she's out the money she would have made selling puppies - yep, a irresponsible breeder b1tch lady

Edited January 25, 2019 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · January 25, 2019

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

family loan/feud: intro has P loaning brother in law money to get off drugs and get life straight

I'm really starting to think that JM is a frustrated family counsellor or psychologist, which made this case much longer than it should have been. Stupid, muttering heroin addict is, like most substance abusers/alcoholics, someone who cares only about what he wants and needs and everybody else who might not spend all their money on drugs owe him. How much does heroin cost, anyway? I guess he could always afford that. He can buy whatever he wants, and plaintiffs can just take a hike for the money he owes them. As for the poor unfortunate child he decided to make with some messed-up woman, well, tough luck for her too. She's been dumped on her great-grandmother to raise, since both her parents are selfish losers and hey - def wants to have a good ol' time with his new squeeze, who probably doesn't want some annoying kid hanging around. I just have to say that if I gave 1100$ to my addict brother who never paid back even one single dime but could afford vacations and luxuries like backyard steamers, my husband would not be all, "Ah, let the poor lad have some fun. He deserves it!(??)" Really? Why? What does his child deserve? Oh, well - she'll be fine, I'm sure. I had to FF though the JM-ordered hugging. She also seemed to think plaintiff was some sort of Sir Lancelot for lying to her face and denying his wifey was right there.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

livestock killing dogs..... skipped, but not quick enough

I was quick enough on the draw to not hear anything except livestock being killed. No thanks.

Cobalt Stargazer · January 26, 2019

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Stupid, muttering heroin addict is, like most substance abusers/alcoholics, someone who cares only about what he wants and needs and everybody else who might not spend all their money on drugs owe him. How much does heroin cost, anyway? I guess he could always afford that. He can buy whatever he wants, and plaintiffs can just take a hike for the money he owes them. As for the poor unfortunate child he decided to make with some messed-up woman, well, tough luck for her too.

I felt bad for Druggie Dipshit's sister, who didn't want to be there to the point that she was sitting in the gallery instead of standing next to her husband. Which is the only reason I was mostly okay with him straight out lying to JM that she wasn't there. She really seemed to be unhappy that he was such a loser they had to sue him to get their money back, though I did wonder a bit why they didn't have custody of the kid and not the great-grandmother.

Taeolas · January 26, 2019

For the LIvestock killing dog case, I half watched it as I tend to do most of the shows...

Spoiler

The Livestock owner had one cow killed by a pack of dogs owned by the defendant. He confronted her, told her to corral her dogs.

Sometime later, dogs are out again, kill another one, he shoots one dog and filed for damages.

Defendant claimed he had a felony conviction for trying to blow up a judge's car. He was reluctant to explain but did say he did have a felony but otherwise didn't go further.

Eventually JMM decides that the first cow death was what it was, but the second one was after the owner was warned, so she was responsible for her dogs at that point.

Ruling for the death of one cow, and nothing on the counter claim. Any issues about the felony conviction and owning firearms is for the defendant to narc later if she wants to.

Livestock owner was happy with the ruling. Dog owner was pissed and high and mighty about how it wasn't her fault.

The results and description went about how I would expect. Defendant certainly did herself no favours, and the Plaintiff kept himself composed and under control which helped his case. The ruling felt right enough to me based on what we were told.

AngelaHunter · January 26, 2019

10 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

though I did wonder a bit why they didn't have custody of the kid and not the great-grandmother.

They have their own kids and from the looks of them, they may not be in any position to raise a child who has two parents, neither of whom seem to be making the least effort to get her back. I wonder why brother doesn't have custody of the kid he made, when he has a good job and is doing so well, according to him and his g/f . Oh, but then he starts mumbling and rambling how he lives in some place with a whole bunch of people, including "4 adults who don't work"(?). Funny choice to make.

Zahdii · January 26, 2019

I think the livestock owner finally admitted that he did 16 years for trying to put out a hit on the guy his first wife was having an affair with. That guy wasn't a judge, though, no one knew where the def came up with that. When asked, she said someone told her the almost victim was a judge (I suspect she made it up hoping to poison the plaintiff to MM).

The plaintiff also said that he'd since given up his property and moved away, so there won't be any further problems between he and the defendant. Smart move, because he had photographs of the defs two remaining dogs on his property barking at another of his cows and her calf. It's obvious that the def has no intention of ever keeping her dogs home, and they're going to be a problem until someone else takes a gun and takes care of the problem for her.

BTW, in every place I've lived, a ranch owner has the right to shoot any animal that is harrassing his stock. These laws are as old as the US, farmers and ranchers are the backbone of our ability to feed our people, and they need to be able to protect their livlihood.

zillabreeze · January 28, 2019

Oh My, Manissa (the fitness expert) case. Defendant is a flake no doubt, but poor Nissa is pretty delusional. Slouching posture, strange apple on toothpicks shape and ZERO charisma. Perhaps, rethink the career choice.

if Def hadn't promised the refund, I don't think MM would have given everything back. Maybe a split.

I doubt many Real publicists would have taken her on without a stern talking to about actual expectations.

SRTouch · January 28, 2019

faulty repair: intro for P (another hefty hefty woman proud to highlight black bra straps with her choice of top) - she paid for AC/heater repair, including 10year warranty on a condenser/compressor - 3 years later unit melts down, and she discovers serial number has been scratched off, leading her to suspect it wasn't new - maybe even stolen - suing for 5 grand. D intro says paperwork shows she bought a used condenser, which is what was installed - and no, there was no warranty - accuses woman of trying to run a scam.... who knows, years have passed since work was done, woman may just have faulty memory, but think I'll have to go with the paperwork (assuming workman has a signed copy and not something he wrote up last night) - sounds like a JJ 30 second case, not sure what we'll spend time on with this one, but suspect a chuckle when hearing how this case grew to max damage claim... testimony: P starts by saying D "obiviously" sold her a defective unit - uh, no, says MM, not obviously defective if you used it 2-3 years with no problem - to which P answers it worked 2 years, wouldn't come on the 3rd summer, says D gave her runaround when she call, she ended up calling different heat/air guy... wow, maybe not just hearsay, she actually passes up paperwork she says is from new guy saying D botched the installation, and she has her copy of the contract she had with defendant - soooo, if true, maybe there was a scam - but it was D scamming his customer, not customer trying to get something for nothing.... well, she sort of had the paperwork she claims - she DOES have the report from the second guy saying install was botched, incorrect parts installed and what was installed was not correctly installed - BUT, turns out she tries to introduce a copy of the contract, not good enough, so MM gets D's original contract - ooookkkkk - but D has multiple contracts with an explanation - says first contract was for all new unit (and would have had 5 year warranty not 10), and was $2800 installed - says after signing and agreeing to 1st contract, P had second thoughts, and next day signed a revised contract authorizing him to use used unit, revised price $1600.... couple things different with his story - 1, this was a new unit, but sold as used because it was a "scratch & dent" sale - oh, and D ISN'T the guy who did work - yet another business owner with a letter from guy who did work rather than actual guy - 'nother thing, woman supposedly took first contract to insurance and put claim in on her homeowner policy.... is somebody playing fast and loose with a claim, like maybe policy paid based on $2800 estimate and what was installed cost $1200 less.... hmmmm, maybe scammers on both sides of aisle.... oops, P claiming everything D is saying is lies, lies and more lies, then as we go to commercial MM has Douglas deliver the work authorization authorizing the install of used unit, and accepting it after it has been inspected, and asking if her signature on the paperwork rings any bells - and preview had MM getting loud, saying she knows policy paid based on the $2800 estimate (P admits insurance paid $2300+), and she wants proof of how much P paid for the work paperwork shows cost $1675.... whoa, dirty hands doctrine - even if D or his worker were in on insurance scam, P's case may be tossed - and still waiting to hear how damages ballooned to a $5,000 case when she got a working unit for 2-3 years and paid $1600-$2800... but wait, she admits, in preview, insurance reimbursed her over $2300 - definitely not looking good for heft hefty yellow lady (oh, didn't notice at first but her shoes are same BRIGHT yellow as top)... anyway, noway is she getting money for the new unit, but there's still some question as to whether D or his guy did a defective installation, as shown by the inspection report she supplied at beginning of case.... I'd dismiss now based on what sounds like her insurance scam, but MM has 7 minutes on clock so we're going to see if D is as crooked as P... Oh wow, really, MM shows a picture of what P introduced and gotta laugh as P still arguing she paid $2800 and what we see is a unit with half a roll of tape holding it together. D says no way in he!! Did his guy leave unit like that - gotta agree, can't see an AC guy leaving it like that - think, like D claimd, someone else tried to mess with unit before she called second guy for inspection. Nope, think when thing wouldn't kick on for year #3, someone who knew nothing opened up the unit, lost all the screws, and proceeded to tape it back together (using either duct or masking (?) tape - would an AC guy even carry masking rape in his tool box?)... MM tired of listening to P's insist she's telling the truth after being caught - case dismissed at 15 minute mark with P muttering as she leaves.... hallterview a bust, P just repeating D a scammer - leaves Doug muttering about reopening case once she finds receipts
some sort of failure to provide service case: having trouble with what exactly case is about as intro claims P is a health and fitness expert, and she really does not look the part... course maybe you don't need to look fit if you're marketing health and fitness on social media... anyway, she supposedly paid thousands to D to expand her social media presence and D did nothing - suing for the $2420 she paid. Defendant claims he set up photo shoots and events, but P wanted instant gratification and wouldn't put in the work - claims he did his part, it was P not following through that bombed the "brand" (anybody else noticing this big black dude has - almost - same yellow hair color as very white woman sitting behind him - dude also following the trend someone mentioned recently of wearing a pack into court - although he has his in front slung from neck rather actual backpack - waiting to see if he takes it off and actually has something - ya know, like evidence - in it.) MM pretty much sets out case in preview - nobody can guarantee PR results, but does D have anything showing he did any work - texts scheduling events, a time sheet of billable hours, pretty much anything showing he did anything on P's behalf. Testimony ok, P less than impressive when she starts - first, when her 2 sidekicks go to sit, she goes with them and MM has to call her back to the lectern - then when asked what she hired D to fo, she starts with he was hired to be her "everything" ... uh, no, what was he to do, "everything to do with management, content, etc to do with my fitness business." My my, she certainly knows some buzz words, but from look on MM's face the judge less than impressed. MM stops her and tries to get P to explain her "business" more buzzwords, very little content, maybe that's why she needed D - to actually make what she's spouting mean something. She mentions "myplayfit" bands - I Google them, then go ahead and Google her "Manissa Montour" - hey, sure enough, she has a social media and YouTube presence - the big bust/butt look is not anything I find attractive, but guess that's what she's after and marketing. Even has rates posted - $45 per session and/or $125 for 2 months of online training - who knew... anyway, she has a budding start up business, and hires D to take it to next level... even has written contract... over to D while P is looking for the contract..... Oh boy, another bubble head full of buzzwords... dude asks if he should bring MM his record of what he did - uh, no, Hand it to my bailiff - and keeps rambling on as he does his paper shuffle before handing papers to Douglas - dude's evidence is essentially a record of him sending out an email every day or so asking various platforms/businesses/sites if they'd be interested in P, and being turned down - less than impressed with his efforts to earn $1000 a month, but than I really have no idea what is involved. Apparently, he sent out 7 emails, made two followup calls, and produced zero positive results - uh, maybe that's a good morning - but dude was paid for over 2 months - hope he has a LOT more evidence of actually doing something... now, he's back to buzzwords and MM has to rein him in and ask what the heck he DID. Oh, guess he had planning sessions with P to go over what she wanted - but he can't tell us when they met, what was discussed, how long the meeting lasted - well, really all he can say if they met a few times at P's house - oh, and he got paid.... I've pretty much given up on either of these two making sense - where's the written contract P says she has, maybe that'll say something about what dude was supposed to do to earn a grand a month. - nah, MM needs to use up the clock, so she asks P about the meetings - yeah dude came over a couple times in Aptil, maybe an hour per meeting - she turns back to D and asks what else he did in April - uh, nothing really, fool smiles and answers... so, what I heard is he was paid 1 grand for a couple hours of meeting - let's be generous and double it and say 4 hours, send out 7 emails and made two followup calls (guess we have to give him time to get addresses and phone numbers, some time for planning who to reach out to - I'm feeling generous - I say give him a couple hundred for April - but really waiting for this ""written contract."... soooo, MM, asks about second month - what did he do to earn his 1000 bucks in May - same thing, he says - no, says MM, I need you to tell me precisely what you did in May - commercial break, and I skip preview this time about to just skip to decision, but case should be about over unless this is case they chose to spend the 5 minutes from 1st case - Ok, after commercial MM tells dude he needs to come up with SOMEthing if he expects to defend being accused of not doing his job - his answer is to lean on lectern - I mean, really, leaning forward with both forearms resting on the lectern, saying maybe, like, tried to, like, set up photo shoots - so, asks MM what do you mean when you say you 'tried to set up' photo shoots - turns out he means he showed up and took pictures of her doing a workout (with HER camera).... now dude is leaning on one forearm, and leaning over so he can finger his beard..... where is JJ to yell STAND UP STRAIGHT! ... as he starts to disrespect her attempts to strike yoga poses and he tells us the pictures came out "really bad" - so, what else did you do in May, asks MM.... Not sure if fool thinks his performance is winning over MM or what, almost thinks his leaning over and soulful looks are an attempt to win her over - uh, no, dude, I'm betting she's about to upload on your a$$ soon as enough time passes... he claims they met 4 or 5 times in May - again she claims 1 or 2. ... not feeling as generous now, I say give him a couple hundred for April, a hundred for May - $300 total - but still need that look at the written contract.... back to P - still full of buzzwords, but 1 thing I pick up on was that, despite D claiming that he had access to a professional quality photo studio, his "photo shoots" actually amounted to 1 session, at her place, with her freaking camera. Yeah, no guarantees in PR work, but sounds like she got far less than she bargained - has enough freekin' time elapsed - or we ever going to see what the contract says?.... uh, and NOW we hear he actually signed an agreement with a witness, yet, to give P a full refund.... uh, did you sign an agreement to give a full refund!?! Uh, yeah, says D - why are we here!?! asks MM as gallery laughs, so did you refund the money, asks MM uh, no, says D uh, that explains why I'm here, say da'judge, why are you Here?... More non-defense - with additional digs against P wanting to flaunt her sexy self rather than promote health/fitness he felt should be her message - dude, judge apparently holding a written agreement that you would refund the money... guess that's why she was in no hurry to read original work contract... there is no defense unless you count his texts promising to return the money just as soon as he gets it... and then when asked he implies the signed agreement promising to return the money was just a stall tactic and doesn't really mean anything - no, says MM, that's a contract (a witnessed contract, yet, as mutual friend signed as a witness - 'bout best you can get without a notary).... Hokay case over - time to talk damage amount... dude paid 2 grand, why is she suing for extra $420.... seems she hired a lawyer - even has proof on phone (which she starts to carry up to bench before Douglas heads her off) ah, 'nother funny, seems her invoice is to a lawyer named Outlaw - and invoice is for $150, not $420, yep girly got greedy trying to pad bill without needed eVIdence. She gets $2150 - which dufus D snickers about when MM says he has to pay what he agreed to pay, plus the $150 lawyer bill, plus interest, plus court costs - yeah, why not snicker, he's not really paying anything and got a free lunch.... oh, and answer to question I'm everyone is dieing to ask - no, defuse never pulled evidence out of man purse strapped to his chest
last case is where the extra 5 minutes ends up - oh my - P is in running for funniest hair cut in a long long time car sale gone wrong: P says he put down deposit on a hoopty - well, maybe not a real junker as he claims deposit was 5 grand - says 24 days after making deposit, and apparently taking possession of veeHICkle he gets the news that financing fell through - he wants deposit back (geez, it took over three weeks for finance company to give thumbs down!) Surprise, surprise, Defendant story slightly different - and makes much more sense. He says first finance company said no, but he shopped around and found a company that would give P credit (probably at legal max interest). Says P had car, got buyers remorse, and started inventing problems trying to back out of deal. Actually sounds like he's already done all he needs to - agreed to rewind deal, took back car, returned portion of deposit, but charged something for his time and charged for time P had car as if it was a rental... not sure he had to return anything - so he's either anything good guy or he has a money back guarantee the buyer will like car (I'm betting on a guarantee).... preview not looking good for P as we learn he lied on credit application, then documentation he provides to show monthly income doesn't come close - suspect a switcheroo coming as this is the case they've alloted alloted extra 5 minutes... Testimony: ok - forget 5 grand deposit.... no, seems P claims his credit score took a hit which he figures should cost D $3300 - yep, he's really suing for $1700 of deposit he claims was wrongfully withheld. Oops, not quite - it WAS a $5000, deposit (on a '05 Mercedes), $1700 must be what he was charged by D as rental and wasted time - total purchase price was $14,000 (minus interest, I'm betting) - says 3 weeks after driving car home he got news financing fell through - huh, says MM, and turns to ask D, WTH, for you let customers drive away prior to finance approval - well, yeah, guess these guys do - they apparently look at credit application, accept that applicant/customer is truthful, give them the keys and THEN call a finance company - in this case - after watching P drive yet car away they waited a few days for a W2 - but guy couldn't produce one - next they wait for bank records which were supposed to prove he earned over 3 grand a month - nope, not what bank shows - apply to one company, turns him down - try a second company, again not approved - weeks have gone by, they call, and tell P to return car. Back to P - who appears stuck on the $14000 figure - no, dealer says, on top of car price, P added gap insurance, extended warranty, tax & title, dealer prep, etc etc, actual total comes to over 15 grand (and I'm guessing finance fees have yet to be added, or were just guesstimated at, since they never even settled on a finance company). Course MM's answer to that is ask P - did you read the contract? Then, he's whining that when he got home he didn't have all the paperwork and receipts - further proof he didn't read everything when he forked over the $5,000... in case there was any doubt P was in a daze during the transaction, in the paperwork, which he signed, he agrees that he will be charged a set amount if it turns out credit is denied due to any inaccuracies he made on the application, but if the dealer screwed up, they have to return full deposit. Well, reason financing was denied was that P claimed to earn more than he could prove (actually only able to prove around $1700 while claiming $3300 - his answer - he doesn't deposit everything in bank account - yep that might raise some red flags). Ok, waiting for switcheroo, and better come soon or it's time to zippity-do-dah... ok, bad timing (or maybe good) commercial break, and I just hold down the button til decision time. Silly looking P trying to interrupt MM, and she tells him she doesn't want to hear him, it's time he heard her. Seems he signed a release - dayum, again with signing without reading - agreeing to amount D gave him, so too late to agrue amounts now.

