DoctorK April 22, 2019 Share April 22, 2019 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: . Plaintiff's memory is truly remarkable. Actually, I would use the word incredible, in the exact literal meaning. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5230502
CrazyInAlabama April 23, 2019 Share April 23, 2019 (edited) That last case with the man who dog sat the ladies Yorkie (I think Yorkie, could be wrong on the breed) and the dog disappeared was so sad. It does demonstrate why you use doggy day care, or a real pet sitter service though. I'm sure the friend, and dog sitter sold that dog. The case of the former tenants who moved when the landlady was going to do a background check on them is so ridiculous. The background check showed domestic violence, sexual battery, stalking, and other charges . From the male plaintiff's emphasis on 'the ad said no background check', makes me think he's exactly what he's pictured to be. Another house or apartment renter that's not allowed to sublet. At least this 'landlord' got caught, and evicted by the real home owner. The giant dark roots on the female plaintiff look awful. And her explanation of why love muffin was arrested after the mean ex lied on him, is absurd. I guess Judge Marilyn accepts the word of the current girlfriend about why the man was arrested, and it's called hearsay evidence. Edited April 23, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5231979
DoctorK April 23, 2019 Share April 23, 2019 I really enjoyed today's new towing case. The plaintiff was laughably stupid, but the great part was the tow guy. Not a likely GQ model but he was looking pretty spiffy. More importantly, he had EVERY piece of paper he needed! He had the paper to show that the police directed him to tow, the signed sheet from the actual tow truck driver documenting the pick up (and noting that there was no plate on the car), the paperwork to show authority to take over the car and dispose of it, the return receipts of the two (count them, two) registered letters he sent to the address he was given by DMV (or police?) for the owner of the car (which turned out to be the plaintiff's parents house), and the correct paperwork to place a lien against the owner. He even properly stopped adding storage fees when the car was junked! I suspect that JM wanted to give him a kiss on the forehead at the end. 6 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5232212
laprin April 23, 2019 Share April 23, 2019 On 4/10/2019 at 6:35 PM, zillabreeze said: I vehemently disagreed with MM awarding the cost of the bottle in the judgement. She should have insisted that it would only be done as a reversal on the credit card. Plaintiff was not out any money in the first place if he hadn't paid CC company yet. On my cards, there is one set of rates and terms for purchases and an entirely different set for cash advances. The cash interest rate is way higher. So, in essence he was trying to get a cash advance. I don't buy the plaintiff's "security concerns" over giving the last four digits one bit! He wanted cash for some reason. He was a cheap ass, wanna be, poser that got caught up trying to look like a high roller. Catching up on missed episodes and just saw this one. I don’t trust that the plaintiff will not attempt to get the charge reversed on his credit card and keep the cash because he thinks he can get away with it. I hate dealing with unreasonable people like the plaintiff. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5232483
laprin April 23, 2019 Share April 23, 2019 On 4/10/2019 at 9:12 PM, AngelaHunter said: You are totally right. Right also. Not only a cheap ass but a dumbass who wrongfully got rewarded. I disliked the plaintiff too, but how did he get rewarded? He was overcharged. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5232492
iwasish April 23, 2019 Share April 23, 2019 Tow company prevails!! Slimy plaintiff pays way more than she was trying to recoup. HaHaHa!!! 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5232596
SRTouch April 23, 2019 Share April 23, 2019 (edited) exes battle after breakup: gf suing her ex-bf, saying she loaned him money which he now refusing to pay - he also won't return belongings she says he has - suing for $857.47.... defendant: if I'm understanding this right, this was short term relationship - complains she wanted more than he was willing to give, and after 2 months she had just about moved in and was getting way too possessive - says when he broke it off he had to change his phone number to stop her calls (wouldn't it be easier to block her number?) - says when things were good she gave him stuff, but now that he ended things she's decided she wants the gifts back (I notice he brought a good sized shopping bag, so maybe he brought the 'gifts' to court)..... same old story of desperate woman trying to buy her a short dumpy man - saw in preview she claims to be regular viewer - even gets a laugh when asked about a promissory note, saying at time she didn't have a canyon or toilet paper.... testimony: yep, same old story, they met, talked, hit it off, she starts staying over, brings over her comforter, she has better tv, so brings hers over etc etc - all this is within month they met - something different is that turns out he's Muslim, and didn't like fact he prayed with/for her, claiming he wanted to convert her - but she continues that she prayed with him and even bought him a new prayer rug because his wasn't up to her standards..... who else is hearing LOTS of red flags in her testimony..... MM getting tired of P, and has her jump ahead to when she started making loans, yep, she was giving him money by end of first month..... already know from preview she doesn't have promissory notes, and from her testimony sounds like she was showering him with gifts and pursuing him with a vengeance, I'm getting disgusted with her story, so unless there's texts I'm ready to say these were gifts and start zipping ahead.... when asked, she says she broke up with him, but listening to her I'm fed up with her after listening to her for 5 minutes.... yep, as expected the 'loans' question may end up being decided by texts - she says she has texts from when they broke up saying she wanted repayment, and that he responds that she's just petty, yada yada, so MM sends Douglas to collect her phone while she turns to defendant, bf, first his story - basically his story is she showered him with gifts from the beginning, even brought him roses the first day they met.... I'm getting the vibe that he's telling the truth about these gifts, and get feeling she was constantly on lookout for things to give him, like the prayer rug, things he didn't even think to ask for she'd show up with - thinking she sounds a little scary in a fatal attraction/stalker way....... anyway, he says along with all the gifts, she was quick to give him money when she heard his was short (something about his account getting frozen, but not interested enough to go back and listen) so he thought the money was a gift like everything else - says first time she called it a loan was after the breakup - ok, MM holding the phone, so I'm leaving it to her and zipping ahead again.... ah, even more fatal attraction vibe - she points to text when they broke up she claims he threatens her life, but conveniently the actual threat was verbal during a phone call and her text is jyst her claiming that he made a threat - oh, and she apparently went to cops with the claim that he was threatening her..... uh huh, heard enough, and FedEx just dropped out a box and the cats are eager to get it emptied so they can play in it...... after digging through the texts..... and probably thinking she needs a shower after some of the texts..... MM is leaning towards these were loans, not gifts - in part because we're not talking $10-20 at a time, but one $75 chunk of cash when P had $100 on her, and than a $500 pop.... soooooo, D says he's happy to pay her back the money, after all, he says he has a job, and return everything else she gave him - yes some of the gifts are in the bag he brought - he just doesn't want to see or talk with P..... then P opens her yap and starts arguing that there's more than D is willing to admit to getting, which ends up with MM yelling to just shut up and take what he's willing to return, because she really has no proof of what all she gave him, and a lot of it WAS gifts - MM even decides P isn't getting the TV back because P calls it a gift in a text..... oh my, case should be over, but right around minute 20 they get into it and suddenly she saying he served 16 years for killing someone, and he responds they met in a program for educating hail birds - yep, sounds like she served time, but he doesn't announce to everyone what she did time - but MM asks and her time was drug related.... ok, MM awards the $575, and asks D to please return the other items - sounds like he wants a list of what items to return, but MM says nope, she's done Potential tenant suing over apartment not being ready when promised: P complains apartment not ready when promised, and move in date pushed back multiple times - says on final move in date, place still not ready (missing front doorknob and inoperable stove) - P says all this cost him money and inconvenience, and he figures landlord owes him $700.... defendant: denies place not ready, says tenant just changed his mind about taking apartment, so he isn't due any refund..... another one where introduced are so different someone is lying, and we'll have to wait to see if someone has any evidence to back up the claims - preview looking bad for landlord, as MM is asking why, 3 weeks after move in date, apartment not ready, which, unless there'she a switcheroo coming would mean landlord breached the agreement.... testimony: ok, from MM's opening remarks it sounds like a partial refund was made, and the $700 is what P feels he's still out.... ok, signed lease with a specified move in date, so pretty cut and dried..... tenant paid the security and first month rent 5 days before the lease move in date..... waiting for why landlord withheld part of the money..... this P has a strong (open and shut) case, and even more, he has evidence and is presenting get his case well - heck, when he signed the lease there is darn she clause in contract saying if apartment isn't ready on specified date he gets immediate/full refund, so not sure what switcheroo the smiling defendant could pull..... soooo, 5 days before move in date P had paid landlord a total $3200 - ok, move in date on 15th, but landlord claimed he couldn't be there, and tenant agreed to wait a day to move in. Next day, he's ready, has brother take off work to help him move in, but landlord says won'the be ready until 19th (2nd move in date pushed back) oops, on 18th landlord sends email promising it will definitely be ready on the 20th (another move in date missed)... MM turn to see is defendant has an answer - nope, no answer, just nonsense about how he wanted place perfect before turning over the keys - anyway, on the 20th, when place is definitely going to be ready, tenant arrives with his witness to do walk through and get the keys - and still not ready for move in - by this time P halfway expects place not to be ready, and he is secretly recording while landlord does a song and dance trying to excuse missing another deadline.... the secret recording allows MM to point out again how in some jurisdictions the recording is fine, while in her home State of Florida that would be a felony - but these folks are in New Jersey where it's legal and admissible..... MM plays the recording, and landlord pretty much admitting what was said in beginning (no doorknob on entrance to P's apartment and stove doesn't have power) - D tries to explain how these are just minor things, but bottom line is place not ready yet again - highlight of his routine is when MM asks how many times potential tenant has to put up with