Edited January 28, 2019 by SRTouch

Florinaldo · January 28, 2019

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

some sort of failure to provide service case:

Nitwits all around in this case. First the plaintiff who has a very inflated notion of what her "brand" is really worth. The second one is the defendant, who was dumb enough to agree in writing to reimburse her, even though he did do some work (perhaps not for the whole 2 000 $, but who knows since MM may not have read the complete list) and then shrugged it off as "just a piece of paper", which does not bode well for his future business practices.

But the biggest nitwits of all are her followers, who trust her as an "influencer" and would base their life or buying decisions on her advice and reccomendations, in the field of health and fitness no less. There truly is a sucker born every day. I would not trust her to "influence" me to cross the street just to get to my home. I had not problem believing that the PR guy could not find reputable companies willing to be takers for her endorsement ; you can't sell a product if no one sees any worth in buying it.

The two other cases were the usual fare of people not reading what they sign, believing they cannot be held to the terms of their contracts and that they can provide all sorts of alleged facts without any proof. The only issue of interest was in the first case, trying to estimate how many Tweety Birds the plaintiff had to catch and skin to have her outfit made.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Florinaldo

CrazyInAlabama · January 28, 2019

Strange programming note for me, Monday - Friday there is an 8 am rerun of TPC, and at 10 am the new episode, if there is a new one. Suddenly they have put the new one at 8 am, and the rerun at 10. I knew the second one was a rerun, because I recognized the litigants, and their stupidity.

The AC woman was a total fraud. There is no way a pro installed that duct tape, and masking tape. The stuff that looks like cloth tape is actually really for ducts, and stays on very well, but that certainly wasn't it. I absolutely agree that someone took the unit apart when it croaked, and lost the screws, and taped it back together. That plaintiff totally ripped off the insurance company, and then went cheap with the unit she had installed. Some relatives got a great deal and a scratch-and-dent AC unit, and it worked fine, it just had a few scratches on the cover of the outside compressor, and some touch up paint fixed that, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the mechanical parts.

The second case with the social media influencer was ridiculous. I'm guessing she's so full of it that people just watch her and laugh, not to follow what she says. The defendant was just as stupid as the car case plaintiff in the third case.

The car case was hysterical, and bozo should have realized when you sign a release, and you're a total liar, then you're not getting any money back.

Edited January 28, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · January 28, 2019

9 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

faulty repair: intro for P (another hefty hefty woman proud to highlight black bra straps with her choice of top)

What IS the deal with the bra straps - and always of the black, extra-wide variety - on prominent display? Is it now fashionable to show your underwear? What's the deal? I'm so behind on style. Anyway, scammers abounded today.

Insurance gives this woman money to pay for the a/c, but she figures why pay all that when I can go the cheap route and put 1000$ in my pocket? She decides on used unit with no warranty. It took 2 years for her to realize the unit was crap, since she never noticed in all that time the duct tape and masking tape(?!) used to put this piece of garbage together. She apparently has amnesia since she remembers nothing about the deal or inspecting the unit or signing off on it. Scammers? You need to be smarter than this. Being dumb and a scammer has "failure" written all over it. JM skewered her like a shish kabob. I do have to commend plaintiff for correcting her "tooken" to "taken." Pretty sad when something like that calls for applause, but that's how it is now, folks!

"Social Media Influencer"? That's actually pretty funny. Def, the Influencer = Fast talking, sleazy hustler doesn't even know how to button the jacket he scrounged from someone for his big appearance here. Button is in the wrong hole, dude. 1000$/mnth to send about 7 emails? I could definitely do that and want a job like that! I like that he was here displaying the dye job and bling plaintiff bought him for doing pretty much zippo. Nice work if you can get it. Hey, he was going to give her the money back! He just didn't do it because... well, who knows? I forget why but I'm sure it was reasonable. Don't good intentions count? I was waiting for Doug in the Hall to explain to The Influencer how to button a jacket and turn a lapel down, but sadly that didn't happen.

24 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

but oh my - P is in running for funniest hair cut in a long long time

Gee, bizarre little troll who looks like he has a tail of some sort pinned to his extremely narrow head. Another one who really needs to tool around in a Mercedes, even though he can't afford it. Maybe he thinks it's a "chick magnet"? And who was his spooky-looking witness? She said nothing, so maybe she's some sort of moral support? But it's all the car dealer's fault. Plaintiff's "packlet" didn't include any of the receipts or other necessary papers! Maybe his bank statement showed "insignificant funds" (Freudian slip?) but he was BULLIED by car salesman. That bullying took the form of the salesman offering him a different car that maybe he could actually afford. Sounds pretty brutal. JM wants proof of his income and that he didn't lie on the application. In a TPC first (I believe) he pulls a wad of cash from his pocket, flashes it around and proclaims that he works under the table. Paying taxes is just for the little people, not the proud, would-be owners of a Mercedes and he honestly thinks he should drive around showing off in it for a month for free. He signed a release? Oh, well - so what? He changed his mind and wants all the money back.

It's funny how so many people here remember everything, but when it comes to their signatures on documents, why no - they have no recollection of signing anything at all.

This show never stops making me thrilled I never had to deal with the public in my career.

8 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

and then shrugged it off as "just a piece of paper"

OH, I forgot about that. It was great. After all, a contract is "just a piece of paper" isn't it? Why should an influencer of his stature be held to something so trivial and beneath his notice?

Broderbits · January 28, 2019

7 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Nitwits all around in this case. First the plaintiff who has a very inflated notion of what her "brand" is really worth.

Plaintiff has been reading too many magazines; if she has more followers than her immediate circle of friends, I'd be really surprised. She and the so-called PR professional are jokes.

Last plaintiff: it's great to see Zippy the Pinhead is alive and well! So many litigants without mirrors today......

CrazyInAlabama · January 28, 2019

I wonder what the plaintiff did to kill that compressor off in that amount of time? She should have spent that $1k on decent clothes that covered her underwear up, and should have maintained the unit properly, but I bet she was too cheap to call an AC repairman that actually had training, instead of getting some amateur to mess with it. I wonder if she ever changes filters, or gets routine maintenance? I bet she doesn't.

The social influencer case was hysterical. Neither litigant could persuade me to do anything, including watch them on the computer.

The car guy-I hope Doug tossed the plaintiff and his wad of cash Levin's way, and he mugged him. If he didn't, then I'm sure some enterprising citizen who watched this show will be glad to help him get rid of that cash. I also hope some IRS employee taped this, and will make a house call on him for his audit, and tax evasion arrest and conviction very soon.

AngelaHunter · January 28, 2019

3 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

Last plaintiff: it's great to see Zippy the Pinhead is alive and well!

OH, hell! I just deleted from my mind "Zippy the Pinhead" from JJ and here it is again and here I go into hysterics once more. How much of a pinhead can you be when your neck is wider than your head?

DoctorK · January 29, 2019

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

In a TPC first (I believe) he pulls a wad of cash from his pocket, flashes it around and proclaims that he works under the table. Paying taxes is just for the little people, not the proud, would-be owners of a Mercedes

Yep, I know it will never happen but really wish that the IRS woul see this show and nail that creepy lying asshole.

zillabreeze · January 29, 2019

Whoa buddy. Traveling nurse in second case dodged a bullet! Living with that screechy harpy would have been a nightmare.

You just know the micro-managing would have been off the chain. Harpy ain't gonna be happy with the way nurse cooks in the kitchen, the times of coming and going.... Most likely would be snooping around the room, too.

SRTouch · January 29, 2019

Out of town marriage +$990 gift(?) of trip+death of friend+tickets stolen = bo-NAAAAAN-za: P and her posse all with shoulder bags permanently attached to their bodies - from intro, I gather maybe there were a couple weddings (?) In Atlanta that P wanted to attend - a son's and his own pending wedding to defendant - P gives him plane tickets costing almost a grand - P's dear friend and D's intended suddenly dies - P wants return of money for the tickets plus over 4 grand for stress, aggravation and embarrassment... I want this nonsense to go to Springer or maybe Dr Phil can go over 5 stages of grief and explain why people lash out.... D claims her deceased fiance (DF) paid for the tickets with his credit card - acknowledges P promised to reimburse DF, but D doesn't know if P ever did - says she never canceled the flights and/or received any refund, says she couldn't have since she had no access to his account/travel arrangements - not sure where P gets off accusing her of pocketing money.... ok, from intro not sure if this was a gift or not, either way pretty tacky of P to file a lawsuit, and not sure I care either way - even if money WAS taken, not sure she can prove D took it - D wants couple grand for defamation... testimony... hey, P took off her shoulder bag - not sure why she's flanked by one of her posse - who should be sitting but instead is standing next to P, still shouldering HER bag - whoever it was that mentioned all these litigants with backpacks and suitcases slung over their shoulder and wondering if anybody searches them has me thinking rough looking woman might have an uzi or MAC10 hidden away.... ok, DF has a name - Clarence - apparently he was with a group of friends talking about going to Atlanta for son's wedding (when asked, D says she was his gf - nothing about being engaged) - convoluted mess of a case - not sure I care enough to unravel it and only half listening - seems P was planning to fly down with Clarence (she has been a family friend over 30 years) so she gave him over $330 for HER ticket, Clarence was putting everybody's tickets on his card, and D was helping book the trip by collecting info.... ah, maybe reason I can't get into this Case is that I'm still on my first cup of coffee.... ok, if I have this right P paid Clarence $330 for a ticket, when she arrived at airport there is no ticket, she's told that person booking ticket canceled her flight and was refunded the money - why are we talking 3 times the amount? - and P is making NO sense, claiming airline wouldn't give her any information about the cancelation because tickets were in Clarence's name, yet claims airline canceled her flight because D told them to - no evidence D canceled flight, just hearsay that someone at airline said so, and even if D canceled flight money would have gone to Clarence, not D.... or is P claiming D had access to Clarence's accounts and cleaned everything out when he suddenly died.... 5 minutes in, not enough caffeine to stick it out.... zippity-do-dah ok, now at 16 minutes and P's rough looking sidekicks talking about kerfuffle at funeral - geez, really, these people can't even ignore each other instead of creating a scene at a funeral - no interest in rewinding to see what this was about, hearing enough to confirm feeling these people should have gone on Jerry's show... zip zip.... ok, sounds like D HAD access to account, and some of the flight cancellations took place after Clarence's death and after kerfuffle at his funeral.... soooo, somewhere in the mess I skipped over MM heard enough to decide for P... and no, Not about to go back to watch... instead of awarding 5 grand, MM has a new number. $683.40 - huh, almost curious enough to go back and see where that amount came from - oh, and she gives P a week to prove she is owed additional money, so maybe if she provides that, the amount will rise to the $900+ she claimed she gave Clarence.
room rental: traveling nurse, P, rented room from D - but, when she goes to move in D has changed her mind, refuses to rent to P and wants to keep the money she's already been paid - P suing for $675 -- Defendant intro - says P contacted her while traveling to town to move in, there was some disagreement, and P threatened her - which is why she wasn't about to let her move into the home.... ok, totally get that, but if D pulled the plug she has to return the money - sounds like waste of time case... and what's this? D has a countersuit for over $4000 for lost rent because she refused to let P move in?!?... testimony.... ok, one thing - this is not the usual Craigslist rental, no, from preview we learn it's an Airbnb - so maybe when the deal fell through P complained to airbnb and got D room pulled, and that's where D gets her counterclaim - no, according to MM's summary, the $675 was half a months rent - this was a short term lease type deal, and the $4050 represents the rent P would have paid had she stayed as scheduled - and D says it was P who pulled out of agreement, not D - surprise, intro might just have it wrong (one reason I watch intro is it's like watching totally different cases)... ok, P actually starts out sounding intelligent - meaning I can understand her without resorting to CC - and MM gets her to explain what a traveling nurse is... I've heard the term without actually bothering to find out what it means... ok, P just said they conspired to cheat airbnb out of their cut - I'm sure airbnb folks will be happy to learn D offers to cheat if anybody there is listening - sooooo, when deal falls through airbnb not interested in helping P get a refund, surprise surprise wonder why, says MM... and P claims she has all the texts after they agreed to ditch airbnb and deal direct - guess things go south when they start arguing over method of payment - P paid $675 to hold room, and was to pay additional 2 grand in security and rent before moving in - P says she wanted to pay with cashiers check or money order - say D was hesitant, but agreed - then changed her mind and wanted cash - all this supposed to be in texts, so MM starts looking through P's phone.... ok, texts seem to cast doubt on parts of P's testimony, as certainly looks like P was the one who suggests cheating airbnb - and totally agree with MM about counterfeit money orders and cashiers checks (some of you may remember my story a couple years ago, when I was going to rent out a room and received a counterfeit check - shelved the room rental idea and went back to working part time) - uh oh, once again a litigant provides evidence which (at least thus far) supports other side - first doubts about who suggested cheating airbnb, now D texts sounds polite and reasonable when she changes her mind about accepting check/or money order and wants to return to original cash agreement, and leaving it open as to whether or not P wants to move in - D hasn't said anything yet, and P is talking herself out of a case so far with her own text evidence - oops, spoke too fast, soon as D starts talking her case starts to slip - first the strong accent (ok, really nothing wrong there, just surprised me at first), but then as she's talking about getting things ready for P to move in her testimony has me questioning her - she has a handyman who can't figure out how to mount a 32" TV? Come on, I own a mobile home and my walls have, like, 1/4 sheet rock - get a freeking stud finder and mount the TV mount into the studs - if the holes don't line up, just add a brace mounted onto studs... I started to scoff at a "handyman" not being able to do that, but then we've seen cases where "professional" installers have hung stuff using molly/toggle bolts instead of finding a stud - so, they arranged for P to have 32" teevee when negotiating rental, now, what to me is nonsense, reason why she can't mount it to wall - and nonsense reason #2 why she can't have her TV, D has great sentimental attachment to dresser in room she's renting P... uh, why have treasured furniture in room you're renting to stranger you've never met? Still, not a deal breaker, P only wanted room for 3 months and willing to pay over 4 grand - move precious dresser and get nice looking cheap dresser while P is there.... ok, now we're getting to the key evidence - as P is driving to town, having already paid her deposit, D leaves a voice mail canceling the rental and promising to return deposit - uh, once again have to ask, as with yesterday PR dude, why are we here in court? P not trying to gouge money, just attempting to recoup deposit, and we just heard the message where D canceled rental and said she'd return the money. And forget 4 grand countersuit, you don't collect rent when you decide NOT to let tenant move in. Time for commercial, but now we're going to get to hear about the "threat" which D says gave her the right to cancel - and it had better NOT be, as preview suggests, that during kerfuffle P says, "don't forget, I'm an ex-cop"... what is that even supposed to mean? I have law enforcement people in my circle of family and friends, never once have I felt threatened knowing they were cops. Besides, depending on what kind of nurse P is, she may well have seen more death and mayhem while wearing scrubs than while wearing a police uniform (moment to shout out to my nurse relatives - especially older sister who took all she could working on a pediatric burn ward before transferring)... ok, nothing more to it, after commercial she tells us, then repeats, that the threat was "hey, remember, I was a cop"... and that "threat" should entitle her to keep the rent after she, the D, canceled rental arrangement!?! (P explains that cop history only came up after D refused to refund the deposit and she responds "I was a cop, you're not going to scam me!" Oh boy! Remember when I commented that P was D's best evidence.... now totalling changed around as D couldn't help P's case more if she were trying... happened to pause to type while camera was on D - standing there, tongue licking lips, hand on hip, looking up in air, as MM lectures her that she had no legitimate reason to keep any of the deposit. P gets her deposit - D gets a lecture and nada penny - still arguing nonsense in hallway until Doug sends her on her way
car repair nonsense: ok, P's story is she took her Mercedes to D for repair after an accident - D ends up keeping car 122 days because seat belt was on back order - in order for P to get reimbursed for rental she needs D to provide insurance carrier proof - D refuses to provide proof and refuses to release car - she's suing for the $2788 she's out for a rental car... Defendant - he provided proof to insurance company - they authorized her a 30 day rental - he had no further input with insurance company denying rental past 30 days, and the back order was beyond his control - he owes nothing - he's countersuing $1767 and change as he has yet to be paid in full for the repair... ok, D intro sounds reasonable - but preview has him being told by judge to stop barking at her - oh, and and litigant showed up in the yellowest yellow shirt possible, with blue plaid jacket- my question, where the he!! Did he find that outfit, and does he own a mirror... testimony... hmmmm so far intro on track - P rear-ended on highway, other driver at fault and their insurance adjuster recommended D - P took their recommendation and gave her car to D - D takes 4 months to do repair - he says nationwide back order on needed parts (seatbelt) and out of his control... think I'd want some proof of that claim and proof of his efforts to track down the parts... so does MM, and she sends D looking for proof of when seatbelt were ordered - over to P while D digs through papers - ah ha, seems insurance adjuster report claimed P was partially to blame - which explains why D wasn't paid in full and why they cut off her rental - sounds like adjuster was working for other driver's insurance - if she was rear-ended not sure how she's liable, but that's a different case, maybe she ought to be going after the insurance company and the other driver... and I'm wondering if she has same carrier as other guy - if not why not get her insurance to pay.... ok, she got a lawyer, and he duked it out with insurance company ('round here we have Loncar, accident attorney, forever on TV talking about going against insurance companies to get what they owe - well, actually his firm, as he died a couple years ago)... anyway, once her attorney is involved the insurance backs off and agrees to pay 100% of her repair bill (so what's with countersuit?) - and they give her is $714 towards the rental - ah, and turns out she has pending case against other driver and insurance company - not sure why we're here before that case is settled... ok, MM asks, how does P think D owes anything for the rental? Her answer is the length of time it took - why way past the estimated time (think originally 3-4 weeks) - insurance apparently promised to reimburse her for rental - but when it took 4 months and bill totaled over $3500 they backtracked and actually give her $700.... again, sounds like fight should be with carrier, unless she's about to prove carrier asked D for proof of the backorder and he tracked his feet... she's saying he kept telling her he was keeping insurance carrier updated on backorder, but carrier saying they were not receiving anything... sounds like a bunch of hearsay, does she have anything proving what she says carrier was saying - and is it defendant's burden to prove anything if she doesn't? Thinking case not ripe, either needs to be bundled with pending case or wait til other case is settled - ah well, MM's the judge with a law degree, so will have to go with her request that D needs to prove what HE's saying - not that unreasonable, customer making repeated calls wondering when her car will be ready, you would think guy might start keeping records of when he called his supplier instead of coming to court with just a couple invoices - 1 date part ordered and other when it arrived 4 months later... and, 'nother player introduced when D claims not-my-job to keep insurance carrier updated on back order, his supplier should have been doing that - not buying that for a second - her car was in his shop because of recommendation of adjuster, he's the one with business relationship with both the carrier and P, and the one with duty to keep both informed - what, next his supplier will dodge responsibility and say HIS supplier should have been updating everyone - guess we could follow that logic all the way back to manufacturer... recess for D to get what MM says should be simple to provide - the proof from his supplier - after recess (AKA commercial break) - D finally tracks down 2 invoices he claims to have - second reason for recess was get proof his supplier was keeping carrier updated on back order - failed here, claims he was told by parts manager they can't print back order info/status - sounds like hearsay double talk... MM doesn't accept this, and orders D to provide name and number of this parts manager to P - I guess so she can give it to lawyer to use in the pending case - no, seems her lawyers only interested in part of her case they get a cut of, which is why she's fighting this part of her claim alone (MM isn'the too happy with lawyer on this)... oh, and MM tells us she had staff on hand to witness D calling this manager and being told he couldn't print the records of notifying carrier of the back order status. Ah, the counterclaim.... uh, no, not ripe for same foot dragging reasons - insurance on record promising to pay for both rental and car repair - P already having to fight carrier over the rental bill, and now D told he needs to go after carrier for rest of repair bill... oh, 'nother possible reason her lawyers are pursuing rental portion of bill might be she signed a release when she accepted the $700 towards the bill agreeing to settle rental bill - nothing said about that today, but first thing that popped in my mind when she mentioned they paid $700 towards bill

Edited January 29, 2019 by SRTouch

SRTouch · January 29, 2019

2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Whoa buddy. Traveling nurse in second case dodged a bullet! Living with that screechy harpy would have been a nightmare.