the delays before he decides to bail, and defendant's answer is to ask MM is she's ever moved, and how nobody needs a stove on move in date because they will be too tired to cook..... ok, so now the smiling landlord, who has done nothing he promised to do, is trying to explain why he kept $700 of the $3200 P paid him (especially when contract had clause he would refund everything if move in date not met and in fact multiple deadlines came and went)..... D still making lame excuses/arguments to Doug in hallway - while potential tenant has best argument for backing out of lease when he points out D was not only going to be his landlord, but lived on site, upstairs tow case: Spoiler wasn't our last tow case one where tow company's sloppy paperwork had car owner winning? Not this time, this time tow company report has his ducks in zip row just waiting to be asked.... plaintiff suing because her broken down old truck was towed, she claims for no good reason, she wasn't noticed where it was taken - wants $500..... defendant: truck towed at request of county sheriff because it was abandoned and had no plates - says plaintiff was mailed certified letters notifying truck was towed and where it was, but the letters were ignored - countersuing for around $1200 in outstanding fees...... simple case - assuming somebody is carrying evidence in the folders both sides came in carrying - just watching preview before commercial has me coming back to see just how dumb plaintiff can be..... testimony: P says P when she went to renew her tags she learned a lein on been placed on her '09 Ford expedition (makes me question my understanding of the intro, since that would mean she retrieved her car from impound without paying all the fees) - so, story is her car broke down in August of '17, AAA towed it home, and she left in front of her house despite neigubor complaints and Code Enforcement telling her she couldn't leave it where it was parked..... oh my, doesn't she sound like an ideal neighbor..... she was even ticketed and warned by the Sheriff that it would be towed, but says she went and filed a small claims case against the Sheriff's Department - and she says she won that case and judge determined she could park there...... oh, while P is testifying she still owes 8 grand for this 10yo broken down SUV that sat so long in front of her house neighbors and Sheriff took note..... ok, a week after she triumphed over the county on the ticket, hefty truck gets towed - she doesn't bother to track it down, no she was going to move and figured she'd wait til after the move, thing is says she know who towed it, she thought she was safe from the county, but was behind in car payments so it could have been repoed...... I don't know, but this lady may make a box of rocks look smart - so, says she doesn't know who towed the car, and didn't bother trying to find out because she was moving.... I'm ready to hear from tow guy.... ok, like I said in spoiler, hefty hefty tow guy in the YELLOW shirt has been just waiting - first, according to DMV her '09 is actually a '03 - he has the authorization form from the Sheriff Department for the tow... so without adding anything else there goes her case.... oh my, this guy is great - how many times has MM asked tow guys why they have no pictures? This time, when MM notes that the tow request from sheriff noted registration was a year out of date, the tow guy pulls out a picture taken day of tow show truck didn't have a plate - oh, and what's this about tow driver finding the keys in the vehicle? Geez, going back to just how dumb can plaintiff be, you have to remember she's the one who filed suit asking for $500 when she owed more than twice that in fees, then came on national tv where her wearing that top where her fair complexion turns redder and redder every time she looks dumber..... ok, still ten minutes (yeah I know half that will be commercial and Shorty), but I zip to the end...... surprise, P didn'the get her $500 while tow guy DOES get his $1200..... love Doug in the hallterview, he asks P is she was just hoping someone would take the car and, ever the mental midget, P answers yes (as she turns a little redder) Edited April 23, 2019 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5232667
AngelaHunter April 23, 2019 Share April 23, 2019 1 hour ago, laprin said: I disliked the plaintiff too, but how did he get rewarded? He was overcharged. He (over)paid with a credit card, presumably his but who knows. He should have been forced be reimbursed the same way, not get cash from the show. His reluctance to do that was very fishy since it's a simple and easy way for the rest of us. I just got credited back on a program I purchased and was erroneously charged twice. Had I told them I wanted a personal check instead (along with an abject apology) I think they might have rightfully been a little resistant and suspicious. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5232785
Broderbits April 23, 2019 Share April 23, 2019 I swear that every other phrase today's first plaintiff spoke was "you know". She drove me so crazy I had to scream at the tv, and was very disappointed that MM didn't tell her to cut it out. 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5232833
AngelaHunter April 23, 2019 Share April 23, 2019 37 minutes ago, Broderbits said: I swear that every other phrase today's first plaintiff spoke was "you know". I know! (y'know) It was excruciating listening to her trying to justify that she's so stupid and so desperate for a man she starts showering the scammish def with cash and gifts. His bank account was frozen and plaintiff never wondered why? Not that I believe it. I've received too many scam emails about frozen bank accounts to ever believe that old story. He needed a new comforter, a new TV, "prayer rugs" because he's so religious, 75$ which he doesn't pay back so she gives him another 500$. He only needed all that until his bank account thawed out, you understand. Plaintiff did all this in the first month after meeting him. JM is enraged at her pathetic stupidity and desperation. Apparently, the plaintiff was looking for a "Sex partner" and all she got was the shaft. Oops, didn't mean to make that non-joke.😁 Anyway, fool didn't deserve one cent back. "Don't trust men!" she exclaims to Doug in the Hall. That's all she learned from this. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Potential tenant suing over apartment not being ready when promised: Ugh, Rotund, grinning little shit landlord had one hell of a nerve. He's a "perfectionist." Yeah, he looks it. Oh, finally he's forced to tell the truth and it's the old usual - he didn't know what the hell he was doing and who wants to cook the first night they move into a place? No working stove - no big deal to him. JM was way too nice to him. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: plaintiff suing because her broken down old truck was towed, I loved this! Broken-down old plaintiff, with her 50's bleached hair, overly-plucked brows and displaying an unfortunate expanse of sagging cleavage is such a crook and a liar, and a really stupid liar and cheat. SRTouch explained it all very well. I loved how it was revealed what a lowlife she is and then her hubby dearest steps up and yup - he's a lowlife idiot too. Doug in the Hall hopes she's embarassed at her dumb, crooked stunts. I LOVED the tow guy who had every bit of evidence needed and loved that he won on his countersuit and the plaintiffs just ended up looking like the scum-sucking assholes they are. 2 4 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5232921
iwasish April 24, 2019 Share April 24, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I know! (y'know) It was excruciating listening to her trying to justify that she's so stupid and so desperate for a man she starts showering the scammish def with cash and gifts. His bank account was frozen and plaintiff never wondered why? Not that I believe it. I've received too many scam emails about frozen bank accounts to ever believe that old story. He needed a new comforter, a new TV, "prayer rugs" because he's so religious, 75$ which he doesn't pay back so she gives him another 500$. He only needed all that until his bank account thawed out, you understand. Plaintiff did all this in the first month after meeting him. JM is enraged at her pathetic stupidity and desperation. Apparently, the plaintiff was looking for a "Sex partner" and all she got was the shaft. Oops, didn't mean to make that non-joke.😁 Anyway, fool didn't deserve one cent back. "Don't trust men!" she exclaims to Doug in the Hall. That's all she learned from this. Ugh, Rotund, grinning little shit landlord had one hell of a nerve. He's a "perfectionist." Yeah, he looks it. Oh, finally he's forced to tell the truth and it's the old usual - he didn't know what the hell he was doing and who wants to cook the first night they move into a place? No working stove - no big deal to him. JM was way too nice to him. I loved this! Broken-down old plaintiff, with her 50's bleached hair, overly-plucked brows and displaying an unfortunate expanse of sagging cleavage is such a crook and a liar, and a really stupid liar and cheat. SRTouch explained it all very well. I loved how it was revealed what a lowlife she is and then her hubby dearest steps up and yup - he's a lowlife idiot too. Doug in the Hall hopes she's embarassed at her dumb, crooked stunts. I LOVED the tow guy who had every bit of evidence needed and loved that he won on his countersuit and the plaintiffs just ended up looking like the scum-sucking assholes they are. And she still owed 8k on the loan for that 2003 Expedition. Sure she took the plates off it. That’s why, along with the expired registration/inspection sticker, the police considered it “abandoned” and had it towed. Even in my town any any vehicle on the property and especially parked on the street in front of your house has to have a current registration. If it’s a “project” or a “restoration” vehicle, you have to keep it garaged . I’ve gone thru towns where old junky cars are pushed up on the lawn, front or rear, or just left in the street with flat tires and missing pieces. Not attractive. Edited April 24, 2019 by iwasish 4 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5233625
AZChristian April 24, 2019 Share April 24, 2019 8 hours ago, iwasish said: And she still owed 8k on the loan for that 2003 Expedition. Did anyone else notice the look on her face when the defendant said that the car had been declared as salvage and crushed? She still owes $8,000 for what is now a heavy metal coffee table cube. LOL. We used to work in the auto insurance field. It wasn't uncommon that people who were not able to make their payments would leave the car parked somewhere with the keys in them, in the hopes they would be able to report it as stolen. Some folks were also known to report the car as stolen . . . right before it was found on fire in an abandoned field. Of course, cars left with keys in them were usually at least driveable! 1 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5234122
AngelaHunter April 24, 2019 Share April 24, 2019 21 minutes ago, AZChristian said: She still owes $8,000 for what is now a heavy metal coffee table cube. LOL. But! According to litigants, you needn't pay any more for a car after it's stolen or breaks down, or is crushed, right? This plaintiff stopped paying as soon as her car magically disappeared when she left it with the keys in it. Oops. She owes 8K on a car that she couldn't even tempt someone to steal. No one wanted the thing even for free.🤣 4 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5234151
babs j. April 24, 2019 Share April 24, 2019 I don't think I've ever disliked a litigant more than the plaintiff in Tuesday's towing case - I will not watch any animal case so they don't count. Plaintiff couldn't be bothered to do what she was supposed to and sued. So GLAD she lost. 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5235496
SRTouch April 25, 2019 Share April 25, 2019 No satellite today, so no recap..... thing was, when I noticed satellite was out I switched to antenna mode, but kept getting "NO SIGNAL".... so just turned everything off. Later, when Hot Bench came on, I turned tv back on it and realized my antenna setup requires tv to be set on channel 3..... duh!!! (set that way so that I can record the signal coming from antenna)..... by the time I realized my goof and could watch through the antenna the satellite was back Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5237129
Bazinga April 25, 2019 Share April 25, 2019 (edited) Since our great recapper SRTouch is out of commission for today's episode, I will attempt a recap that wont be near as good. First case was another tow case but this time the defendant was a 180 from the prior tow truck owner and had no evidence, no legal authority to tow, no nothing. Plaintiff is a walking attitude, who, as usual, is commended by JM for said attitude. Defendant is a big oaf wearing a button down shirt with Harley Davidson inscribed across the chest, who marched in carrying absolutely no evidence. Yeah, that is going to win the day with JM's hatred of tow companies. Story is female plaintiff went away for awhile, parking one car out in front of her condo and another truck "in the back where visitors are supposed to park." When JM tries to call her on parking in the visitors' spot and if that was OK?, she just says it is general visitor parking, as if that makes it right and JM moves on. She was expecting the car out front to be towed because she wasn't making payments on it but wasn't sure why the truck in the back was towed, but didn't really care until, like the last tow plaintiff, she too went to DMV and had registration problems. Defendant wont return the truck as he is holding it hostage seeking storage fees. JM asks why were you "away" for about four months, were you incarcerated? Plaintiff initially says yes and then backtracks to say she was hospitalized. JM allows the slip-up to pass. As an aside, the Plaintiff was very, very, very nasty in the way she was talking to the judge throughout the case. Annoyed about everything, interrupting, and angry body language. She didn't directly show any anger toward the defendant but in the way she spoke to the judge, she was aggressive, belligerent, and kind of condescending. That's just my opinion; I was hoping others here would comment and assure me I wasn't being racist in my immense dislike for this plaintiff. Yes, she had a right to be annoyed about the situation but that is not how a litigant talks to a judge and not like it was the judge's fault and not like she was an innocent; abandoning her truck somewhere it probably didn't belong and not trying very hard to find it after it was gone. Very confusing story on the defendant's end: he owns the building and rents to a sober house "upstairs". Is he her landlord? Not asked and I assume not. He was told by the sober house that a male kicked out of the sober house had been driving the truck and abandoned it. He said the guy had been driving it for months and had keys. So, as coincidence would have it, he owns a tow truck company and tows the truck. He does not do anything as required by law like send a letter to owner in 30 days or to try to find the owner in any way, as he knows the guy who was upstairs is the owner. Plaintiff doesn't bother to ask the sober house if they know anything about the truck being towed, I think because she didn't care about the truck until the DMV problem happened. She does eventually ask the police after the DMV problem arises, but they know nothing as defendant didn't do the proper paperwork associated with towing a vehicle like informing the police. Plaintiff is driving somewhere she doesn't usually travel with her cousin (the plaintiff told a very convoluted story with a lot of details that didn't matter) and passes defendant's junkyard and sees her truck. She goes in with no proof and tells someone at the shop that it is her truck and they say she is lying as they know, without any proof beyond a second-hand story from the sober house, that it is the guy from the sober house's truck. She relates that the person was extremely nasty. Asked by JM if the defendant was the guy?, she says to laughter by JM, Douglas, and the courtroom audience, that "they all look alike" with the inference being that all white people look alike. Now if a white person had said that about a black person, JM would have had them for lunch. If someone said that the person must be from Mexico because all Spanish speaking people are Mexicans, I am certain JM would have had a big laugh at that. Seems casual racism is delightful when it is from this plaintiff. When asked why she didn't show proof, which she has in court, that the truck is titled in her name?, she says she wasn't asked. Wouldn't you take it upon yourself to prove the fact it is your truck without standing on the ceremony of being asked? Anyway, plaintiff provides proof and defendant is sticking to his story that now holds no weight, about the guy upstairs. Then we get into a whole thing about the front wheel being removed on the truck. I am not sure what this proves. Defendant denies the front wheel was removed. Plaintiff, proud of herself, took pictures this morning showing the truck with other car body parts from other cars leaning against it without a front wheel. She actually has pictures, which she has to tell us repeatedly, she developed this morning at CVS. Finally someone developed pictures not leaving it for the judge to scroll through their phone. Defendant says that was months ago. Back to plaintiff, do you have any proof like the receipt? Yes, has the receipt from CVS, which she hands up to JM. JM realizes that proving when the pictures were developed does not prove when they were taken, so that was meaningless. All this seems to prove is that the truck was not treated well. Plaintiff is suing for $4,500, which JM points out, that plaintiff obviously knows, is the exact value of the truck on KBB. She is awarded what she was seeking. Why not have her get the truck back with something for damages and time without the truck? The truck still exists, it wasn't destroyed or totaled, so why does she get full value instead of the return of the truck? Obviously, she doesn't want the POS truck, but prefers the probably inaccurate KBB valuation amount for a truck in better condition then this one was when towed by defendant. Not said, but should have been made clear, the defendant just bought himself a truck to do with what he wants and title should be signed over to him. But JM didn't care about the defendant, as she was too busy repeatedly complimenting plaintiff on how well she handled this matter the good way as plaintiff had earlier said she usually does things the angry way. She really didn't do much to deserve a compliment beyond having the title and she was extremely nasty in her testimony to the judge, like I said previously, but, as JM liked her, it didn't matter that she talked in a disrespectful manner to the judge, she got over the top complimented. A person should not be complimented for not acting uncivilized. Defendant had a countersuit for storage fees of $5,000, though he claimed in the intro that the fees were actually higher. Since he had no authority to tow and did nothing the law required, he is not getting any storage fees. Outside in the hall, when Doug admonished defendant that he didn't do a good job, he resorted to it is what it is and seemed to say he knew he was going to lose. I would love some opinions on this plaintiff to see if my feelings about her are warranted. Case two was two homeowners fighting over the cost of replacing a cement wall between their mutual properties that collapsed. The plaintiff had this mohawk thing that didn't work on a middle aged guy and made him look ridiculous. The mohawk just serving to highlight his very sweaty brow. Defendant was an ornery old timer who wasn't going to pay for the wall. Plaintiff had a need for the wall as he had dogs to keep inside his property and to protect from invading dogs while defendant had moved across the street and basically abandoned this property and had no real need for a wall or fence. It all came down to the defendant never agreed to pay for the wall nor did he have to. Plaintiff assumed that as the wall was mutual, defendant was required to pay half. Plaintiff also seemed to think the defendant should be a gentleman and pay half. As being a decent human being is not required by the law, the plaintiff loses. Defendant had brought a countersuit for cleanup of the stone that had fallen on his side. Plaintiff wasn't responsible for the wall falling, so not responsible for paying for the cleanup, so no recovery for defendant. Some talk about a tree on plaintiff's side of the wall's roots causing the wall to fall. JM laughed off the concept of the plaintiff being responsible for the roots of his tree. I thought it was pretty analogous to the tree limb two weeks ago that fell on the guy's car that the tree owner was responsible for as the tree was dead. Here the tree was too alive and maybe caused the damage. JM laughed at the concept that plaintiff would be responsible for the roots of his tree. Of course, defendant had no proof the roots caused anything, I just didn't like that the plaintiff was automatically not responsible and the argument that he was responsible was laughed at. Seems the same to me as the tree limb falling that caused damage to someone else's property. Earlier, the plaintiff had been repeatedly testifying that the survey showed that the wall collapsed because it was old (house built in the 50's) in order to counter the defendant's root caused the collapse claim. JM didn't care but I would love to know how a survey would ever show what was the cause of the wall collapse? Defendant, when called on the stupidity of his countersuit, tried to play it off like he thought a countersuit was required. No, you are greedy and wanted money, Sir. Left unsaid by everyone; I am sure these two are going to get along smashingly in the future. Case three was quick, uninteresting and kind of confusing. Plaintiff sells house to defendant. Leaves the appliances, though she says not required to, to make the sale go smoother, she says. Anybody have the contract? Of course not. Defendant tries to show the MLS listing, I guess it mentions appliances. Whatever, has nothing to do with the case at hand. Plaintiff is going to the house to pick up a mail package. Come to discuss appliances not working and defendant told plaintiff he intended to get new appliances anyway. Plaintiff doesn't seem to tell him that she has Sears' repair insurance (they might have been calling it a warranty, I don't remember, but I think it must be repair insurance as there were monthly premiums and a warranty would attach to the product and not belong to the owner), as he will discover that on his own by calling Sears, so not sure why the package story was necessary. Plaintiff pays a monthly premium for the insurance. Some reason she says more trouble to cancel the policy, so she doesn't. I guess she was going to let it lapse by not paying. Defendant realizes the appliances are Sears appliances, as they are Kenmore, so he calls Sears. Sears wont deal with him for new insurance, as there is already insurance in place and he isn't the one on the policy. I guess Sears does send someone to fix the appliances and plaintiff got charged something. This was never made clear. If she had insurance, why was she charged? He doesn't try to claim he is the plaintiff to use her insurance, he does it in his own name and has a receipt. I assume, but I don't think it was said, that this act by Sears of transferring the policy to him, got the plaintiff charged something. Not sure how exactly she was damaged here, as nobody explained it. JM was saying Sears did this to get defendant as a future customer. I don't get it; would think allowing him to take out a policy in his own name would be a way to actually get him to be a customer not whatever Sears did here. As defendant was above board with Sears, he did nothing wrong and plaintiff has no case. My thought is that defendant benefited by the repair, he should reimburse her just like he was willing to pay Sears for the repair even if he did nothing wrong and it was Sears' doing. Basically an unjust enrichment argument: that the defendant was unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense. Plaintiff was seeking a bonanza that even included two dollars for parking, as well as lost wages. Edited April 25, 2019 by Bazinga 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5237284