You just know the micro-managing would have been off the chain. Harpy ain't gonna be happy with the way nurse cooks in the kitchen, the times of coming and going.... Most likely would be snooping around the room, too.

Oh yeah, precious sentimentally valuable dresser was dead giveaway - can't have P scratching the dresser with her TV.

AngelaHunter · January 29, 2019

29 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

r 4 grand for stress, aggravation and embarrassment...

I've been stressed, embarrassed and aggravated many times in my life. Why did I never think of requesting 4K for that?

31 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

whoever it was that mentioned all these litigants with backpacks and suitcases slung over their shoulder and wondering if anybody searches them has me thinking rough looking woman might have an uzi or MAC10 hidden away.

I mentioned that. I still have no answer. Am I incorrect in thinking that in a real court - even small claims - litigants would not be permitted to stand before a judge with all kinds of luggage and bags on them? Considering our times, that seems a little dangerous to me, but oh, well. Mamma was terrifying. I wouldn't mess with her either. I've also never heard of an invitation being required before attending a funeral. Is this something that is actually done? I've been to more than my share of funerals (where there were no "donnybrooks" fistfights or altercations of any kind) and never heard of this. IME, a notice is put in the paper and anyone who wants to show up, does. Maybe what's needed for funerals of today are bouncers?

36 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

room rental:

Couldn't stand def - not her "soiree" outfit (she's the type who thinks dressing up in her casino best is appropriate for an afternoon court case), her cleavage, her attitude, her big mouth or her nasty accent. You'd think someone who has to take constant care of her "young, 26-year old" daughter might rethink having strangers move into her home. Plaintiff wanted a 32" TV on the wall in her room for which she was going to be paying a hefty rent? Outrageous! Def's walls are made of papier mache I guess with no studs in the wall - no wall-mounted TVs! And putting a thin, light flatscreen on her treasured dresser? Also out of the question. No TV! I really think def. would be better off selling the house if she can't afford to live there without inviting strangers to bunk in with her, and buying a place she can afford. Imagine trying to live with her? Plaintiff agreed to go under the radar and dispense with Air B'nB (or whatever it's called) to maybe save a few bucks, but found out, as JM always says - the cheap comes out expensive.

Broderbits · January 29, 2019

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Couldn't stand def - not her "soiree" outfit (she's the type who thinks dressing up in her casino best is appropriate for an afternoon court case), her cleavage, her attitude, her big mouth or her nasty accent.

I thought she looked like a bad Liza Minnelli impersonator. When she went on and on about being totally responsible for a 26 year old ( I didn't hear the part about that person being her daughter, thought she just rented a room to a college student) it raised a red flag. She probably is the landlady from hell who snoops through rooms whenever she wants because "it's MY house".

AngelaHunter · January 30, 2019

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

When she went on and on about being totally responsible for a 26 year old ( I didn't hear the part about that person being her daughter, thought she just rented a room to a college student) it raised a red flag.

I could be mistaken! Between my attention wandering and my hearing problem, I guess I just assumed from her going on about being so protective of a 26-year old "girl" that this was her daughter. Did she think plaintiff was going to do something terrible to this "girl"? Lead her down the wrong path?

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

I thought she looked like a bad Liza Minnelli impersonator.

Totally. A really bad one.:p

CrazyInAlabama · January 30, 2019

If you can judge court TV security by what every courthouse I've been in around here (for business, not lawsuits) on court days, and sometimes others, you go through a security gate before entering the building. At least to go to the court sections you have security.

The local court houses here are also where you go for real estate records, drivers and car license and registration, and a lot of other things, so sometimes the court house is separate, but a lot of times it's part of the same building.

I'm sure every person entering the studio sets is searched, and probably go through a security gate.

Edited January 30, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

SRTouch · January 30, 2019

Ho-hum day, with dog park/dog attack for 3rd case

Hatfield and McCoys: whoa, neighbors from hell case begins with P already sitting in courtroom - a not quite so little old lady - she says there's ongoing beef going on with the upstairs neighbor, D - claims after a kerfuffle she found car keyed - now afraid to come out of her apartment - suing for car damage, harrassment, stress, anxiety, etc etc and comes up to figure of $2441.24----- defendant: ah, one of those fools who marches in with no hesitation nor idea of where she's going, never fails to amaze me when fools march in, bypass the empty lectern, and head towards somewhere behind the cameras... really, never seen, heard or read about a courtroom drama... says she did no car keying, says just because she and P's roomy have history of beefs is no reason to assume she's the one who did the deed (in preview she yakking about how the roomy has, in past, bragged about stuff HE's done to other neighbor's he's had beefs with) - says surprised when she learned of lawsuit and there's no proof she did the damage - owes P nada (not sure what's going on off camera while intro clown is doing his shtick, but gallery and D sure enjoying it - probably Douglas making fun of D's entrance)... just looking at these three, waiting for case to start - P looks kind of pathetic and picked on, D standing in figleaf position a step or two behind lectern really doesn't want to be here - and I'm picking up some real "bully vibe" from P's roomy/witness as he lounges in the witness chair (to be fair, later mentioned he's had knee and hip surgery, so maybe chair hard for him to sit in) - don't expect much in way of case here - unless there's a surprise video or witness.... testimony... hmmm, according to P, kerfuffle she had with D (upstairs neighbor from hell) began with D having "agitated" discussion with roomy/witness/companion, Steve, about a package D claims was delivered and is missing - MM calls Steve up, and he hobbles over to lectern, he has no idea why D would think he took her package - over to D - why would you think good old Steve ripped off your package?... Ah, here's the preview clip... D says when she first moved in, maybe 4 years ago, before relationship with Steve hit crapper, Steve told her about his beef with a different upstairs neighbor, how he ripped off that neighbor's packages, took mail and threw it in garbage, etc (totally unsubstantiated charges, but fits my first impression of Steve) - ok, here is a time when I'd agree with JJ and tell D "just-ah-MOVE! You're moving into place where a neighbor brags about committing federal offenses to harrass a neighbor. Start saving up and move - or at very least, invest in a security camera and include instructions for any delivery not be left out, either to be signed for and/or picked up at UPS, FEDEX, whatever...." ok, D telling us about the various neighbors Steve has had kerfuffles with, the various ways he harassed them, but unless she's hiding them outside or has affidavits in the big purse she put down when she came in, she has no evidence of what she's saying - oh, but wait, as MM points out, D is saying she knew about Steve's harassing ways, but never said anything or told the other neighbors it was Steve throwing away mail, leaving neighbor's new jeans out on lawn, and messing with their satellite dish, no, she just let that stuff slide until Steve turned his attention on her, and NOW she's complaining... uh, yeah, sort of fits her body language during intro - sort of a wallflower, not making waves, but not complete mouse and finally, when Steve comes after her - then mouse roars... after commercial, MM asks D what prompted Steve to turn against her - well, she says, she became friendly with the neighbors he was feuding with - they stopped talking, and when her package went missing she admits she assumed it was Steve up to his tricks - switching back to P side of aisle, MM has P answering questions, Steve still standing at lectern and REALLY wants to answer the questions - MM has him sit before he actually interrupts - continues to ask P questions, and now that Steve is sitting he starts chiming in, getting away with it at first before MM tells him to stop - slows down, but never really stops being butt-in-ski - ok, couple days pass after the package brouhaha before Steve notices car has been keyed - any evidence it was D, sounds like Steve is feuding with every neighbor in building - now both Steve and P try to say it had to be D because they get along with everyone else - well not according to testimony - only thing is, it's suspicious how nobody struck back until D entered the feud, but that hardly amounts to proof she did the deed - Under questioning Steve denies feuding with satellite dish downstairs neighbor, but admits not really getting along with other neighbor D claims he stole mail from, and MM tells Steve she's not buying his story.... ok, time running out - kind of interesting watching these folks, not real interesting, but enough that I haven't resorted to zip button - ok, 'nother commercial, then expect dismissal after street dufus talks to peanut gallery.... yep, case dismissed.... ah, and during hallterview D tells us she's looking for new place, so she is "just-gonna-ah-move"
30 years friend won't pay for work: another dude wearing big satchel slung around neck - get bets down now on whether he walks out without ever putting it down or removing evidence - P big dude with brillo pad hair - story is he agreed to help friend of 30 years out installing blinds in new place - says he was to be paid $350 - friend now denying he was to be paid.... heck, if I went to help a friend set up new place is might expect pizza and drinks, and unless it's my business is wouldn't expect - or accept - money- anyway, since he had to sue, he's decided to tack a grand onto claim for - well, so he can go to barber, I guess.... D intro... ah, turns out he supplied the blinds - not sure if he hung them or not... ok, maybe I would expect some money if I was supplying the blinds (but, if, as D intro says, these were old blinds he had laying around I'd probably just give them to my old friend as a house warming gift).... anyway, D says she had blinds, but his old blinds were better, so when he offered she accepted - but no mention of payment was made until much later - she owes nothing (I agree, but would probably offer to give his blinds back - even if I had already disposed of my old ones). ah, second case in row with no counterclaim... testimony... ok - turns out P values the blinds at $350, but figures having to chase friend of over 30 years is worth an additional $1000 - ok, his testimony is that he had moved, brought his old blinds from old place, had nowhere to store them, so they had been in trunk of car ever since (about a year he tells us) - but they're worth every penny of $350 he's asking plus ending the 30 years friendship, which has distressed him to tune of a grand? .... uh, nope, not happening, maybe, if he has text or something showing D agreed to pay him, but forget this silly $1000 tack on.... ok, he bought these from Penny's way back when, used them for 5 years until he moved out, stored them in car trunk for a year, and actually thinks D owes him $1350 - unless this guy shows these things are something extra special, he's either a loon or this case is made up for teevee - heck these better not be plastic blinds because after 6 years they're dried out and brittle, oh, and dirty - ok, his testimony kind of all over, says when he saw she didn't have blinds up & realized his old blinds would fit (apparently same cookie cutter style as his old place) he offered to "give" her his old ones, oh, he means sell them to her for $400, to be paid whenever she can, over time.... ok, maybe these were special blinds, he DOES say two of them were custom... ah, and now we hear she does start to pay him, he claims she paid him 50 bucks about a month later, and he jokingly asked when he could expect next payment - says she didn't appreciate his joke.... from his testimony she agreed to pay $400, has paid $50, which is why he's looking to collect $350.... sort of sounds like she acknowledged a debt, but got huffy and wants to renege... ok, he says he has most of this on text... soooo, D may be sunk unless she has that magic text where he tells her forget the debt, just keep and enjoy his 6yo blinds... while he's getting out his phone... hey! Camera dude, leave camera on dude longer so we can settle bet on whether he pulls anything out of that bag he has strapped on!... over to D - she admits she took his blinds, and used some of them after she cleaned them (says she rented up using maybe 6 of the 14) - and, yes, has pix of nice wood blinds... looks like a switcheroo in the making, ratty old blinds now nice wood blinds - and if a couple were custom made maybe worth money (but, after a year in my trunk I would have just given them to her) - and, if as P says, he has texts mentioning she started paying and then stopped, then started making excuses of why she was slow to pay - well P will have made his case for $350 - but not $1350.... ok, she's saying no mention of money when he gave her the blinds, weeks went by and she received text asking for $400, she responds by text, what $400, he texts back, for the blinds - which is why she gives him the $50 - and, course, she doesn't have these texts.... me, I wouldn't have said, here's $50, and then proceed to keep making up excuses every few weeks when asked for more money - no, I would have replied, are you serious? I didn't agree to pay anything! Come get your old blinds! But, that's just me.... D may not have her texts, but MM reads texts from P's phone where she repeatedly promises money, just like P testified... nope, looks like P is going to be the winner... some dancing around by D, but she's going down and I zip to decision at commercial break ... he gets the $350, and even he has to snicker when told he isn't getting the extra grand..... so, those in on bet - we don't know if he pulled any evidence from bag because silly camera dude shifted the camera angle, but he walks out never removing it from shoulder..... and I still suspect this may have been a made up case for teevee.... loser D treats Doug like paparazzi with hand up shielding face as he tries to do hallterview, while admitted "jokester" stops to ham it up... nope, didn't listen, zipped on through to next case
uh-huh nope - dog attack at dog park.... mini-rant... dog parks are a mystery to me. Even if I have the best, most social and well trained dog in the world, why take him/her to a place and turn her/him loose into a group of dogs I know nothing about. All it takes is one untrained/undersocialized dog, and a few moments of owners' inattention, and a group of playful sweeties into a pack. I used to watch Cesar Milan - granted they may have gone to numerous dog parks before Cesar spotted a problem, but it seemed like every time he went to a dog park there was a dog fight - often NOT with the problem dog he was there filming about.... Oh well, if you haven't already guessed, this is one I skipped

Edited January 30, 2019 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · January 30, 2019

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Hatfield and McCoys: whoa, neighbors from hell case begins with P already sitting in courtroom

Oh, that Steve, now. I think we all know the type - a small-minded, mouthy, utter asshole with too much time on his hands. I had some upstairs neighbours like him when I was renting my final apartment. My husband-to-be moved in with me while we waited for our new house to be constructed. My "Steve" upstairs was always butting his horn into the business of others and the best part was when he confronted us on the stairs and told my fiance (and we were actually "affianced" and did get married and I didn't even have to buy my own ring!) that he was just "trying to take over the building." Yeah, a noble aspiration and that accusation had both of us in hysterics. Anyway, in this case I totally believe Steve broke the neighbour's dish and took def's package. He's just the type to do so. If plaintiff lady wants to sue someone for her "anxiety" she needs to sue ol' Steve.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

30 years friend won't pay for work

It was nice to hear a litigant who could speak his own language competently for a change. I was expecting these blinds to be the cheap, crappy vinyl type like mine, but they were really nice - seemed to be bamboo and plantation blinds - and expensive when new. Def, who is kind of nasty, declares there "wasn't never no agreement" to pay for them. She's a liar. If there wasn't no agreement, why did she give him 50$ and then over and over pull the old, "I'll pay you - later" and that later never came? If she had just skipped one appointment to get her weirdly-coloured mauve cornrows done, she could have paid him. Nice way to scam a friend of 30 years. Def. is unhappy with being exposed as a low-down deadbeat who would cheat an old friend and doesn't even want to talk to Doug in the Hall. Is it possible she actually has some shame, something unknown to most losing litigants? Somehow I don't think so.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dog parks are a mystery to me.

One of the worst inventions ever, along with "invisible fences". Clueless owners who are too lazy to walk the dogs they wanted just dump them all together and when something untoward happens, they sue. I actually took the dogs I owned for two or three good walks every day. I would never subject them to the chaotic situation of a dog park. It's not fair to them, since they are not Care Bears who will magically get along with every other dog and play nicely. We've seen on this show that human beings, who supposedly have the big brains, can't get along without attacking each other constantly, but they expect dogs to do just that? Remember the pre-dog park days, when people got off their butts and exercised their dogs? Totally skipped this case.

SRTouch · January 31, 2019

@AngelaHunter said "Oh, that Steve, now. I think we all know the type - a small-minded, mouthy, utter asshole with too much time on his hands"

Had me going for a second. While I use SRTOUCH here, my name is actually Steve - then I remembered Steve was P's roomy/witness/companion... LOL

Edited January 31, 2019 by SRTouch
Post dropped the quote for some reason

AngelaHunter · January 31, 2019

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Had me going for a second. While I use SRTOUCH here, my name is actually Steve

Now that is funny! You know I would never call you a small-minded, mouthy, utter asshole, right? Haha!

SRTouch · January 31, 2019

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Now that is funny! You know I would never call you a small-minded, mouthy, utter asshole, right? Haha!

Course not! Anybody who knows me knows I'm not 'mouthy 😆'

SRTouch · January 31, 2019

hit&run (?) parked car(?) driven by red or blond headed woman hitting poor unlicensed, uninsured, deadbeat dad: Not going to be normal recap.... nah, tablet ate that and not worth retyping... extremely irritating, smug, a$$, D, with totally implausible story of how P's blond gf smashed into him and totaled both their cars - oh, and all P's car damage is in rear (looks like back bumper now in back seat) and front of D's car smashed - D arrested at scene for repeatedly being cited for driving without license, tries to argue no license does NOT have anything to do with his driving ability - nah, licensed suspended because of back child support (dude, that may be why you lost license - which has little to do with repeatedly being cited for driving without license) tries tell Judge he was only cited once - fool! You're talking to a former asst state attorney and retired criminal judge, who IIRC graduated with a 4.0 GPA before going to law school, my guess is she would NOT be pressing the question without KNOWING exactly how many times cited... nah, fool tries to say once, which is changed to a "couple", then "several", nope, not good nuf, MM says, I have your record in front of me, how many times? Ah, too many to count, but this is first time he has been in an accident, he tries to say, to excuse his record - yeah, just what a retired judge loves to hear, I routinely ignore the law and do whatever I want while putting other motorists in physical and financial danger, but this is first time I caused damage (oh, and according to P a witness stopped him from fleeing scene - so really all we know is this is first time he was caught damaging property)... this is point I gave up and zipped ahead - never heard police report - which, if P's story is true will have at least 1 eyewitness statement... rough justice - D total scumbag - deadbeat dad to boot - but sounds like P tries to pad claim - he wants not just car value, but car towed before he had chance to get Christmas present (diamond bracelet) hidden in car out - nope, THAT ain't going to fly - oh, and there's a countersuit - seems unlicensed D wants to be paid for value of his car - the one he was driving illegally - that was almost as funny as his theory of how P's sleeping gf rammed his car and only damage occurred to front if his car and rear of P's. P wins paltry $1100 (think he tried for over 4 grand)
roommate kerfuffle: P suing to get back rent she ended up being stuck with when D moved out 3 months before lease ended D claims P's bf was always there sponging of them without contributing, say she got fed up, gave notice, and moved out.... well, ok, but you don't just give notice and break lease without paying a penalty... oh, and fear these young ladies might just get MM's kid gloves sorority girl treatment... testimony: uh oh... all you folks who get irritated over college students not speakin' good are going to love P's opening "so, basically it started- me and Natalie..." were HS besties, went to same college, lived in dorm together freshman year, then rented apartment together as sophomores - bf came into picture - bestie relationship flushed down crapper - Yada Yada - lost interest, zipped ahead - hey, Little girl defendant, lease is legal obligation - P wins (along with grammer, P needs some financial math homework - she forgot to subtract the security deposit D paid)... actually, first I heard D speak was in halltetview, and she sounded like the smart one - she acknowledges the lease as a legally binding contract - her argument was extenuating circumstances when P's bf all but moved in... I might buy that depending on how she presented it in court as grounds for renegotiating rent share agreement with P, or even a constructive eviction
homeowner/contractor case: P hired contractor to build new front porch - contractor never completed work - has cart full of tools which I guess were abandoned at job site - says took forever for guy to begin work - finally shows up and does demo - disappears again leaving front of house disaster/construction zone - wants $1700 ---defendant intro: admits start of job was delayed - blames the weather - says when he finally began he was injured when debris went into eye - couldn't work for awhile - upset he was fired and P found someone else to do job.... dude, I could buy weather delay (might want a printout of weather during the period if there's slightest doubt) - but, your injury? No, if you're unable to do work, you're breaching contract and P has every right to hire someone else - but, you should be paid for work you did plus any materials you purchased out of pocket... no idea why P would have cart full of tools in court... testimony: ok, actually have written contract - total job was to be for $2200, P paid $1000 deposit and later additional $700.... uh, not looking good for return of $1700 as we already know SOME work was done - more than suggested in intro, since when asked we learn D did demo plus work on new deck for porch.... having some communication problems with P's accent and his wanting to give Douglas a workout and carry one picture at a time up to judge - MM ends up calling P up so he can explain the pix - ok, if I have this right, D did the demo, completed deck portion, injured before completing railing and steps - P says to complete job he had to pay additional $1600 for materials and second guy received $500.... uh, so $2200 for original quote, looks like a lot of work done before second guy hired... really curious to see receipt for the additional $1600 in materials - did D not buy/deliver needed materials - maybe job substantially underbid - other choice is P changed job up and/or is lying to pad claim (what am I saying - litigants never pad the claim) - ah, but the time frame - D hired and paid a grand in March - received additional $700 in May - P finally hired someone else to in July - P not due everything he paid back, but have feeling the contractors' daughter/sister in MM is going to go after D - ok, switch to other side of aisle - D says rained every Tuesday and Wednesday through months of March and April... ok, now's when I would ask for those rainfall charts to prove that - rain does not automatically shut down construction, maybe we're talking Noah Ark type rain... dude doing the litigant two step and MM tells him to stop dancing and stand at the lectern - which has lady behind his shoulder smiling big... even going by D testimony, he didn't actually start work until middle to late May (3 months after receiving deposit) and now getting second check for $700... ok, I get P wanting full refund - he was mad and fed up with fast talking, hand waving jerk who apparently left tools and a mess for months - then when P tried to light a fire under him to get job done, finally had to hire someone else (3 months later) and jerk is threatening to sue P for 10 grand for the tools, yeah, I get he wanted full refund - but wouldn't give it... what D is saying is that porch was pretty much finished, but steps needed to be changed (apparently, he built them heading towards driveway and h6oneowner wanted them turned 90 degrees to head towards street - not sure if a change order or miscommunication with client and who should end up footing that portion of bill) - that's when he gets something in eye - and he tells us he needs surgery to remove the debris from eye - says when he was hurt P fired him and hired this new guy - P wanted $1000 refund of the $1700 already paid.... ok, D was foot dragging, but it'll take some real convincing to make me give P full refund - don't believe second guy needed $1600 in materials... steps apparently built, but needed to be disassembled, swung 90 degrees and put back together - I could go with the $500 labor, and a few boards or different footings for different location, but no way would changing steps amount to $2100 when complete job was $2200 - ok, I was leaning towards defendant (even though I'm not liking him and wouldn't hire him to bird a birdhouse) but dude just took big hit... not only did he drag his feet for 5 months without completing the job, he can't really argue how much of the $1700 he was paid went for materials (no receipts) and when he was fired he had not delivered all the materials to job site, and admits he told homeowner to come get them - ah, his eye was all swollen, he couldn't do anything (apparently contractor dude doesn't have any friends with a pick up or trailer which could deliver the materials).... more this guy says more I dislike him - phase 'punitive damages' starting to arise... ok, MM not happy with D and orders him to return $1200, maybe she values his work at $500 - guess I'm good with that - we learn this was composite materials, so pricey, and maybe there was less reusable material after moving the steps than I would expect from regular dimensional lumber - we never did see the list of what P says he had to buy to finish job - but wouldn't be surprised if MM saw it... if my reckoning is right, P ended up spending around $2600 on the estimated $2200 job... D probably did more than $500 worth of work, but MM figured a hand slap was in order.... oh, and the tools, D does get the tools back (long way from 10 grand worth going by quick look st cart) and MM laughingly tells P she understands/sympathizes why P might hold them hostage, but he can't do that.

Edited January 31, 2019 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · January 31, 2019

44 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

hit&run (?) parked car(?) driven by red or blond headed woman hitting poor unlicensed, uninsured, deadbeat dad

Can someone explain why this smug, sociopathic piece of shit is not in jail? So despicable and slimy was he that he makes Levin look like an upstanding, ethical person. He doesn't support his kids, (the mother of whom was terminally desperate) he's hopped up on pills (oh, but he doesn't drink! Guess the pills don't mix well with booze) and he can't count how many times he's been stopped by the cops and/or arrested and he's still walking and driving around, a free man. He actually expected JM to believe he was going to work at a car dealership at 5:30a.m.? But really, I understand why he stood there grinning as though this was all a joke - because it is! He's going at warp speed when he crashes into plainitiff's car, and emerges intact. No matter what he does he never has to pay a penalty. License suspended? He drives anyway. Doesn't support the kids? Why should he? And here today, he was ordered to pay 1100$ which the show will pay. I guess the authorities are waiting for him to kill someone before they'll put him where he belongs. Maybe. I just wish JM had the power to do what she said she'd like to do - arrest him on felonies. He didn't care. The douchebag smirk never left his douchebag face. Such a joke is all this to him that he countersued the plaintiff. It's infuriating. I'd love to see him in prison, getting the shit beaten out of him every day just for being the douchebag he is. Plaintiff just had to go the greedy route and claim every expensive tool he owned, including a compressor, was in his ancient Grand Prix. He also claimed a diamond necklace he hid there from his girlfriend. Maybe it was there, but he said he bought it for cash, which apparently means a jewlery store refuses to give a receipt for an expensive item. I buy things sometimes with cash as well, but never has a merchant not given me a receipt.