AngelaHunter April 25, 2019 Share April 25, 2019 8 hours ago, Bazinga said: JM asks why were you "away" for about four months, were you incarcerated? Plaintiff initially says yes and then backtracks to say she was hospitalized. JM allows the slip-up to pass. Thank you. I thought I was losing it when I thought I heard SSMo3 say she was in the slammer but then it was *mumble* "hospital" *mumble.* I couldn't be bothered rewinding, but I know it's the usual when any litigant says, "I was away" it means they got their butts thrown in jail. We pretty well know that someone who gets a car repossessed didn't go on any extended tours of Europe. I also don't know why JM was so sympathetic to her. She parks where she shouldn't, she stiffs people and buys a car she can't pay for so is not surprised it got repo'd and I bet it's not the first time. (not really funny or cute). 8 hours ago, Bazinga said: A person should not be complimented for not acting uncivilized. No kidding. She brags about how she - a mother of three - no longer goes off on people like a wild banshee but now controls herself and tries to act civil. That's what you're supposed to do, lady, when you are a grown-up human being! JM praises her for having any self-control. And yeah, if a white person had said, "They all look alike" about a person of any race, JM would have grilled them like a cheeseburger, insisting on knowing exactly what was meant by that but found plaintiff saying it to be amusing. Maybe plaintiff meant they were all morbidly obese or something, but JM never asked her to explain. However, the def was so vile, so shifty and so obviously lying and let some addict/drunk tool around in the plaintiff's car, never even trying to find out who owned it that he made the plaintiff look angelic. Aside from his constant repetitions of "It is what it is" in the hall, he makes note that maybe he should try following the law in the future. How upstanding of him. I doubt he has any intention of doing that. 8 hours ago, Bazinga said: The plaintiff had this mohawk thing that didn't work on a middle aged guy and made him look ridiculous. He drove me nuts, not just with the silly, outdated Mohawk, but with his hyper-excitable testimony and constant butting in and acting like a giggling, naughty child when he was reprimanded for it. Yes, I would pay half for a fence a neighbour wanted to put up between our houses, but I'm not legally obligated to do so. Boring case. Outstanding recap, Bazinga! 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5237805
Florinaldo April 25, 2019 Share April 25, 2019 (edited) How refreshing that after several examples of tow companies doing things by the book and winning, we get back to the stereotype of the grabby lying tow guy, with no documentation to support his shifting arguments. Too bad that the plaintiff was the typical litigant in such cases, a deadbeat who does not care for parking regulations and does whatever she wants, including not paying her debts, no matter the impact on other people. I am glad to see I was not alone in being dismayed that JM swooned so much over her. A mohawk is a bad look at any age and can just about be excused only if you are a professional wrestler. Edited April 25, 2019 by Florinaldo 2 4 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5238139
AZChristian April 25, 2019 Share April 25, 2019 30 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: A mohawk is a bad look at any age and can just about be excused only if you are a professional wrestler. That guy was sweating more than any professional wrestler I've ever seen. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5238243
SRTouch April 25, 2019 Share April 25, 2019 It's a freekin' conspiracy, I tell ya! Yesterday satellite was out, today I'm watching a rerun even though guide tells me it's new. I thought I recognized the boat buyer in first case. He's the experienced boater who had his new/used boat inspected before purchase, put in contract what had to be fixed, and seller's mechanic pulled the 'unable to duplicate problem' and didn't fix the problem. I was sure it was a repeat when defendant in second case said she has a black mouth cur. MM had never herd of the breed, and gravel voiced plaintiff insisted the dog is a pit mix. If you're unfamiliar with the breed, think Old Yeller - they're bred as a hunter/cattle dog, are very smart and need lots of room to roam. Article in above link recommends at least an acre. Anyway, this was one of the few dog cases I watched, since I heard the breed and always thought I'd like one if I ever bought a purebred pup and had the room. Last case is woman suing because defendant had dumpster and building supplies blocking her movers, which delayed her move and she had to pay extra. Watched maybe a couple minutes from each case, just enough to recognize and remember the cases as not worth a second viewing. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5238314
AngelaHunter April 25, 2019 Share April 25, 2019 Don't know what's happening with your service, SRTouch, but I got new cases today. First was kind of amazing. I was all shocked and thrilled when plaintiff begins by saying, "My girlfriend and I were..." instead of the usual, "Me and my girlfriend were..." so I was unprepared for what a dick-headed, whiny, hostile little cuck he turned out to be. He's suing his former landlords for his security deposit back. Seems he was beating on his g/f (yeah, he seems the type to do that - seething with impotent rage and combative.) after defs let g/f leave. The little shit is nearly having an apoplectic seizure and is rude, insolent and mouthy, interrupts the def's testimony by exclaiming they're lying, yet JM for some reason does not give him the severe spanking he deserved. He gets nothing except the portion of the security deposit left after covering payment to the defs for all the damage done to the place, like his equipment bolted to the floors which he pooh-poohs, saying all it takes is zip zip - five minutes to remove the screws but which he didn't do it. All freaked out, he says, "Unbelievable!" and charges out, refusing to speak to Doug in the Hall. One day he's going to mouth off to the wrong person - not a woman - and find himself in the hospital. Next is a routine fender bender, where def. cut a corner making a turn and crashed into the plaintiff's car. Plaintiff was totally in the right, but his theatrics, thinking he was just so cute, funny, and charming, were very off-putting although JM seemed to think he was cute too. Also, he tried to get a little boe-nanza by suing for twice the value of his old car but did get more than its value by proving he had 400$ of work done to it not long before the accident. Def's insurance company refused to pay the plaintiff (big surprise) by saying it wasn't clear it was their client's fault, even with the police report showing it was and the def getting tickets for the accident. Damn bloodsucking insurance companies, with a license to steal. Haven't watched the 3rd case yet. 5 hours ago, AZChristian said: That guy was sweating more than any professional wrestler I've ever seen. How gross was that? All that oily sweat rolling down. Eww. 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5239037
AZChristian April 25, 2019 Share April 25, 2019 1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said: First was kind of amazing. I was all shocked and thrilled when plaintiff begins by saying, "My girlfriend and I were..." instead of the usual, "Me and my girlfriend were was..." Fixed it for ya. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5239042
AngelaHunter April 25, 2019 Share April 25, 2019 1 minute ago, AZChristian said: Fixed it for ya. Of course. Silly me. However, he did let me down later when he did say, "Me and her were..." or maybe "was"? I misremember. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5239051
SRTouch April 26, 2019 Share April 26, 2019 (edited) 'Borrowed' car damage: (just from preview and way plaintiff enters court I don't think I'll be liking this bunch - in preview we see P badmouthing D and D raising her finger saying she objects - than when P enters court she's making mad faces and walking like she's exhausted) P intro says D borrowed her car without permission and brought it back damaged, and has since refused to pay to get it fixed - wants $4305.... defendant: (uh-oh one of my pet peeves is people who are too busy with their cell to put it away and deal with people in front of them (REALLY hate it when I deliver a pizza and someone answers door, sticks money out, grabs the food, and shuts the door in my face without ever getting off phone or saying a word) D is holding out her phone at chest level, maybe because there's no pockets in her street walker outfit) says it wasn't her who took the car, but P's brother - says she wasn't even in car when bro smashed it up.... not expecting much from these two or blank faced P witness, who I'm guessing is the brother in question.... testimony: yep, that's the brother, as we find out when MM asks, and fool raises his hand and gives her a finger wag while calling out a greeting - P story is that when she went out of town for a few days she left her big brother to house sit - says brother did not have permission to use car - after a couple days bro calls her in middle of night saying he had used her car to run to the store, a deer ran out, and he swerved into a guard rail - says bro texted her pix of the smashed car.... anybody care to explain why she has hard copy of the pic but not the texts - oh, of course, she no longer has that phone.... whoa, bro really getting on MM's nerves, first the shout out in beginning, and now he wants to shout out something and MM shuts him down with 'nobody's talking to you! I'll let you know when it's your turn!) - ooookkkkkk, we look at the pictures and learn that P's uncle is a mechanic, and he's the guy her gave her the $4300 estimate, which makes me question the amount unless she has multiple quotes..... bro agreed to pay for damages - he agreed to pay $300 a month until he got his tax refund when he was to pay the balance...... uhhhh, still waiting to hear why she's suing defendant with brother sitting on P's side of aisle..... ok, despite accepting responsibility and arranging a payment plan, when it came time to actually start paying any money the brother decides to come clean and throw defendant under bus when he declares "wasn't me! She was driving!"