59 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

roommate kerfuffle:

I hate roommate cases. I hate even more roommate cases where college students don't know even basic grammar. "Me and Natalie were..." "Everything was going good" and that's all I got, because then we hear that def's dipshit, irresponsible fool of an uncle thought these these two idiotic baby "students" really should have a 6-week old puppy. FF. Next!

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

D says rained every Tuesday and Wednesday through months of March and April... ok, now's when I would ask for those rainfall charts to prove that

Yeah, I remember the dates of every time it rained here for the past 3 months, but what about Monday, Thursday and Friday? Ho hum - another contractor who doesn't do what he was paid to do, has every excuse in the book aside from an apocalypse for not finishing a job and explains this with incessant yammering and gesturing. Oh, shut up.

DoctorK · January 31, 2019

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

The douchebag smirk never left his douchebag face.

Not only that, if you watched carefully, that jerk was trying to flirt with JM, turning his head slightly, raising one corner of his mouth, and even winking at her. I wish JM had taken note of that and eviscerated him in front of the whole TV audience.

AngelaHunter · February 1, 2019

25 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Not only that, if you watched carefully, that jerk was trying to flirt with JM, turning his head slightly, raising one corner of his mouth, and even winking at her

I know! He thought he was adorable and sex-ay! "Grotesque" and "disgusting" would be my description for him, but as I've said before, we can't entirely blame these blights on society for their inflated opinions of themselves. I just bet he, and all the other wastes of oxygen we see have multiple potential girlfriends just champing at the bit for their chance at these prizes. Colour me perpetually puzzled and appalled. I'd rather spend the rest of my life alone. On a deserted island. With monkeys for company.

CrazyInAlabama · February 1, 2019

From previews, one of the rerun episodes next week (I get two a day here, one rerun, and one new/rerun daily), is the watermelon Trader Joe's shopping cart crash. I hope it really is one that airs, since the shows are happy to show previews that aren't next week, just entertaining.

Edited February 1, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · February 1, 2019

The new case with the 10 year relationship couple that split, and he moved on to miss pneumatic chest right after is funny. The 'center of my universe" stare by the plaintiff's new girlfriend would do a cheated on politician's wife proud. The cheating by the plaintiff isn't with the pneumatic chest witness. What a sleazy character he is. Everything, including house, land, stocks were all in her name, for 'convenience', meaning someone is looking for his cash, for either child support, criminal fines, restitution, etc. He looks like a total sleaze, but apparently is a hot item on the boyfriend circuit in Florida. Defendant is suing for damages from the solar system he rigged on her roof, and it means that the roof will have to be replaced to prevent further roof leaks. The bimbo is his beloved wife, who he was auditioning before the total breakup. He also wants his dogs back. They actually had a visitation schedule at her house, and they were to share pet sitting, but he agreed to pet sit, and lied. The decision is to enforce visitation, money to remove wind turbine, and pet sitting fees. Why do I suspect there was a pole involved in the romantic meeting of the plaintiff and wife? Plaintiff tells Doug that he'll pursue criminal charges for the stock sale, good luck with that loser. Plaintiff gets $1687, and is still a jerk.

Man parks his 2004 Motorcycle against woman's bumper where she claims she couldn't see it, and she backed up and hit it. She says that her insurance just lapsed (doesn't it always?), and that man got on his motorcycle and rode away, but now wants $6k for a janky motorcycle. There was a police report made later. Judge Marilyn sees pictures of a 14 year old motorcycle, that has repair bills higher than the price of the bike. Plaintiff get $1000 for repairs. Insurance would have totaled it out for that price, and he came out even.

A funny case. Grandma of idiot granddaughter loaned her $1,000 for the down payment on a town house purchase from the defendant for $30,000. Plaintiff loaned the money to the granddaughter, so she could purchase a townhouse with her baby and the fiance to live in. THe deal was pay $1k down, and pay $500 a month for five years, and she would own the townhouse. There was a previous buyer who defaulted on the loan, and abandoned the property. What the hell kind of townhouse can you buy for $30,000? Then someone was killed a few blocks away, and they no longer wanted to move there. Grandma says she didn't want her family living in a neighborhood where "the Caucasians would get eaten up". I guess the neighborhood was mostly black, and fiance or husband is white, and grandma doesn't like that.

The granddaughter, guy, and baby actually lived there for a month at least, and the owner doesn't have the keys back yet.

What kind of townhouse can you buy for $30,000? And grandma says it wasn't nice?

Grandma is told she has no standing to sue, and that's right, unless she wants to sue granddaughter for not paying her back.

Edited February 1, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

patty1h · February 1, 2019

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The new case with the 10 year relationship couple that split, and he moved on to miss pneumatic chest right after is funny. The 'center of my universe" stare by the plaintiff's new girlfriend would do a cheated on politician's wife proud.

That woman had a great body, I admit, and I give the plaintiff credit that he didn't go for a 25 year old model -- she is at least age-appropriate for him.

Broderbits · February 1, 2019

The plaintiff's adoring girlfriend should have spent less on her chest and done something with her hair and face. It's not nice to say, but I found her very unattractive. In fact, I imagine the plaintiff in drag would make a prettier woman. And yes, I am going straight to hell!

SRTouch · February 1, 2019

Well, looks like Baby Girl (Penelope, the computer whiz character from Criminal Minds) got a hair cut, and a new, toned down outfit for first case

Almost married breakup: wind blown Redford hair from yesteryear brought latest squeeze to court, I'm assuming just to show ex Penelope his latest plastic Barbie doll upgrade - from intro, when they broke up after 10 years, Baby Girl cleaned him out and even stole his dog(s) - wants 5 grand and dog --- Defendant intro: says they went to lawyer and wrote up a "break up" agreement - dirty cheater broke terms of agreement, so she decided to grab all she could - I gather at least part of dispute is custody/visitation of the dogs - she wants $4950 for dog sitting/boarding (guessing when agreement said P was supposed to have scheduled visitation/dog sitting duty) geez, wonder what JJ would say about these never-marrieds.... no almost married courts, but it's really a contract case... testimony: not sure why some litigants cone in, stand looking around waiting for case to start, then start rearranging papers when judge starts to speak - wannabe Bobby Redford pulls out a pen and starts reading his notes while MM is summarizing case for us... yes, unfavorable first impression of P - while I like Penelope character, but don't expect D to come off all that well once she starts talking... oh, yeah, P really over acting when MM asks her first question, was breakup mutual? He poses with glasses, pen in hand, hesitates, looks up to ceiling as he thinks how to answer.... heck, my dislike is growing.... he points glasses at D, without even looking in her direction, indicating she broke up with him - but at same time saying breakup was mutual - crossing aisle, MM asks D why the break up? Cuz she caught him cheating - is that who he was cheating with? asks MM, doing some pointing of her own - nah, don'the answer, not important... I figure this is newest upgrade, he was caught with someone else... so, back to P, let's hear about the breakup agreement, the "cohabitation dissolvement agreement" he says. He tries to make a big deal about how, when he was caught and she gave him the boot, he agreed to move out of the family home and not contest the approximate $100,000 equity... but house was in her name alone, so unless he found a favorable judge I would not expect much had he tried to contest it.... once again MM is messing up a litigant's carefully scripted story with pesky questions - not only is she interrupting, but she actually expects an answer (yes, my low opinion of P is getting lower, and so far still like D - so expect switcheroo in the wings... ok, apparently he wants to go through their agreement line by line - he got $15,000 cash, a property in Dominic (pointing get out not the Dominican Republic, but island of Dominic, where Hurricane Maria hit, a jacuzzi, etc etc - bunch of yakity yak I barely listen to, waiting to hear why he thinks she owns him over 5 grand - as often is the case, MM seems to know the audience's eyes are starting to glaze over, so she cuts off his reading of contract and has Douglas bring it to her - ok, crux of matter is some jointly owned stock, which per agreement was still "joint" property, but he says D sold and pocketed the money... ah, we quickly learn that, like the house, the stock was solely in her name - but agreement states he has to agree with any sale.... Ok, MM is starting to treat this like divorce court, talking about who put how much into their joint/co-mingled accounts - nah, way I see it (in my admittedly simplistic mind) - let's look at this "cohabitation dissolvement agreement" - treat it like a binding contract - determine who breached it first - if he breached first - well, stock legally hers, hers to sell - don't want her unjustly enriched, though - he either has to prove his share or accept amount she agrees with... ah, for first time in awhile D speaks, MM asks and D agrees P probably paid for amount of stock he claims was his... hmmm, sounds like amount he's due will be determined when we get to Rough Justice Time (remembering it might be offset by her counterclaim).... ok, now focus shifts to D - and she's not sounding all that good - they had this agreement, which she signed, and now wants to renegotiate... he mounted solar panels on roof, she agreed he could take them, he did, roof damaged when they were removed, she wants to claim a breach... uh no, should have thought that out before you signed.... ah, the stock P is upset about, contract says was not to be sold without his say so... she admits she sold it, claiming she sold all the stock for little over 6 grand (rough guess done from memory - she admits around 60% of stock was his), but claims he had already breached agreement by sticking her with dog boarding costs which is basis of countersuit.... so my reckoning would be he should receive 60% of the 6 grand so around $3600, for the stock - have to wait and see if he gets anything else and whether she gets any of her $4 grand counter... ok, now the dog clause - which is really 4 pets, 2 dogs and 2 cats, but P mainly interested in his favorite dog - MM reads us the clause - anybody else think that language was just asking for trouble. Seems their agreement specifically has dates when P was to have custody/care based on D's travel plans - what got her panties in a wad, and made her decide to sell the stock, was P didn't take the animals as scheduled, she ended up boarding them, costing over a grand, then what with needed roof repairs after solar oanel removal, and who knows what all else, she decides to sell the stock, and pocket the money... nah, sorry Baby Girl, If you show he reneged on dog sitting duty I say he pays board bill, but nothing so far suggests he owes for roof repairs.... P freely admits he bailed on pet sitting duty agreed to in contract, conflicted with his work schedule... apparently clauses in contract only legally binding when they fit his wants/needs, otherwise he ignores them... when asked why he gets to ignore pet clause, again with a prepared statement which, as long as I listened, had nothing to do with MM's question, why doesn't D deserve offset if she's out money because you bailed on pet sitting? First reason he gave for bailing was work conflict, now he begins with how he met, courted and married new squeeze/wife Barbie during period - guess too busy to care for pets he now wants taken from their home and given to him. Ok, getting down to wire as MM collects numbers - asking for roof estimate etc I don't think D gets - I just subtract pet fees from the $6055 she got from stock and give P 60%... ah, guess the agreement - which MM calls very comprehensive, specifies he remove a wind turbine in addition to his solar panels, he didn't, and it's going to cost D a grand to get it off her roof - so tack another grand onto pet boarding bill.... P declared the winner - of $1600 and change.... Losing D ok with decision - not happy, but accepts ruling - OTOH P tells Doug he thinks he might go after criminal charges for sale of HIS stock (yeah, stock not in his name, I'm sure DA will want to file
whoa! bonanza: P claims D backed into his legally parked motorcycle - has no insurance... ok, I get that and agree, but then he gets greedy and wants 6 grand - what I thought she backed INTO, not OVER the bike.... must be California case where max is $6000... defendant intro: doesn't deny she knocked bike over, but says no damage, and dude picked up bike and rode off into sunset, and later she received the 6 grand claim ... ok, long time bike rider here - very few bikes can be knocked over without SOME damage, so not buying NO DAMAGE, probably not something he needs to fix, thinking more parking lot ding - OTOH, unless this was a show bike with custom paint, chrome everything, or some exotic with impossible to find parts, I'd have Douglas escort nimrod (Elmer Fudd nimrod, not biblical 😉) out back for wasting our time.... uh oh, in preview we hear poor Defendant's insurance had "just lapsed" - if it turns out she a SSM I'm out of here testimony: ok, may not even wait that long - P actually claiming his 2004 Yamaha was damaged to tune of $6500 - what, is repair shop rebuilding the thing.... ah, this is turning into a background case, one of those I don't try to recap but leave droning in background, looking up when somebody says something interesting or truly stupid... oh no, can't leave D on the sceen, her yakking is going to give me a headache... OTOH, guess MM and the gallery find her entertaining as she does a stand up routine.... no question D was wrong (another in long line of litigants who apparently think laws are for other folk) - only question is whether estimate is as big a pile of 💩 as it sounds...zip zip ... P gets a grand... I back up, to see how MM came up with the amount - not sure, she says obvious damage done, but award should not exceed value - but not interested enough to back up to see what model Yamaha he has or the KBB value (yes, there is a Bike version of Kelly Blue Book)
old folks fighting over real estate deal: little old lady pays deposit on elderly D's townhouse for Granddaughter little family, she says partially based on assurance it was nice/safe neighborhood - not long afterwards, kid shot for sneakers - not so safe, she wants out of deal and return of deposit defendant intro: admits kid shot for sneakers, but says shooting over 3 blocks from house - besides, he was dealing with P's granddaughter, not P, so she has no standing in case... ok, granny might have every reason to back out of deal, butttt, she may have to eat the loss depending on whether this was rent or security deposit, and whether D knowingly lied about the safety of neighborhood (no way can he be expected to guarantee safety of neighborhood, but a visit to local precinct or Google search might have provided lady with statistics) - oh, and preview promises some laughs, as D has obviously watched many litigants claim to not have a vital text because it was on their old phone, so he points out his vital text evidence is on HIS old phone, and yes, he brought his OLD phone to court. testimony: ok, yeah, originally D offered his townhouse to granddaughter - granddaughter didn't have the money - asks granny - granny pays the grand it takes for Granddaughter, her fiancé, and the little great grand rug rat to move in.... uh huh, just starting out, but D intro questioning whether granny has standing might be relevant - may be best case in awhile... convoluted testimony from D about how he had sold place to someone else, got it back, and was now selling it to missing granddaughter, who has a missing fiancé who missed all the meetings about buying house for his wife/soon to be wife/ whatever and his baby.... sort of makes me wonder if young couple really backed out because of sneaker shooting or they just changed their minds. Ah, now the old phone shtick, where, among other things, we learn granny's gift/loan might have had strings because she really doesn't like the fiancé.... ah, not so much she doesn't like the nice young man, no you see he's a "Caucasian" and granny isn't too sure how the neighbors will like seeing white dude with her black granddaughter and baby... we've come a long way, Dr King, from days when we'd be condemning the young couple from even holding hands, to today when it's granny's reverse discrimination that gets looked askance at - ok, now shooting, and it does sound like it was granny who decided place was unsafe - maybe D knew and wasn't forthcoming, but the old phone text shows granddaughter asking D to canceal certain facts about the deal (like fact fiancé is still in picture), so could well be granddaughter knew, kept quiet, and asked D not to say anything.... doesn't make much difference, sounds like D was offering a great deal on a fixer upper, granddaughter and fiancé wanted place, granny had concerns - thinking if anyone owes granny it would be granddaughter (unless this was truly security-related, if they never moved in they did not damage and should get security deposit back). Oh, but wait, D says they DID move in, lived there at least 35 days, and could still be there for all he knows because they never returned keys and legally it was to be theirs 90 days rent free after he received the $1000 deposit.... oh my, when was/will the 90 days be up - we might have SQUATTERS!!!... I am not seeing a case for granny against D (maybe against granddaughter) and sounds like granddaughter might even plan on going through with deal and is hiding from both litigants while this blows over - if 90 days are up D may need to sue to get his townhouse back - case dismissed - MM says what I said - P may have case against granddaughter, but not against D... oh, and in hallterview we learn place empty now, but D says he can prove they lived there 35 days, while granny insists they never moved in - lucky for D, there were rumbles about backing out of deal before he went through with signed a quit claim deed like it sounds like he was about to do.

Edited February 1, 2019 by SRTouch

SRTouch · February 1, 2019

29 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

The plaintiff's adoring girlfriend should have spent less on her chest and done something with her hair and face. It's not nice to say, but I found her very unattractive. In fact, I imagine the plaintiff in drag would make a prettier woman. And yes, I am going straight to hell!

I suspect in her day she was quite the bikini babe. Pounchy Redford wannabe might have been a hunk in his prime, too (but the real Redford was WAY better actor than this joker thinks he is). Never been my thing, even as a young guy I was never really attracted to the plastic Barbie look - but, yeah, put her in a bikini - I'd still look. I imagine in their circle of aging sun bunnies a lot of those plastic bikini babe's are sporting the same dry frazzled hair and sun damaged skin.

Edited February 1, 2019 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · February 1, 2019

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The new case with the 10 year relationship couple that split

Here are people who seem intelligent, mature and are well-spoken, yet who mingle large sums of money, buy a house together, get pets and invest together when they are just playing house. Appearances are truly deceiving. Everything is in her name, and the plaintiff's explanation that it was more "convenient" that way is utter bullshit and insulting to JM. It's more convenient to give someone to whom you are not even married total control of your money? He couldn't put his name on those assets for a very good reason, and even I can probably think of a few. Alfred E. Neuman with the super-coiffed hair managed to get at least three women that we know of who really wanted him. Wow. New wifey, clinging to him and staring adoringly at him as though every word from his mouth was gold? Did anyone notice, even though TPC logo was partially covering it that he had his grubby little hand on her ass in the hall? Ewwwww! But he loves his pets (well, the dogs anyway) and they are in the "Very marrow of his bones!" What a creep.

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

I give the plaintiff credit that he didn't go for a 25 year old model

I'm trying to imagine a beautiful, 25-year old model being interested in him for any reason at all and I'm coming up with a huge blank. It's only because of the extreme desperation of women these days that he got either of the women we saw here.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Man parks his 2004 Motorcycle against woman's bumper where she claims she couldn't see it

And of course, by tragic coincidence, her insurance had just lapsed! Maybe that very day, or maybe even hours before she plowed the bike down. My insurance company never ever gives me notice of when my payment is due either, just hoping they'll lose a good client by sneakily cancelling it. As for plaintiff, I would expect to be sneered at if I were trying to rake in 6K in repairs for my 15-year old vehicle. Other than a zillion "basicallys" ("I basically was visiting my sister") plaintiff seemed to speak quite competently. Not sure why he needed his girlfriend and sister to do all his fighting and negotiations for him.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Grandma says she didn't want her family living in a neighborhood where "the Caucasians would get eaten up".

Although I adore JM, this kind of irritated me. Had any "caucasians" brought race into their case, they would have been ripped up one side and down the other (and we've seen that happen) but here? JM finds it extremely amusing. Grandma wasn't doing anyone any good, suggesting that it's par for the course that a "caucasian" moving into this neighbourhood would automatically get ripped to shreds. What is the message here, Granny?

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What kind of townhouse can you buy for $30,000?

After being educated by the esteemed members of this forum, I learned there are places you can buy a large house for even less than that. Maybe you have to take a chance on being viciously attacked by the residents of that area, so that's a consideration I guess. Grandma, you're on your own. Your beloved granddaughter wants no part of helping you get the money back you paid on behalf of her, her boyfriend and their blessed event.

CrazyInAlabama · February 2, 2019

The best part of the never married exes was that the reason for the break up the plaintiff caught him cheating, but it wasn't with the lady in court with him. That's his wife, and he was cheating with another woman on the plaintiff. By the way, on a tacky note, those hooters were so fake.

I didn't see where the townhouse grandma, and her granddaughter lived, and I really wish she would have shown a picture of the townhouse. I really want to know what kind of townhouse you can get for that amount of money.

I had a former co-worker who operated like the defendant. He bought cheap houses in a not so great part of town (the part of town that in daylight I would check my door locks repeatedly, and never get too close at a stop light I couldn't swerve around the car in front and get away), and he would get either foreclosures, or tax sales, or just cheap, ugly houses. He then would sell them to people who couldn't afford much, and hold the paper himself. He would sell with 0 down, and usually let the new owner improve the place, and waive the rent for the first six months. The terms were pretty much like the case today, nothing down but for the paperwork, had to get homeowner's insurance, and my friend would pay the taxes, but the tenant/owner would pay $500 a month for a certain number of years. About 80% did pay regularly, and pay it off and own it. The other 20% wouldn't, and he would have his attorney start foreclosure proceedings, and once the people were evicted, he would fix it up a little, and resell it with the same terms. He made a good living, and people who didn't have much could get a decent house they owned for less than rent.

Edited February 2, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

SRTouch · February 2, 2019

7 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The best part of the never married exes was that the reason for the break up the plaintiff caught him cheating, but it wasn't with the lady in court with him. That's his wife, and he was cheating with another woman on the plaintiff. By the way, on a tacky note, those hooters were so fake.

What?!? But, they look so natural!

AngelaHunter · February 2, 2019

34 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The best part of the never married exes was that the reason for the break up the plaintiff caught him cheating, but it wasn't with the lady in court with him.

Exactly. He just has to beat the women off of him. Must be the frosted hair, since I can't see what else he has going for him - a middleaged man who can't buy anything using his own name.

I must say, I didn't notice the hooters and can't be bothered looking again. Really, those two did appear to be made for each other.

Twiz44 · February 2, 2019

Quote

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Really, those two did appear to be made for each other.

The hooters or Robert and Mrs. Redford? 😉

AZChristian · February 4, 2019

On 2/1/2019 at 5:17 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

The best part of the never married exes was that the reason for the break up the plaintiff caught him cheating, but it wasn't with the lady in court with him. That's his wife, and he was cheating with another woman on the plaintiff. By the way, on a tacky note, those hooters were so fake.

Am I the only one who noticed the plaintiff's hand on his wife's butt while they were talking to Doug in the hallway?

SRTouch · February 4, 2019

Ho-hum cases (and being generous calling them cases - JJ would have blown through 4 of these and had time for extra commercials) good thing is some truly laughable litigants. At least no seamstrees/salon or worse, abuse cases