...... ok, not only doesn't brother have any credibility, but I'd argue he was the one left in charge of the house, even if she was driving he provided the keys and made the unauthorized use of vehicle possible - or maybe this is one of those times when a litigant gets to pick and chose who to sue..... ok, P testimony is that bro's new and revised story is that D came over to the house she had left brother to housesit, they were drinking heavily and getting high (incredulous look from D and this is when preview showed D try to object) and bro says D waited til he passed out and then took the car..... probably had the munchies..... bro's new story is that first he knew of wreck was when D came and woke him up crying hysterically...... guessing MM is letting P give all thus hearsay evidence because she REALLY doesn't want to give bro with zero credibility any more air time than absolutely necessary...... ah, now some stuff worthy of a Springer episode - story P puts out is that D went through Bro's phone, found evidence bro was cheating with some other female, took the car so she could go confront the other woman, and had the wreck - P calls D a lunatic, and when Judge tells her no name calling she changing it to 'she act crazy'..... ok, now D shouts out and gets yelled at by MM and camera shows bro likes D getting in hot water and then switches to show D rolling eyes and getting attitude..... back to more hearsay testimony from P (not even sure where P learned what she's testifying to, she was out of town, bro still supposed to be in alcohol/drug induced sleep - is she about to spring a surprise witness or maybe a police report on us) anyway, her testimony is that when the 'other woman' tried to get away from lunatic Miss Flowers, D rammed P's vehicle in other woman..... nope, no new witness, no police report, just flapping gums and no witness except sleeping bro and other woman who P says wants nothing to do with any of the aftermath even though her car was supposedly destroyed by lunatic Miss Flowers.... for those who like Springer type shows this may be a hoot, but I'm about over this no evidence/hearsay case - now bro is shouting out yet again, nope, had enough and start zipping ahead to see if D has anything besides 'tude..... not that she really needs a defense since P has completely failed to make a case..... nope, D had nothing, when MM gives her a chance to speak she starts out with "her brother's a cheater" and then "don't know, wasn't there".... yah, ya betcha, I think she did the deed - but P has no case and if she shuts her yap P will get nada.... thing is, MM made her wait her turn so long getting she just can't keep her mouth shut, and more she talks worse she looks (and not even to to mention her scratching her BEE-hind and tucking her shirt into those tight gawd awful green pants cuz then I'll start talking about her street walker outfit)..... hokay, this was it for me, I zipped ahead to decision, only to have to rewind to see WTH happened... not going to spoil it by spilling beans, but complete switcheroo, somebody gets the boot, threat of bodily harm made on national tv, etc, etc..... like I said earlier, may appeal to Springer fans (oh, including newsflash that bro and D supposed hooked up night before court appearance).... I find it pretty offsetting and sorry I watched.... ah, but make sure you catch Doug when he says "you look kind of idiotic" Landlord vs tenant: P is landlord this time, claiming defendant rented his poolhouse - says tenant left owing money for rent and other expenses - suing for 5 grand.... defendant: insists everything was great until landlord started acting wacko - says P actually owes him and is countersuing for 3 grand..... at least these two came to court with files/binders/a freekin' satchel of evidence - well a bunch of stuff, just because they think it's evidence doesn't make it so (and just because it's evidence doesn't mean it will help the side providing it 😉).... testimony: seems part of case deals will leaving the heater's gas tank empty, P says tank was full when tenant moved in, and should pay to refill it - MM asks if that's in the lease, first he says yes, than it becomes it was "agreed".... welllllll, this guy may not be cray cray like the last batch, but he may put me to sleep with his less than inspired delivery style as he drones on about how tenant lease was apparently modified so he could have exclusive use of pool if he took over responsibility/cost of maintenance (at least I think that's what he was droning on about).... MM steps in and tries to bring P on point, but that throws P, and she switches sides to hear from tenant/defendant - a little better, a little wordy, but at least MM can drag info out of this guy - if I'm understanding D, the dispute that had him deciding to move out is when P brought him a new lease with the modified agreement - he declares the new, modified lease is lunacy, refuses to sign and moves out - oops, countersuit over landlord withholding security has a problem - D says he gave 30 day notice on the 5th and moved out on 30, leaving MM saying that's not 30 days - rest of countersuit brings us back to the propane for pool heater, with D saying lease says landlord pays for propane and landlord saying up to tenant.... sooner or later somebody is going to reach into their folder/binder/satchel and pull out a lease - or not..... ok, turns out D admits original lease was modified and he paid for propane for 17 months, so sounds like he'll end up paying to refill the tank (some nonsense about he forwarded bill to his secretary and didn't realised he was paying the bill).... well, MM announces she heard enough about the propane - course she doesn't announce her decision yet as there's other stuff landlord wants to be paid for - now we're talking paint - P wants tenant to pay for paint, but MM wants proof it needed to be painted so we see pictures and P has to explain what we're looking at - D actually helping P as he helps/admits to damaging paint by hanging stuff, but we learn D paint for painter's labor ($250)..... P bought the paint, and sounds to me like P either grossly inflated amount/cost of paint ($1700) or D hired a really cheap painter.... ok, MM working through list, and I'm not going line by line 'cuz these guys aren't that interesting - only interesting bit is that P caught padding bill when MM asks a question and he says no while wife is nodding yes in background.... I'm over this one, and zip ahead..... back to rent question, and things look even worse for tenant when we learn rent due on 25th, so the "30 day" he gave on 5th even later than we first thought when thinking rent due on first.... rough justice has MM going down list with both sides winning and losing on different points - net result: P gets little under $1200 while D gets nada (all the folder/binder/satchel for evidence didn't produce much when all was said and done) gastric bypass loan: P says she loaned D money to get surgery to lose weight, would have been happy with getting any regular payments , but a year later hasn't been paid anything.... defendant: claims he paid P back by doing work..... testimony: defendant worked for plaintiff - no question P gave D money, P has email where D admits it was $1200 and P has check - ah, but than there was no payment plan for repayment at time of loan - 6-7 months after loan, when P asks when she can expect to see some of her money, difference sends an email same time for them to part ways, he's quiting.... ok, for me to buy that D worked off the debt I'd need to see evidence that amount P paid him for those 6-7 months changed from what he was receiving prior to getting the money or something where she agrees he's doing over and above what he did prior to her writing the check - switching sides not thinking much of defendant - dude as articulate as I expected from hearing passages from his emails, but not hearing much of defense - ok, D did not work set hours, so his explanation is that scope of what he was doing evolved until he was doing lots more than than he was hired to do..... what I'm hearing is that he sort of retroactively/unilaterally changed his job description and the terms of payment - but at same time the 'loan' was made with no real repayment plan.... I stopped listening to D do his song and dance when he tells us he was doing things for P he normally keeps a time sheet for, and MM asks why he didn't keep a time sheet..... yep, MM orders him to pay the debt Edited April 26, 2019 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5241390
AngelaHunter April 26, 2019 Share April 26, 2019 🤣 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: 'Borrowed' car damage: I bet this one had Levin wetting his tighty-whiteys with glee. How distasteful, but it was interesting seeing JM hate and detest a litigant before he's even said much of anything, which was the case for the incoherent, brain-damaged, super-dumb, lying brother. Even though he admits the first BS deer story he told his sister was a big lie, she believes the second story. He paled in comparison to his vicious, savage, drugged up/drunken vile sex partner, with her droopy, ugly, nasty tatted boobs on display here and her hideous microblade brows and doubled-up fake lashes. She seems to think she's precious or is auditioning for something and is truly terrifying - amoral and without even a scrap of human conscience. She takes the car and smashes it up ramming the car of some "female" who also found brother to be irresistible. Darling brother has no texes because sometimes you "gotta thow the phone" when you're having a hissy fit, or that's what it sounded like from what little I could understand of the garbled crap coming out of his piehole. JM can't take one more second of him and has Douglas give him the boot. I think they better quit the drugs and alcohol because both of them seem to be suffering ill effects of that. Or maybe they were always stupid and violent. THOT is so shockingly idiotic she threatens the plaintiff on national television, with her, "You know what I do to people." And yeah, when Doug in the Hall tells skank def. "You sounded idiotic," she doesn't seem overly perturbed about that and merely sashays away. I'm sure she's been called worse. Way worse. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Landlord vs tenant: Two silly, irritating old farts, but at least there were no acts of violence, vandalism or other outrageous behavior. What a relief. Plaintiff's daughters, who seem to be women in their 30s, can't possibly use the pool with someone else there. It makes the poor little darlings (all together now) "uncomfortable." Gee, all my life I had to go to a public, city pool I had to share with hundreds of other people. Oh, the trauma of not having a private pool! I've never recovered. JM is impatient with the rambling, grand rhetoric from both geezers, closeups of propane dials and wants to cut to the chase. Plaintiff's wife doesn't know anything, didn't see anything, doesn't recognize any of Darling Daughters' clothes hanging all over the place. "It's the Case of Serious First World Problems." Go home, you old gaffers and just rejoice that you're still sucking in oxygen every day. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: gastric bypass loan: I was thinking gastric bypass, but it doesn't seem to be working. I never thought we'd see a hipster snowflake that age - the bun, the beard, the self-righteous whining, entitled justification for stiffing the plaintiff - all snowflake material. I just bet he lives with his Momma and spends most of his time parking his large ass in a chair, heavily involved in online gaming and stuff like Fetlife. He complains that plaintiff was a slave driver - abusive, mean to him and forced him to do extra work. I bet he loved being dominated and used it to brag on some weirdo forums. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5241681
Schnickelfritz April 27, 2019 Share April 27, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Darling brother has no texes because sometimes you "gotta thow the phone" when you're having a hissy fit, or that's what it sounded like from what little I could understand of the garbled crap coming out of his piehole. "Uhhhh. I have 'em. It was in a former phone doh. in a former phone. Whenya whenya tryin' to be playboy sometimes, you gotta, you gotta throw dem phones out sometimes... sometimes like that." This transcription brought to you by the makers of Bayer Aspirin. Edited April 27, 2019 by Schnickelfritz 5 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5242413
AngelaHunter April 27, 2019 Share April 27, 2019 22 minutes ago, Schnickelfritz said: "Uhhhh. I have 'em. It was in a former phone doh. in a former phone. Whenya whenya tryin' to be playboy sometimes, you gotta, you gotta throw dem phones out sometimes... sometimes like that." Thanks. Wow. Holy shit. I could have used captions but didn't want my CC to commit suicide. I get it. He's got so many women lusting after him the only way to free himself from their avid pursuit is to "thow dem phones out." 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5242450
VartanFan April 29, 2019 Share April 29, 2019 D in the cheating car crash case was one of the most vile specimens I've seen on these shows. And that's saying A LOT. She was SO proud that she took a car and crashed it into another 'female's' car that she just couldn't keep her trap closed. She could have just said next to nothing and the P wouldn't have won. She just HAD to out herself and her handiwork. And then to go threaten the P?! Horrifying. 6 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5245895
SRTouch April 29, 2019 Share April 29, 2019 2 hours ago, VartanFan said: D in the cheating car crash case was one of the most vile specimens I've seen on these shows. And that's saying A LOT. She was SO proud that she took a car and crashed it into another 'female's' car that she just couldn't keep her trap closed. She could have just said next to nothing and the P wouldn't have won. She just HAD to out herself and her handiwork. And then to go threaten the P?! Horrifying. Absolutely - P did NOT prove her case as her evidence came from brother with no credibility. This was another time when a litigant's big yap gave away the decision. And, to prove how dimwitted she is, defendant goes on to threaten P on national tv.... course, the brother is equally dimwitted, because I believe defendant when she says they're still hooking up - wonder if P will host the baby shower when D announces P is going to be an Auntie? 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5246809
zillabreeze April 29, 2019 Share April 29, 2019 On 4/26/2019 at 4:32 PM, AngelaHunter said: because sometimes you "gotta thow the phone" when you're having a hissy fit When I worked with a road crew out in the country, you would not believe the number of relatively new phones we found thowed on the road. I guess when you have obtained your phone by screwing over the phone company or relative, tossing them out the window is just fine. As a sap that pays for my phones, it would never cross my mind to toss one. 2 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5247595
zillabreeze April 29, 2019 Share April 29, 2019 LMAO at the snow blower bitches... defendant caught red handed trying to forge a signature. As a well read woman of "a certain age" I learned how to properly forge from either Trixie Belden or Nancy Drew.😂🤣 2 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5248527
SRTouch April 29, 2019 Share April 29, 2019 No recap - have had a bad day revolving around a dog. Long story short - found starving/neglected dog yesterday - brought her inside and had about decided to keep it if no owner came forward - took her to vet today and was told her abdomen was filled with humongous tumor. So, maybe she's skin and bones because of the tumor. Now waiting to see if an owner comes forward as I'd hate to make decision to put dog down and find out someone is searching for her. Soooooo, putting up flyers and will wait a couple days, but can't wait too long as vet tells me she's hurting - even though she doesn't act like it 😢😭 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5248723
AngelaHunter April 29, 2019 Share April 29, 2019 SRTouch - I know just how you feel. I learned doing rescue that there are lovely people who will dump an animal rather than give it vet care. I saw this all the time. You need to do what you think is right for the dog since there is no hope. I wouldn't wait, personally. It's people like us who suffer the pain when others dump their trash for someone else to care for. You might want to skip the dog case in today's episodes. I mainly FF'd it, but unfortunately stopped when creepy plaintiff's giant, idiot daughter was laughing like a fool as though there was something funny about a dogfight where one of the dogs ended up dead. Def is a melodramatic nutcase too. I really enjoyed Ganash vs. Singh. Two utter idiots, but at least no children or animals were harmed. Plaintiff bought an "antique" 2008 snowblower from CL (that's an antique, right?) and crazy def borrowed it and was supposed to buy it. Sadly, def forged plaintiff signature on the receipt. Plaintiff has a home and married def wanted to rent a room in her house to carry on some affair with a boyfriend or so plaintiff says. Plaintiff said no, but def just pushed her way into the house, moved out some furniture and proceeded to get it on there with b/f. Plaintiff could do nothing about these trespassers occupying her room. What could she do? "Def gets whatever she wants". I get it. If people decided to move into a room in my home, I'd just have to stand there and let them, right? Anyway, def never paid for this special antique snowblower, so plaintiff is suing for the cost of a brand-new one. Plaintiff gets what she paid for the old, used snowblower. More interesting was the hall, where def comes out on crutches and informs Doug that her injuries are all the plaintiff's fault because she told def's hubby about the affair and he abused her and broke her foot and now he's in jail. Oh, no. Crazy, they all are. I was annoyed at the accident case. JM was way too kind to the pansy-assed, douchebag-haired, snowflake def, just because he's 18 or 19. He backed up into plaintiff's car in a parking lot but feels he needn't pay for the damage (even though he said he would) because plaintiff's car was in his blind spot! He works long hours at Chipotle! He was going into the Marines (wow, they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't they?) He couldn't go into the Marines because he stabbed himself at Chipotle and needed 5 whole stitches! He's not sure now that he's going to join the Marines. Maybe he heard that they don't have any hairdressers to arrange his locks in his preferred douchebag style and he'll have to shave his head? JM seems to find all this BS crap sympathetic and cute, for some bizarre reason. He couldn't pay one cent to plaintiff due to his career commitments and he's only 19! Cry me a river. How could anyone be so heartless as to expect him to pay for what he damaged? Plaintiff even offered to give him a 200$ discount on the cost of repairs, but now he wants the whole 1400$ because the little shit weaselled out of paying anything, and he gets it. 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5248880
Bazinga April 30, 2019 Share April 30, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: JM was way too kind to the pansy-assed, douchebag-haired, snowflake def, just because he's 18 or 19. You forgot that he shouldn't have had to pay because the plaintiff knew classified, top secret, for your eyes only, information about him! Plaintiff knew he was thinking of joining the Marines and his home address! You know, the stuff he puts out on Facebook and general information that anyone using Google can find out. Any excuse not to pay someone. Annoying that JM actually made the plaintiff have to answer such stupid charges, as if he possibly did something wrong to the oh, so cute, charming, what a great story (excuse) teller, young defendant. If plaintiff had not found the defendant's address, would not have been able to sue him, as can't serve him, which is what defendant thought would happen and is annoyed didn't. The dog bite defendant was the same way. She agreed to pay and then found reasons not to pay, then says she never agreed to pay though she had texted her intention to pay. He was in her backyard once; police know they do this kind of thing; the daughter said she was worried dog would go into traffic, so must be off-leash; how do we know it is not my dog's blood on his dog?; he called me a lot wanting me to pay; he drove by wanting me to pay; he gave my sainted daughter the finger; my dog died due to this incident, though not because of what the plaintiff's dog did; my dog couldn't possibly have done it because he is paralyzed, so must have been another dog though she was there for the aftermath of the incident. I am sure if I keep saying "suspicious" stuff, something will stick and it wont be my fault. Another defendant looking for any excuse not to pay. People create their own self-righteous indignation so as to justify not paying what they owe. Don't you know, I am really the victim here??? Edited April 30, 2019 by Bazinga 1 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5250294
AngelaHunter April 30, 2019 Share April 30, 2019 8 hours ago, Bazinga said: You forgot that he shouldn't have had to pay because the plaintiff knew classified, top secret, for your eyes only, information about him! Right! The little Chipotle dishwasher (must be a hell of a lot of dishes to wash if he couldn't take time from it to ever contact plaintiff) was bragging about his big, top secret Marines gig on FB. He probably tried to join but was rejected for being a silly snowflake. Would joining really have to be put off due to a temporary cut on one of his spindly legs? Or maybe the whole thing was BS, posted to impress his little chit-chat buddies and dazzle some empty-headed girls. 1 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5250700
AngelaHunter April 30, 2019 Share April 30, 2019 Getting mighty annoyed with JM's counselling. Plaintiff, who is a SSM, hooks up with def, who is a petty criminal, who can't pay his own car insurance (he has "issues" with the ins.) can't get his own cell phone and needs plaintiff to pay the utilities for his failed barber shop. He has FIVE kids, who I'm sure he's supporting in fine style with his no-profit business. Quite the catch he is. He kicks in plaintiff's door and I thought that was pretty bad until we hear she kicked in HIS door. She's showering this smarmy loser with all this money when she has a kid. And then he gets her a 5K engagement ring - which somehow, some way, he was able to buy, on payments, probably with 200% interest because someone who can't pay his own bills should do this. She decides it's not ostentatious enough so returns it for a 7K one for the upcoming Wedding of the Decade which sadly never happened. He has it back but hasn't tried to sell it. JM gets all gushy about what a cute couple these fools are and don't they want to get back together, and maybe kick in a few more doors? Yeah, adorable, minus the violence and the cheating and the utter delusions. None of that bothered plaintiff enough to dump him though. It's that he has so many other women that ticked her off. Of course, he does. Look at what they're getting. A regular Sir Lancelot, who now is trying to countersue for what he spent on groceries when he was mooching at her place. Plaintiff is a seemingly bright woman who has a good job, and this was her heart's desire. She deserved whatever she got. Yet another entitled dingbat suing for the price she paid for a 14-year old car with 162,000 miles. She's an adult student who says "Had came" and of course she's another SSM. She thinks that if she buys an old car and the check engine light comes on, she can just take it back, dump it at the lot and get a refund. There were so many things wrong with it. She just knows the brakes were bad and stuff was shaking, but sadly she can only prove it needed a 100$ repair for some sensor light. She didn't feel the car was safe for her child. Your feelings don't translate into cancelling a deal you made. The def was more than generous and obliging, offering to extend her 30-day warranty to a 90-day one - he did that when she came to his lot, shrieking and carrying on like a lunatic in front of other people - but that's not good enough for her. She's a SSM! She should get all her money back. She gets nothing, of course. Last case: I'm really not sure about foundations and drains, etc. but boy, was plaintiff mad when his suit for 6,600$ was dismissed because JM couldn't find anything the def. contractor did wrong. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5251921
zillabreeze April 30, 2019 Share April 30, 2019 51 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: She's a SSM! She should get all her money back. Then waxing philosophical in the hallterview about "Karma". Odds are excellent that this will not be the last hoopty she buys. 57 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: JM gets all gushy about what a cute couple these fools are and don't they want to get back together, WTF JM? Why not just rent them a room and encourage more of his demon seed sowing????? 1 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5252039
Florinaldo April 30, 2019 Share April 30, 2019 (edited) What a spineless defendant in that bad break-up case. He let the money-grubbing plaintiff walk all over him and convince him to buy a more expensive engagement ring than the one he already cannot afford, and then when it comes to trial he drops his countersuit regarding the dresser he was asking for and even mutters something about letting her have the ring he is still paying for. Is he too lazy or stupid to sell the thing, at a loss perhaps but at least he would get something back. These two really deserved each other. They are prime examples why mandatory spaying and neutering laws might be advisable for some humans. It seemed overwhelmingly likely that in the foundations case, the whole problem was due to a pre-existing condition that was totally beyond the contractor's duties and responsibilities. But the asshole plaintiff had come to an unwavering conclusion in his mind and everybony was supposed to agree with him, never mind he had no proof of his theory. Car case: another stupid entitled SSM who does not understand what the terms of the warranty mean and how she is bound by them. She just "knows" that the car is dangerous. I am glad the defendant's initial uncertainty about how to react to her shrieky complaining did not ultimately bite him in the ass. Edited May 1, 2019 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5252165
SRTouch May 1, 2019 Share May 1, 2019 (edited) Busy last couple days with the found dog. Ended up having poor old girl put to sleep yesterday after the tumor diagnosis with poor prognosis - only to have an owner see one of the flyers and call. I would have bet money the dog had been abandoned. Unfortunately for those of you eager to see me on court TV, the owner was perfectly reasonable and thanked me for caring for her dog, even though I made the decision to put it down. Hope nobody tells her she had an excellent case for pain and suffering and should have sued me for the court max. From what owner told me, she had had the dog since it was a puppy and it was 13yo. Said she knew it was just about time for the final vet visit, but just hadn't been able to make the decision. mother/daughter feud: (uh oh, sounds like Dr Phil family counseling - and I DON'T watch Dr Phil.) mom suing adult daughter for just about everything you can think (rent, food, furniture, etc etc) of after they got an apartment together - wants 5 grand.... defendant: says she's always had to help mommy because of mommy's criminal history... yep, mudslinging starting with intro - well, actually preview had D telling MM mommy made death threats.... says she moved out of mommy's house when she was only 17, agreed to room with her to reconnect, and ended up getting sued - countersuit for $1100 in pain and suffering..... defendant needs to look across aisle to see her future - mommy obese and sitting when case introduced, and if daughter doesn't make better choices her current weight problem will develope just like mommy's - anyway, chances of me watching till end just about nil, and offering a normal verbose recap even less.... testimony: anybody else think mommy is making this up on the fly - anyway, guessing these two are both SSM's, and when they moved in together it was daughter with her kid and mommy and yet and (younger) daughter - ok, seems mommy must has a whole passed of offspring, and one of the points of contention was that D daughter doesn't get along with her siblings and their wives - lease was in D's name, so mommy had to agree that some of her other kids' spouses would not come visit (apparently also banned certain neice/nephews/grandkids). Oh my, when they all moved in mommy agreed to pay half utilities and $500 in rent, but then after a couple months she found herself a bf and got engaged, so the fiancé moved into the happy home - mommy now to pay half the rent (increased to $675) - the big blow up that resulted in mommy moving occurred when one of the banned in-law wives came over to pick up some of the grandkids..... ok, this whole arrangement doomed from beginning to me, and I'm getting awful tired of mommy's testimony delivery and daughter's accompanying faces.... ok, seems mommy established a granny daycare, and was babysitting kids D (the person on lease) had banned from coming to house as a condition to mommy moving in - mommy says daughter knew and approved of arrangement, but daughter says no way did she know/give permission..... ok, I've heard enough - not to make a decision, but enough to know I don't care.... zip ahead 10 minutes.... family counseling session - case dismissed, mommy trying hard to produce tears as she protests and MM announces decision over the protests..... when MM crosses aisle to reject D's pain and suffering counterclaim mommy still crying in background and now daughter starts protesting "I was suffering, your Honor" as MM says no way and D thinks it's funny - yeah, sounds like mommy paid some of the move in costs, but has no proof so MM isn't going to award her anything, and daughter happy she got over on mommy and is still in house..... didn't even stop for Doug as mommy still carrying on in courtroom as camera shifts to hallway Car deal gone sour: one of those convoluted car deals that make no sense to me - P says she traded in her old junker ('05 Pontiac) and got her a '08 Toyota from defendant - P took possession of her new ride before financing was approved - after enjoying her new ride for a couple weeks, D calls her up and tells her financing wasn't approved, and he wants the Toyota back - fine, she tells him he can gave the Toyota, but will have to return her old Pontiac - oops, D says he junked her car - oh, and P says when she checked with finance company she was told reason her loan was rejected was D dodging the loan company calls... not sure why he'd avoid calls from loan company.... (question on P's appearance - just how long ARE those eyelashes? Must weigh alot, as seems she can't keep her eyes open for very long)... defendant: says reason loan was rejected was P didn't have a driver's license.... huh, she drove in and traded in a car, but has no license? Maybe she's buying the car for someone else to drive. As long as she proves the car/collateral will be insured, why would loan company even care? Another thing, why would a dealer let P drive off without a license, and who was insuring the vehicle while financing was pending.... ok, shady deal all around - in preview we hear buyer admitting she and seller lied on the loan application, claiming she put down a thousand cash with her old Pontiac as a deposit and no cash changed hands - this is one of those cases I expect the Judge feels like she needs needs a shower afterwards - ok, everybody lied and tried to defraud loan company, deal needs to be rewound (and car dealer licensing people might want to look into this guy's business practices) - problem is D doesn't have the trade in to return - D later argues he found "similar" financing deal, thing is the "similar" deal required P to actually come up with the phantom cash downpayment - I say give P value of Pontiac in excellent condition (yeah slimeball used car salesman needs a spanking)..... testimony: ok, right out the gate we have the lie about cash deposit when both sides says no cash - course MM saves extra tongue lashing for shady business owner who admits he's a liar liar.... maybe he DOES have reason to dodge the loan company's calls.... it definitely doesn't help D when he can't just answer questions and MM has to drag answers out of him.... ok, hating D in case and can hardly stand to look at P and her weird eyes/lashes/and teeth..... D trying his best to spin this into a problem with P driving with a permit instead of a license, and more silly song and dance when MM asks how he didn't notice she didn't have a license (we must have missed that, yada yada later he says the alternative financing (where she would have to cough up additional money) would have accepted her with just a permit, just as long as she had a cosigner) - MM takes a minute to question the paperwork and driving around without a regular exercise license - P doesn't try to spin things like D, no she just laughs and smiles as she admits she has no credit, lied on the application, has no license even though she had a trade in and is buying another car while she can't legally drive without an accompanying licensed driver (she's 31yo, wonder if she's EVER had a license) ... sooooo what we have is shady dealer who admits he lies and tries to get over on bank by saying P has cash because she has terrible credit - I'm still waiting to see if he let her drive off lot without proving insurance - and a car buyer without a regular license, probably uninsured, and of course bad credit and willing to commit fraud (not her fault, the dealer told her to lie).... ok, heard enough of P laughing as she admits everything and D trying to spin everything and giving up on trying to keep a running commentary going - MM rips both of them up, P laughs (yeah, she know D screwed himself selling the pontiac before deal final) and D tries to make excuses even while MM is numbering on her fingers all the ways his business practices suck - yep, coming down to what I expected, unenforceable contract because both sides entered with dirty hands, but how will MM void the contract when crook disposed of the rusty old Pontiac.... some yakity yak nonsense, then we have a surprise making dirt ball dealer looking even worse - all this time D is maintraining he junked her car, even turned a check over to her for $119 he claims the salvage yards paid for it - nope, nuh uh, P says he actually sold the car to be auctioned - now dude claims he never said he junked her car, says he sold it at auction and the $119 represents what he received after fees/expenses - then he makes it worse when he admits their deal was never completed, so MM jumps on that and says yes, deal never completed so you had no right to dispose of the car, so value of car is 2 grand - and dufus crook wants to see where MM is getting that figure - dude! really? In these cases the judge/arbitrator gets to decide the value, and everything you've said shows you to be a crook - yeah, car probably not worth 2 grand, but, like I said, MM using the award to spank slime ball - dude still doesn't get it and trying to argue blue book value with Doug after gavel bangs down not paid for work: P claims he was hired to get signatures on a petition - says he did the work and is owed $4176.... defendant: says P turned in questionable signatures, so his work isn't worth squat.... says it's actually a crime to forge signatures on a petition (I gather this petition was being submitted as a requirement to change or introduce a law regarding felons right to vote in elections).... taking wait and see attitude - these petition gatherers don't check IDs, so does D need to prove P knew signatures were phoney - also, what determines what P was to be paid, is he paid hourly, so much per signature, or what..... testimony: ok, we start off with laugh as MM stops to comment on D's wife's hair (multicolor pink/white/red) - MM says she has to ask about "your hair" - wife asks who, me? while standing next to bald as cue ball D - ok, either today is a snooze fest or I'm just not in the mood, but I'm not interested enough to make sense of P's accented testimony - I gather guy was doing this work getting petitions signed in Florida, and law there requires more than just a scribbled signature - which explains why D has BIG stack of paper.... wow, actual evidence!.... anyway, not catching my attention, so zip zip - decision time - after I zipped ahead it came to light that they had a written work agreement - this case actually a contract case dealing with the work agreement and MM says whether or not P handed in forgeries really doesn't factor in.... nope the work agreement P signed gave D right to refuse to pay for any signature they didn't want. So D doesn't need to prove P handed in fakes, just that they were suspect or he didn't/couldn't use them for whatever reason..... case dismissed - loser D wants to retry case in hallterview because "judge didn't listen" - no, dude, you didn't hear the ruling, the contract you signed gave D right to not pay for questionable work he refused to accept , he refused, he doesn't have to pay. Edited May 1, 2019 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5254319
patty1h May 1, 2019 Share May 1, 2019 15 minutes ago, SRTouch said: mother/daughter feud: (uh oh, sounds like Dr Phil family counseling - and I DON'T watch Dr Phil.) mom suing adult daughter for just about everything you can think (rent, food, furniture, etc etc) of after they got an apartment together That mother had some good lung power to wail at the end of the case, as she rolled herself out to Doug. However, I looked hard but didn't see one tear come out of her eyes. That dry crying always makes me suspicious. I think she was crying about not getting her $5K for bogus reasons. 5 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5254367
zillabreeze May 1, 2019 Share May 1, 2019 18 minutes ago, patty1h said: That mother had some good lung power to wail at the end of the case, as she rolled herself out to Doug. However, I looked hard but didn't see one tear come out of her eyes. That dry crying always makes me suspicious. I think she was crying about not getting her $5K for bogus reasons. I was rolling laughing at the wailing and dry cry, too! She should hire herself out for funerals 3 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5254429
AngelaHunter May 1, 2019 Share May 1, 2019 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: mother/daughter feud: Umm - no thanks. I wasn't really in the mood for "sordid" today. I noted only that the 15-year old, the 29-year old and Momma all looked about the same age and that Momma's howling and wailing and sobbing produced not a single tear. Anyway, what's the big deal? My mother often directed death threats at me. FF, since I couldn't listen to any more of this shit. More blubbering in the hall - still no tears. Doug, like JM, does not give a rat's ass for your crocodile tears, Big Momma. Daughters better take note of Momma's condition in that she can't even stand for 15 minutes, and do something about their weight while they can. 1 hour ago, zillabreeze said: I was rolling laughing at the wailing and dry cry, too! She should hire herself out for funerals I was watching an older ep of "The Good Wife" the other night and the law firm was conducting a fake trial and they needed to hire a tearful mom who could cry and dramatically grieve on demand. The plaintiff in today's case could make a living at that for sure. Then we had the stereotypical, oily, sleazy, and in this case, downright fraudulent used car peddler. Plaintiff has no money! No problem. She has no credit! No problem. She doesn't even have, at 31-years old, a driver's license. Also no problem. He'll just lie! I hope the finance company who deals with this crook watched this and learned how he falsified documents he sent them just so he could put a few dollars in his pocket. What a creep. The petition people: Just skimmed this, but I think litigants who stand there - unbelievably like the def's pink-haired wife - chewing on gum like cows on their cud are told to get rid of it off-camera now. Too bad. I used to like it when JM would (rightfully)act all affronted by this disrespectful and ignorant crap - "Are you chomping gum in my courtroom??" - stop the proceedings and send Douglas with a tissue to make them spit it out, like chastised school children. 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5254690
AngelaHunter May 1, 2019 Share May 1, 2019 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Busy last couple days with the found dog. Ended up having poor old girl put to sleep yesterday after the tumor diagnosis with poor prognosis I am so sorry you had to be the one to do that. I know what it's like. ( I had to do the same thing once. Broke my heart. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5254698
SRTouch May 1, 2019 Share May 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I am so sorry you had to be the one to do that. I know what it's like. ( I had to do the same thing once. Broke my heart. Only had to do it once with one of my own. Unfortunately, back when I was helping feed ferals I was present for more than one 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5254743
AngelaHunter May 1, 2019 Share May 1, 2019 40 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Only had to do it once with one of my own. I've had to do it with all of my own cats and dogs and rats over the years. Only once with a foster cat. Very upsetting. I'm not sure how someone "loses" a sick elderly pet. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5254854
Florinaldo May 2, 2019 Share May 2, 2019 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: mother/daughter feud: With all the wailing and fake crying by the mother, I feel that the viewers are the one who should have gotten damages for suffering and mental anguish. 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: not paid for work: I despised JM for being so interested in the defendant's fugly hair colouring. I know the case was not the most stimulating, but she is paid to pay attention to the substance of the facts, not trivial things like that. Unless she is contractually bound to behave like an easily distracted squirrel. 1 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5256012
patty1h May 2, 2019 Share May 2, 2019 (edited) Irina, the screaming tenant, looked like a refugee from CuckooLand. What a nightmare to hear her shrieking and banging. Oof - she looked beyond help and in need of some heavy meds or a long hospital visit. Why didn't the condo owner evict her? Her dentally challenged husband was not doing her any favors by downplaying her issues, but he was doing one good thing by keeping the child away from its bugged out mother. He won't even live with her, so that's very telling. 2nd Case: Fool brings a large TV from NC to NY on a Greyhound bus. Lord and MESS! Edited May 2, 2019 by patty1h 5 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5258333
SRTouch May 2, 2019 Share May 2, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, patty1h said: 2nd Case: Fool brings a large TV from NC to NY on a Greyhound bus. Lord and MESS! Haven't watched yet (yeah, yeah, been closing every night guide week and short on sleep - sort of surprised cats let me sleep in). Anyway, for some reason a TV on a bus reminds me of the olden days before FedEx. I remember as a kid in the 60s-early 70s when we sent Christmas packages across country by Greyhound. Also remember my first weekend pass from Basic. Hurried down and grabbed first bus home without checking schedule for return. Ended up on bus that stopped at every wide spot on the road. When I finally got home and checked with ticketing agent about return trip. No express buses between my hometown (Bakersfield) and Ft Ord (maybe 2hrs by car) Found out to make it back in time I would have to head back almost immediately. Ended up staying overnight and flying, was still late, but only a few minutes and didn't get in TOO much trouble. Hey, it was Basic in the 70s - you could get in trouble for not chewing fast enough in the Mess Hall. Edited May 2, 2019 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5258478
AngelaHunter May 2, 2019 Share May 2, 2019 1 hour ago, patty1h said: Irina, the screaming tenant, looked like a refugee from CuckooLand. I always find it interesting to see the results of mail-order Russian brides. I have a theory about this: Weirdos like the hubby (who apparently can't find a woman who suits them in the entire country)are insecure twerps who want a wife who they believe will be subservient, are new to the country, don't speak the language well or at all and who has no friends or family in the US. She is basically a captive audience for creeps like him. However, the brides think they are coming to a land of milk and honey and are willing to take a fugly creep like this one. Both are disappointed. Even repulsive Lurch couldn't stand living with her. "Personal reasons" indeed. He accuses the plaintiff of being on a "power trip", even after we see and hear the video of the wife going totally ballistic overhead. Plaintiff may have decided to skip this little problem when she rented out her condo, which was pretty underhanded of her. What did she expect? Tenants who would pay a lot of money to have, as JM said, "The Exorcist" script being enacted over their heads? My only concern is this 10-year old child who has two outrageous misfits as parents. Then we got nutty momma, who hauls that old-looking TV with her on the Greyhound bus and sets it down so it blocks the aisle where people walk. Daughter - with an outlandish wig, severely micro-bladed brows, dagger-like fake nails and who pulls up her pants(which don't meet her top) to show her stretch-marked belly, claims Momma and boyfriend got into a "confrontation" and whatever whatever. I could take no more. Mom is suing daughter for 200$ for the TV, even though it could have been broken on the bus, or in a car, or here or there or anywhere! Also had to bail on the last case. Plaintiff, who cannot speak properly, for some reason brings the 17-year daughter of his ex-girlfriend here with him! What the hell was that all about? Bizarre. He stands there glaring at def like a particularly disturbing gargoyle until JM tells him to knock it off. He couldn't go to his job interview(!) because he didn't have his car back. He can't possibly take public transportation because all the bus drivers are big meanys. Understandable. I took a bus to work for over 15 years but just had to deal with bus drivers who were not as jovial as I would hope. 1 7 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5258582
laprin May 3, 2019 Share May 3, 2019 22 hours ago, patty1h said: Irina, the screaming tenant, looked like a refugee from CuckooLand. What a nightmare to hear her shrieking and banging. Oof - she looked beyond help and in need of some heavy meds or a long hospital visit. Why didn't the condo owner evict her? I'm glad the plaintiff received the money she lost from the tenants, but what now? She will continue to lose money until Irina is rightfully placed in a mental facility. Her husband has clearly washed his hands of her and can't even be bothered to stay a night. Why doesn't he have her committed? Plaintiff needs to sue the condo board for failing to act. I am a condo owner. Most condo owners are paying $10k plus a year to the condo board. Part of their responsibility is to resolve matters like this - not unlike an HOA. 5 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court-general-discussion/page/132/#findComment-5260883
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.