Abandoned boat: only interesting part of this case may be interesting math - exactly how does parking an old (circa 1970) boat on P's property balloon into a $2670 lawsuit defendant intro claims he had deal allowing him to store boat for $50 a month - says when told to move it, he was told to move it whenever he could - doesn't understand why he's being sued, he'll move it SOMEday testimony actually have two guys on defense side - first explains he had a junk boat, put it online offering to give it away free, D decided he wanted it, first guy delivers it, off loads it from trailer and leaves it propped up on blocks - over to P side, where he explains he owns a property, essentially two business locations with shared parking lot - back to D side where Victor explains he "assumed" his friend Tea owned the parking lot - oh my, original boat owner and P both sounded ok, OTOH Victor sounds high (or maybe brain fried), not sure WTH he's saying, now sounds like maybe Tea isn't his friend, but his brother's(?), cause, ya know, ummm, like his brother has ummm friends, ya know... takes about it sentence - if you can call that a sentence - for me to decide Victor is full of it, never had permission from anyone - much less property owner - and is responsible for removal of junky boat - I'm ready for creative math, but case just started so MM will either have a switcheroo to make it interesting or she'll have to play with the litigants awhile.... ok, guess what happened was Victor had permission from Tea, who owns neighboring property, and when offloaded didn't realised he was putting it on wrong property - as they're getting it off the trailer and setting it on blocks P gets a call - Victor says that's when he was given permission to leave it there for all time at $50 a month, while P says he thought boat was still on trailer and would be moved next day.... uh oh, we just saw some pix, and to this landlubber's eyes calling that a boat is being kind - only way that thing is getting wet is when it rains - and now MM starts having fun with poor Victor, calling him every kind of fool - new question would be who legally owns the junk pile that was once a boat? and back to original question of why it would cost almost 3 grand to haul it to scrap yard? - MM turns to other dude on D side (never caught his name - the original owner who gave Vic boat & offloaded it, and asks how he thought Victor was going to move it (Vic had no plan - can't think that far ahead) other dude says not that difficult, just winch it onto a trailer, but says he no longer has a trailer with winch (MM doesn't believe him)... ah ha other dude has a name, Scott, and reason he's standing next to Victor is that he's named as co-defendant, though MM isn't sure why - I gather P feels Scott took advantage of poor mental midget Vic, which ended up impacting P... probably right, but doesn't make it into a lawsuit.... ahhhhh, good! Sounds like MM might be calling this one early as she's ready to ask why P is suing for $2670 - doesn't sound like he can back up amount with any sort of estimate as he just answered he "figured it would cost between $2600-2700" ... oops, P starting to sound like older version of clueless Victor, Scott may be only one with half a functioning brain.... P claims he has estimate from guy he uses to haul trash, which Douglas carries to MM - MM asks if anyone tried calling one of the charities (she mentions Kars4Kids) which, I gather, will accept pretty much anything and auction it off for charity - surprise, it's Victor who thought to call and try to donate it, but, he never received title/registration and he can't donate what he doesn't have title to - hmmmm, maybe there's a reason Scott is here after all.... ok, title a non-issue because MM announces she's declaring it's abandoned, so she starts trying to figure how the hell they can get it moved - turns out Douglas is into boats, and she turns to him to ask advice - basically, he says Scott's idea of winching onto a trailer would never work, need a crane or loader to lift it.... ah, somehow case is going to take full 20 minutes - case dismissed against Scott, who MM says probably knew he was causing problems, but it would be up to Victor to sue Scott, not P - rough justice - Vic has to pay estimate to get garbage guy to junk boat, but forget P's add ons.... poor Victor, going to take $2170 to pay to get rid of his free boat
SSM of two suing landlord: P claims she paid deposit for her and her 2 kids to move into an apartment, but at last minute D refused to let her move in, and is keeping the deposit defendant says P lied on application, which is grounds for refusing to rent place..... ok, may be grounds for keeping rent, but not security deposit.... oh, and notice lots of young faces behind D in the gallery... testimony... no surprise, SSM is Section 8, and probably has all rules memorized - soooo, P finds apartment, likes it, puts down deposit, but is waiting for Section 8 to approve place before she moves in - while waiting P tells us new landlady starting coming up with weird demands and changing deal.... uh, if D really wanted to inspect old residence I would agree 'weird'... as for changing deal - appears P entered deal without even knowing what deal was and thought D was tacking on fees but quick look and MM says D was just asking for what signed lease laid out - ok, sounds like maybe another case where potential landlord spots problem tenant after lease signed, but before move in, and starts throwing up roadblocks until tenant backs out, then argues tenant breached contract, so landlord gets to hang onto money.... going to texts to figure out if D was really making off the wall demands and just exactly who breached when - ok, while P looks for texts, over to D - she says she never wanted to be there while P moved in (one of 'weird' demands P claims were made) but D did want a meeting when P came to move in to collect balance of deposit and to go over lease one final time - sounds reasonable to me. Uh huh, MM reads texts, which back up D's version. Maybe MM didn't read all the texts, or there was phone conversations, but we jump from P agreeing to meet for money exchange to she's thinking of backing out of deal. Another short case where I'm wondering what there is to talk about. Landlady took place off market, lost a months rent (think they said rent $1250 a month), had to change locks when P kept keys, etc and all P paid was $500 (actually, I wonder how many man hours were wasted down at Section 8 office in addition to what P cost D) ah, but now P says after backing out of lease, she tried to apologize and back out of backing out, and was ready to take apartment, but meany landlady refused to accept apology and let her back in.... then follow a series of texts where P is demanding deposit back and D is ignoring her, until P is texting every few minutes, then several times a minute, blowing up D's phone... uh, no, I'm not inclined to give back the money, I think D lucky P blew up and opened door to deny her becoming D's tenant, and see no reason to say D should have accepted the apology or be forced to eat the losses - if anything, the later texts show me how lucky D is that P never moved in. ... MM having fun reading texts, but I'm over it - zip zip - counseling session - zip zip - case dismissed
car auction deal: P claims D sold her a lemon, pay now refuses to pay for repairs or take car back defendant says he took P to auction/car wholesaler, she picked car she wanted, she put wrong kind of fuel in it and now car needs a tune up, not his problem.... hohum - really, an as-is car deal and she wants money back guarantee and better warranty than what she'd get on new car - if testimony starts out like intro promises.... well it's nice out and I haven't taken Silly cat for a walk lately testimony... ahhhhh, preview and beginning of testimony promises more than normal as-is used car nonsense case - seems we might have tax fraud and unlicensed car dealer case... okkkkkayyyy but what's the deal with damage claim - P says she bought a 13 yo Honda Accord Hybrid for $1400, yet she wants 5 grand - at most, if D is a total used car scum scammer dude, I'd unwind the deal, give him car and return her $1400 plus any costs. ... is she just greedy or could there be something interesting coming... nah, she's droning about their car shopping and why she passed on some other car zip zip when I start listening glib D gets into trouble for shouting out mid-question - seems woman put wrong octane gas in the hybrid - used low octane when engine needed the good stuff - and check engine light came on... no mechanic, but I'd agree putting wrong octane could mess up a car, especially today's vehicles (even 13 yo today vehickles) when tolerances are so much stricter than good old days (good old days of points, plugs, tune up and oil change every 3,000 miles) - but is there really a sensor that turns on check engine light with wrong octane. Maybe so, my 2014 hyundai has so many light I needed the manual to figure it out when of sensor malfunctioned.... I've heard enough of glib D to know he's a scammer, heard enough to know P wants lotto win zip zip case dismissed

SILLY! Come get dressed in your harness, we'really going for a walk.... when we come back we can watch highlights of yesterday's game (didn't watch or record Super Bowl, but recorded both Puppy and Kitten Bowls)

AngelaHunter · February 4, 2019

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

some truly laughable litigants.

The parade of stupid here was shocking and depressing.

The boat? Def is a 22-year old man, who thinks and acts and has the mentality of an 8-year old child. "Gee, I never thought of that. Duh!" The other idiot appeared to be older, but no less dumb. "I sold the trailer." JM: "Do you have a receipt?" Idiot: "I don't have that no more." Plaintiff is an idiot too, another one - and who is way too old for this nonsense - who excuses his idiocy with the old "I have a big heart" defense. Defs have brilliant futures ahead of them, although I personally would not hire them to deliver pizzas.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

SSM of two suing landlord:

The usual Sec8 sense of entitlement. If other people have to pay your damned rent I guess you can afford to be so demanding. Of course she deserves a place that is decorated in the latest style. "Outdated" just won't do for this SSMOT. She has standards even though she doesn't understand anything she signed. Gee, my apartments when I was renting (and since I had to WORK and pay my own rent, no gov. agencies inspected the places to ensure they were up to my exacting standards and good enough for me) were pretty outdated, and even had some things wrong with them, but I never expected to get my money back and I didn't even threaten the landlord that I might go batshit crazy and do something violent to him, while informing him not to call the police. Those "texes" were pretty disgusting and utterly crazy, but I know plaintiff didn't take JM's advice and get therapy. She really needs it.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

car auction deal: P claims D sold her a lemon

More terminal dumbness, but nothing new. Plaintiff buys some 14-year old beater and expects perfection. Def. is an "independant contractor"= "I use the car dealership to peddle my own piece of crap cars on company time"? Yes, he falsified the sale documents to show a price of 500$. What? Tax fraud? Well, yes, he does concede to that, but he didn't know it was wrong. How would he know that? Guess he just has a big heart. Whatever. Boring and stupid and we've seen it all a million times. Plaintiff can pay for the expensive repairs needed for her car.

8 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Am I the only one who noticed the plaintiff's hand on his wife's butt while they were talking to Doug in the hallway?

NO! I mentioned just that a little ways up on this thread. Gross.

CrazyInAlabama · February 5, 2019

The boat case was epic. It was like the sequel to Dumb and Dumber. A note about the boat getting back on a trailer, Douglas was right and it will have to be hoisted up to get on a trailer, and I'm betting the stolen cinder blocks have ruined what was left of the hull. The only place that boat is going is the dump.

A note about the wrong octane gas Miss As Is used. The local Walmarts here all have gas stations. I've never been comfortable using them, because they always looked like it was run by amateurs. The one at the Neighborhood Market here had a little boo-boo last month. People who thought they were putting in regular unleaded gas, were actually filling up with diesel, and a few miles down the road the vehicles started jerking, and running badly, and when they were taken to the mechanics shop, it was discovered the damage the diesel did. Every single vehicle had to have the gas taken out, diesel cleaned out of the system, and filters and such changed. The minimum price was $250, and some a lot more. There were hundreds of cars and trucks involved, and Walmart got a lot of bad publicity, and had to pay everything.

Edited February 5, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

SRTouch · February 5, 2019

ah, too much stupid today - or I need to buy some beans and start making real coffee.... started to recap 1st case, ended up giving up on recap and enjoying habitual law breaker being told tough luck, you broke the law (again) and def followed letter of law when he scrapped your junker.... 2nd case made no sense to me from either side, and I gave up early on - zipped though most of it... #3 yawn silly P wants double deposit back when she backs out of rental before moving in - watched, but again, not worth recap

suing over tow: had a hard time coming up with title for this one, from preview and intro I gather P was arrested and spent 60 days in jail after being cited umpteenth time for ignoring the law and driving with suspended license - This time, while he was in lockup, his car was impounded, and ended up being declared abandoned - intro clown says P claims his constitutional rights were violated, and he wants 5 grand... I'm thinking impound lot guys might have finally figured out a way to keep guy off the road (at least a little while) - have no sympathy for P at all - at all... defendant is tow guy says he followed normal procedure - so he was well within his rights to dispose of the vehicle (apparently heap not even worth auctioning off, just scrapped)... from preview we know we're going to see some righteous indignation mixed with incredibility as MM establishes P is yet another litigant who has been cited so many times he's lost track... testimony... ok, disgusted with P before we hear anything based on intro and preview - watch just in case intro clown did usual misleading job - nope, P testimony backs first impression - P tries to get out of telling us about his suspended license by claiming it was expired - nope, MM knows better, it's been suspended, why is it suspended, oh, tickets, how many, maybe 20.... ok, maybe fun to watch, but not worth recap - suffice it to say P unemployed, spends lot of time getting stopped, cited and arrested - course never his fault, he's just struggling to maintain - and this arrest was not for driving with suspended license - there was already a warrant out for failure to appear on theft charge.... this case is dismissed since tow guy DID follow letter of law
entertainment contract case: gave up on these two early on - in a nut shell, P is local promoter operating on a shoestring - gave D money to be split between sound guys - D claims he's still owed from previous work - D divides up the money, but decides to keep part of it for last year, which means no money left to pay poor Luis - tells Luis to go get P to pay him, P says no, money paid this year should have been enough to pay everybody, including Luis, big kerfuffle - not interested - skipped ahead - P wins - but only $400 after seeking 5 grand
never-moved-in tenant deposit case: oh dear, same old story... P finds apartment - makes deposit - then decides to read lease - doesn't like lease - backs out of deal and wants money back - D says no refunds - P now suing for double defendant says he paid extra to rush to prepare apartment for P - turned away other potential tenants to save it for P, and under no obligation to return deposit... oh, and he says the provision P found so objectionable was a no-smoking policy.... anyway, so old story with little variations to plot, not worth recap, tenant learns she really ought to read the lease before handing over money, Defendant keeps deposit

CrazyInAlabama · February 5, 2019

I loved the tow guy sneaking in that the plaintiff had a rap sheet a mile long. I would like to commend the tow guy for getting that man off the road, at least until he's back on here suing for a 30 year old pile of junk that doesn't turn out to be perfect.

The tenant was hysterical. She said she didn't smoke but her friends did, and shouldn't have to go outside to do it. She may not smoke tobacco, but anything else, not betting on that.

AngelaHunter · February 5, 2019

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

suing over tow:

Okay, it's official: JM needs to switch careers and become either a social worker or an advocate for habitual offenders, and tries to make def feel guilty - "Crushing his car was brutal" - because he DOES follow the law. Plaintiff doesn't give a single shit about any laws (which one would think a judge might frown on) and racks up over 20 tickets,doesn't pay and gets his license suspended, although he tried to say it had "expired." Right. He has, umm, err.. "about" 35 felony charges, including for assault and had outstanding warrants. Instead of being grateful that for some weird reason he's not behind bars for the rest of his life, he cries he "didn't do nothing wrong" and his brother had his toe cut off and a million other excuses. He's a "hard worker", but I'd like to know how he has time to job hunt or work when he seems to spend all his waking hours breaking the law. JM feels sorry for him. Why? He's a mature adult of at least normal intelligence who is not disabled and has the same choices to make as everyone else, and his choice is to commit crimes. As Intro-Clown would say, "HUHHHHH?" I felt sorry for the def, being dragged here for no reason at all. In the hall, plaintiff whines that some special consideration was due him, because he's a criminal who was in jail. Tow company should have gone out of their way to hunt him down, and not crushed his car.

Doug in the Hall said it best: "The tow company followed the law. YOU were in jail because you don't follow the law." Bingo. That shut plaintiff up. Well said, Doug.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

entertainment contract case:

I always enjoy hearing JM speaking in rapid-fire Spanish. Def is a dishonest goon, and plaintiff needs to learn proper business practices. Kind of boring.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

never-moved-in tenant deposit case:

I couldn't understand much of what plaintiff said, but this seemed to be the usual, "I didn't read what I signed because it was raining/I was in a hurry/he never let me read it, etc, and the rule that deposits are non-refundable should not apply to me because I changed my mind and I'm special."

Broderbits · February 5, 2019

55 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, it's official: JM needs to switch careers and become either a social worker or an advocate for habitual offenders, and tries to make def feel guilty - "Crushing his car was brutal" - because he DOES follow the law.

I SO agree with this - had to briefly change the channel because nothing in plaintiff's tale of woe made me feel the least bit sorry for him. I reserve my sympathy for those who are truly deserving.

Sign In

The People's Court - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

teebax

arejay

zillabreeze

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment