The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

Litigants Google all kinds of stuff, only half-understand what they read and then regurgitate it here in an effort to get rewarded for their stupidity.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

Bingo! Very well stated! If the defendant had agreed she said what plaintiff alleged, there might have been some money returned.

Any oral agreement is only as good as the other person admitting to it:)

[Schnickelfritz]

15 hours ago, Katy M said:

Any oral agreement is only as good as the other person admitting to it:)

Or as my sainted Mama would say, "It's as good as the paper it's printed on."

[aemom]

On 4/29/2019 at 5:43 PM, AngelaHunter said:

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. 

I'm way behind as usual, but I wanted to comment in general on MM's penchant for finding a lot of these young defendants cute.

This kid was young and acted very entitled, but he was well spoken and seemed to understand MM well. In another case I watched, the defendant was such a vile POS that stole a car and went to confront some woman and threatened the plaintiff. She's not "fixable." She's way too far gone down the road of degenerate.

But the kids who seem like they just need a push back on track, and have to face the music and pay their debts and learn a lesson, maybe she feels that's the best way to set them straight. I don't know.

[Florinaldo]

In today's landlord-tenant dispute, how could JM doubt the veracity of the defendant's words? Didn't she see she was wearing a big-ass cross around her neck, a surefire sign that she cannot tell a lie (unless she was scheduled to go on a vampire hunt after the hearing)?

Perhaps JM was distracted by the aggressively fluorescent violet lipstick the defendant decided to wear to court and so did not notice the jewelry.

On 5/19/2019 at 8:55 AM, aemom said:

This kid was young and acted very entitled, but he was well spoken and seemed to understand MM well.

I quite agree that she may have sensed a possibility for redemption there, something so many litigants do not display even a minute whiff of.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"Did you just call me 'your highness'?"

[Broderbits]

I hope the show gives us an update of the tax preparer case. Over $800 seems like a lot to pay for an individual return, plus is it even legal to confiscate someone's refund like the defendant did?

Final plaintiff may have been stupid not to check the car title before paying, but the defendant was a total idiot and couldn't have cared less about supplying a working title. What a putz.

[AngelaHunter]

I really enjoyed the jewelry case. The plaintiff, who ripped off Chanel by selling their altered products under her own name and continued to do so in spite of TEN "Cease and desist" orders from Chanel, is suing her business partner and friend of 40 years. Neither litigant knows how to use a computer so when they switched to online selling, hoping to duck Chanel, def hired some woman she met in an elevator to get them listed on "Shopify" etc. This woman gets 25$/hr to do what sounds like very little. Plaintiff says the assistant billed for 8hrs for packing a box. Good gig for the assistant! I enjoyed this case, as I enjoy nearly all contract cases. All parties could speak properly and committed no acts of vandalism or physical violence. 

And then we're back to the usual. Plaintiff, who says she is a SSMOFOUR (she said "five" at first so who knows?) buys an old beater car from def, Diana Ross, and then complains about it. Plaintiff shouldn't be held responsible for her AS IS purchase. She's a "female" so of course, she don't know nothing about cars. We know how well this goes over with JM, who did say how much that annoys her. She works three jobs! She has all these keeds! Everyone, even total strangers,  should take care of her and make sure everything she buys is in perfect condition. I wonder how much of the money from those three jobs went towards getting all those scribbly titty-tats she was displaying? Anyway, I was kind of annoyed that JM felt "so sorry" for her. Why? She's a grown woman who chose to squirt out a bunch of kids with who knows how many loser sperm donors. who can afford 4 kids these days? But yeah, I guess between all the impregnations, gestations and birthings, she had no time to learn about man things like cars.  Hint: Birth control is a lot cheaper than four (or five) kids.

JM didn't feel nearly as sorry for the def handyman in the last case. Even I felt for him. He's no spring chicken, has had all kinds of serious health problems/surgeries and appeared here with a bandaged head and black eye from a skin cancer operation, yet still has to do heavy work to earn a living. Yes, he should have returned the money plaintiff gave him for a job he was unable to do, but geeze, JM was harder on him than she was on the tatted SSMOF.

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/19/2019 at 8:55 AM, aemom said:

I'm way behind as usual, but I wanted to comment in general on MM's penchant for finding a lot of these young defendants cute.

This kid was young and acted very entitled, but he was well spoken and seemed to understand MM well.

I might agree if these young smartasses showed even a bit of remorse or shame for their actions and their ducking any responsibility, but in general, they do not. This beaky twerp didn't give a shit that he damaged someone's property, or that he failed to make good with even a dollar on his promise to pay for it. Ah, it wasn't really his fault, he didn't have time, he cut himself, etc etc. JM acts like she really hates to find against them, but the law demands it, just the way she did with that bunch of women who trashed someone's property. He, and others like him, walked away from this having learned nothing and smirking to their little friends how they had the judge wrapped around their little fingers. It's true. We've seen this too many times.

[aemom]

10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I might agree if these young smartasses showed even a bit of remorse or shame for their actions and their ducking any responsibility, but in general, they do not. This beaky twerp didn't give a shit that he damaged someone's property, or that he failed to make good with even a dollar on his promise to pay for it. Ah, it wasn't really his fault, he didn't have time, he cut himself, etc etc. JM acts like she really hates to find against them, but the law demands it, just the way she did with that bunch of women who trashed someone's property. He, and others like him, walked away from this having learned nothing and smirking to their little friends how they had the judge wrapped around their little fingers. It's true. We've seen this too many times.

If not for that, then I really do wonder why she does it then.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, aemom said:

If not for that, then I really do wonder why she does it then.

Personally, I think she does it because in general, if the litigant hasn't done something truly heinous, she's sympathetic to anyone the ages of her own kids, who sound incredibly babied. She does the same with most elderly litigants too -I'm sure because of her own elderly parents -  feeling they somehow deserve respect and kindness, no matter how hateful, vicious and nasty they are and even if they themselves extend no kindness to anyone.

[DoctorK]

Today's Great Oil Pan Caper. For me, there were only two interesting aspects:

1. The oil pan picture - it looked like the oil pan was about 1/4" thick instead of sheet metal, and the hole looked like it was broken not cut (the edges looked like fractures) which suggests cast iron, not steel. I have never seen an oil pan that wasn't sheet metal (I did have one FWD with a heavy skid plate under the oil pan), was this some exotic car?

2. I think this is the first time we have seen a hallterview in which the plaintiff's son (Mr. Roosterhead) flashed gang signs to the camera, then proceeded to add his commentary which sounded like he is a complete ignoramus.

If anyone knows of cars that have cast iron oil pans, I would like to know.

[zillabreeze]

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

(Mr. Roosterhead)

I thought the hair/hat combo made him look like a court jester....then he started talking and confirmed.

[Florinaldo]

After the festival of garbled grammar and the string of paralogical non-sequiturs from litigants in the first two cases, the third case was rather refreshing, even if rather lightweight.

How comforting to get a plaintiff who is coherent, has his evidence together, can cogently present a valid case and even make a sound legal point in reply to JM. He lost points though for blaming his printer for the micropscopic print size on some of his papers; if you do not know how to format a document correctly for printing, ask someone else  but do not say it's the machine's fault.

But his biggest failing was in not spotting from the start the true character of the defendant. As she was entering the courtroom, her demeanor and facial expressions made me immediately peg her as a lying snake. Which she entirely proved herself to be as she tried to justify her actions in not paying him what was due.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

In the yoga case, JM tells the plaintiff that she's "adorable" even after hearing how she stiffed the def and slandered her and her employees in an effort to weasel out of what she agreed to pay. The employees are not qualified to teach, she claims. Oops, she didn't think to bring evidence of that, but told this to others anyway.  The simple fact seems to be that she signed up for classes to get a certification but then got another job, changed her mind, couldn't be bothered and decided she should get her money back after breaching her contract. She's been traumatized by the vile acts of def. and no longer wants to be a yoga teacher. Def wins on the countersuit and I found plaintiff - who seems to think her cuteness should win out - not adorable at all, although JM seems more sympathetic to her than she does to the def, who did nothing wrong. However, this case was a breath of fresh air. No acts of violence, no screeching videos, and all parties could speak their language properly. How rare and unusual.

Rent scammer: Plaintiff has lived in his apartment for 12 years. The roof has always leaked, he's always had mouse infestations and the windows let in all the cold air. He chose to stay anyway. All that suited him because it was convenient and a good price. Now he squats in the property, not paying rent and wants all kinds of money from the def. who inherited this building from her sister who passed away. Def knows nothing about tenant/landlord laws (something the plaintiff took advantage of. He's a senior citizen and has lots of time to find out every single way to work the system) but she says God instructed her in these laws. JM detested the money-grubbing, opportunistic, bottom-feeding plaintiff and gave the def some great advice, which was to get this squatter, who has reported the def multiple times, out of the apartment and stop feeling sorry for him. Squatter wanted all kinds of rebates on the rent he paid for the last 4 years, even though the def never got that money.  Do senior citizens have a right to squat and steal from landlords? He thinks so.

Then we get the usual: Woman buys a 17-year old car from def and now whines that it's not in perfect condition and she wants her 1500$ back.  After she squawks, the def, Gucci, agrees to pay 150$ to get the thing tuned up, something he had zero obligation to do and really should have told her to go pound sand. But there's a twist: Plaintiff freely admits she bribed the inspector with 50$ to pass the heap. Also, she claims she never got the 150$ def gave her. However, her drugged-looking daughter confirms that SHE got the money. So either plaintiff is lying (again) that she didn't get the money or her daughter stole it from her. JM hates this lying, scamming, bribing plaintiff too. She gets zippo.

SRTouch, are you okay? We miss you and your primo recaps!!

[zillabreeze]

8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

So either plaintiff is lying (again)

But she couldn't have been lying!!!! She was wearing her big gold cross up above those ginourmus boosoms!

[AngelaHunter]

Just now, zillabreeze said:

She was wearing her big gold cross up above those ginourmus boosoms!

Oh, dear. The bosoms were so ginormous I didn't even notice the cross. I wonder if she was wearing it when she bribed the crooked inspector?

[Florinaldo]

A Yoga Special Snowflake. That is a first I believe. The poor young thing could not stand the burden of following the training program to become an instructor and then make a career out of it, so she of course thinks she is due a reimbursement of all her expenses and puts forward all sorts of reasons, mostly inventions, why she was taken advantage of. It appears she is not the first one to do so according to defendant, who recounts that one former young student got a favourable ruling in court by bursting into tears; I think I would have been more interested in hearing further details about that story than following this case. In a perfect world, she should have been denied her certificate for all of her dishonest shenanigans to get her money back. But the document won't do her much good anyway since she does not seem willing (or able) to put any effort into pursuing that profession.

She is another in a long line of litigants that JM finds "adorable" but that I just could not stomach. At least the judge was not won over by her cutesy act, a tactic that probably often works for her in real life.

The old leech of a tenant was even more morally repellent. He argued that the flat was uninhabitable, but he actually inhabited it for many years! Defendant was a pushover, who nearly lost me when she started with the sob story about moving back home to take care of her dying sister; I hate blubbering litigants. Thankfully, the plaintiff knocked some sense into me by dissing the sisters' relationship; it may have been true, but it is always an uncalled-for move to cast gratuitous and irrelevant aspersions on the opposing party. I would like to think that the defendant will have to fortitude to pursue eviction proceedings to the end, in order to get that loathsome freeloader out, but I have some doubts; unless her friend can provide the necessary push and support.

Rather standard "as is sale" case to round up this episode, with another defendant who is too much of a softie. That lying plaintiff did not deserve a single penny back, much less the 150 $ he gave her because of unwarranted compassion.

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The bosoms were so ginormous I didn't even notice the cross.

I also missed the cross (and I usually focus on those as a litigant's attempt to establish morality and credibility), but it my case I think it was the wonky and fugly hairstyle that had me distracted.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

Well. That was different. We had "Savages: The Entitled Snowflake Version."  Plaintiff is driving, sees def waiting to cross the street, stops to let def. cross and oh, no! Def didn't wave or say thank you! Who would tolerate that? Of course, the plaintiff does what we would all do if a stranger didn't extend the courtesy we demand. She stops her car, jumps out and goes to confront ill-mannered def. Def, who is still traumatized and getting therapy for a previous attack she suffered, has no problem with rising to the occasion and challenges out-of-control snowflake plaintiff to "Hit me! Hit me!" When crazy plaintiff declines the invitation, def runs up and kicks her car, although she has no memory of doing so. Yeah, right. I agree that plaintiff's goofy-looking hubby shouldn't leave this woman in charge of his kids since she has serious anger and lack of self-control issues.  Def wants money she wasted on a lawyer and also for her two extra therapy sessions to deal with this Extreme Snowflake incident. Nope. Plaintiff, unfortunately, gets the cost to repair her car. IMO, she should have gotten maybe half, since she instigated the whole thing. Plaintiff seems to think it's cute or funny when JM tells her she's a nut. Def gets the "Oh, poor little me!" chin-wobbling thing going, but it does her no good.

Next case: Strange looking plaintiff suing def for rent and damages after he rents a room in his apartment to the def. Yes, of course when my husband and I were affianced, I'd have had no objection to him moving in some character he knew from the barbershop, to live with us. Def business does so well that he has no place to live and can't take care of himself so naturally, what he needs are a baby momma and a baby. That isn't enough, so he needs a dog too, that he doesn't take care of. I FF most of this stupidity because I hate hearing about animals suffering because their owners are losers. Plaintiff gets the rent def owed and didn't pay because in his mind, if he says he's leaving at the end of Dec he needn't pay rent for that month even though he left a bunch of junk there. Plaintiff? If you and your fiance need to get deadbeats to live with you, maybe you're not ready for marriage.

Then we had a plaintiff suing Pootie Tang, who was so dumb I felt like weeping,  for hitting her car with his. I really couldn't understand most of what the def said, but I gathered that even with the plaintiff's credible story and the fact that def offered to take her car to a body shop he knows (he never touched her car! He's just a nice guy.) he didn't do nothing.  1700$ for fixing the damage is, in his learned opinion,  ridiculous. She should buff it out, so he refused to pay. And why should he pay? He didn't do nothing. Judgement for the full amount of around 2K for the plaintiff. Def continued his garbled lies in the hall, but I skipped most of it. 

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Litigants,

Let's back away from using the word sissy.  While I believe the word is being used in regards to a presumed heterosexual man, the word itself is rooted in homophobia.  There are so many other words available: whiner, baby, jackass, petulant child, cry baby, namby-pamby, fraidy cat, lily liver, wimp, wuss, jellyfish, and, of course, milk sop.  

[zillabreeze]

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

That isn't enough, so he needs a dog too, that he doesn't take care of

That was your take away?  Holy screaming horse hockey.  Am I getting my court assholes mixed up?  Wasn't this the pitbull that chomped the doorknobs and annihilated a doorjamb up to about 6 feet high?

Landlord plaintiff dodged a bullet.  He's lucky he still has all his limbs intact.  Entitled squatter and his hell beast have moved on to the next unsuspecting landlord ...

[TheLanai]

On 5/14/2019 at 10:40 PM, sonder said:

5/14/19 First case of the car dispute. The woman and male defendant were brother and sister. The brother, Harold Comeua Jr has been a defendant before on the People’s Court. Does anyone remember? I believe the case was: He had crashed into someone’s car in the middle of the night and they believed he was under the influence. He had left the scene I believe and pills were found in his car. He lost that case!

I knew we've seen this defendant before! It wasn't too long ago, either. He was just as arrogant and swarmy on the previous case as he was on this one. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm watching a rerun, where the plaintiff condo owner/landlord, was trying to rent her condo, but bizarre, banging and screaming from the upstairs apartment drove out the first tenant (who landlady didn't warn about the exorcist noises upstairs), and prevents rerenting to anyone else.     

The couple upstairs have been married for 11 years, have a 10 year old son, and husband and son live elsewhere full time.      It's like pulling teeth to get either defendant to even answer questions.     There is video filmed by the prior tenant, and shown in court of the shrieking, and  banging that sounds like a knock down, violent fight, and the defendant lives alone.    It sounds like the defendant needs to move out, so the neighbors, and other owners will be free of her issues.      The defendant's sort of husband blames everything on the plaintiff, and he's ignoring the fact that his wife is severely ill.     Plaintiff gets $5k, and good luck trying to get the condo board off their fannies, and doing anything about the defendant.      Poor Doug in the hall had a horrible time trying to talk to the defendant woman, she simply wasn't lucid.   It was kind of sad.   

Edited May 31, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

bizarre, banging and screaming from the upstairs apartment drove out the first tenant (who landlady didn't warn about the exorcist noises upstairs), and prevents rerenting to anyone else.

I had not seen that case when it first ran. It reminded me of a situation I was very peripherally involved in.

Friends in a small condo building a few blocks form here had to deal with a new unit owner who was similarly wailing at all hours, day and night. Also banging on walls and floors. I witnessed that behaviour twice, each time during the day. Once hearing her arguing violently with herself (she was alone neighbours assured me) while I was outside; it was summer so the windows were open. Another time she was on her balcony, bawling at the world. Once she was carried away by the police during the night, in a state of psychotic crisis; it took 3 or 4 officers to carry her out depending on who tells the tale. Alcohol was also involved.

I could easily imagine how stressful it was to live with that kind of behaviour, which was unpredictable; she alternated her outbursts with periods of calm over the better part of a year. I helped my friends research how to deal with the situation but legal options were limited outside of calling the police each time she troubled the peace; she was not incompetent under the law but had trouble keeping up with her medication. Fortunately the meds were adjusted  and she finally learned how to take it regularly. I have not heard of another incident since.

The female defendant's unresponsiveness and blank stare reminded me of how she behaved, which has also been corrected by the medication. Perhaps the main thing that defendant needs is some competent medical attention. Her husband seems to have given up on her, which is understandable considering how taxing such situations can be. In my friends' case the mother was trying for a while to help her daughter, but she eventually threw up her hands (as social agencies had) and wants nothing more to do with her, even though the problems have subsided.

I hope the plaintiff and the other neighbours eventually get a satisfactory resolution.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

Ah, the first case had Sonny James singing in my head;

Young love (young love), first love (first love)
Filled with true devotion
Young love (young love), our love (our love)
We share with deep emotion

with baby daddies and baby mommas and physical altercations and stabbing lungs and busted doors and restraining orders and murdered English and poe-leece and poe-leece reports.

Oops. Sorry, Sonny. Times have changed.

[iwasish]

8 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I had not seen that case when it first ran. It reminded me of a situation I was very peripherally involved in.

Friends in a small condo building a few blocks form here had to deal with a new unit owner who was similarly wailing at all hours, day and night. Also banging on walls and floors. I witnessed that behaviour twice, each time during the day. Once hearing her arguing violently with herself (she was alone neighbours assured me) while I was outside; it was summer so the windows were open. Another time she was on her balcony, bawling at the world. Once she was carried away by the police during the night, in a state of psychotic crisis; it took 3 or 4 officers to carry her out depending on who tells the tale. Alcohol was also involved.

I could easily imagine how stressful it was to live with that kind of behaviour, which was unpredictable; she alternated her outbursts with periods of calm over the better part of a year. I helped my friends research how to deal with the situation but legal options were limited outside of calling the police each time she troubled the peace; she was not incompetent under the law but had trouble keeping up with her medication. Fortunately the meds were adjusted  and she finally learned how to take it regularly. I have not heard of another incident since.

The female defendant's unresponsiveness and blank stare reminded me of how she behaved, which has also been corrected by the medication. Perhaps the main thing that defendant needs is some competent medical attention. Her husband seems to have given up on her, which is understandable considering how taxing such situations can be. In my friends' case the mother was trying for a while to help her daughter, but she eventually threw up her hands (as social agencies had) and wants nothing more to do with her, even though the problems have subsided.

I hope the plaintiff and the other neighbours eventually get a satisfactory resolution.

The husband was just as weird, he blamed the plaintiff for being a troublemaker. My guess is he got the condo as a place to dump her and not have to deal with her when she had her episodes. She needed either medications or institutionalization. 

[Zahdii]

14 hours ago, iwasish said:

The husband was just as weird, he blamed the plaintiff for being a troublemaker. My guess is he got the condo as a place to dump her and not have to deal with her when she had her episodes. She needed either medications or institutionalization. 

I don't remember the husband blaming the plaintiff for being a trouble maker, but I agree that he got the apartment for his wife so he and their son wouldn't have to live with her.

I wonder why he didn't pay to have an attendant live with her to keep her on her meds, or if that would even help, or if he couldn't afford such an additional expense.  I admit to wondering what her diagnosis was.  How could he be sure she wouldn't harm herself or someone else during one of her episodes?

[CrazyInAlabama]

The husband of the screaming neighbor said everything was the plaintiff's fault in the hall-terview.        While he was saying this, the wife was telling Doug that no one liked her, and the neighbors were all out to get her.   

 It wasn't nice of the plaintiff to keep the screaming, noisy neighbor situation from the tenant, but maybe she thought the defendant just hated her, and would stop when she moved.    

[aemom]

I know that I'm way behind, but I just could not let these two episodes go without chiming in.

On 5/8/2019 at 5:36 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I only hope that anyone within range of this nasty, underhanded, greedy witch makes sure never to do business with her. If they do, they should know she'll ask for one price until she's got someone by the... throat and then - oops, the price goes up or no product. What's wrong with blackmail, anyway? She's someone who's inner ugliness shone through to the outside. I just couldn't believe JM let the Wicked Witch butt in, interrupt and talk over her. Not sure why she was still smirking and grinning in the hall, after losing and being shown up for the petty, lowdown con artist loser she is. I was glad def. didn't have to pay her one more cent. 

That bitch that held her fabric hostage until D agreed to pay but then backed out of it - good for the D.  The plaintiff was a horrible POS and I wanted to bitch slap her smug, smiling face from here to next week.  I hope that all this negative publicity she got bites her in the ass.  You reap what you sow.

On 5/9/2019 at 12:19 PM, DoctorK said:

New episodes today, brace yourselves. Get your blinders and mute buttons ready. Face up to purple hair, purple lipstick, gigantic unrestrained boobs, missing nipples, bad Mexican boob jobs, and a musical interlude that will send you running to find knitting needles to shove into your eardrums. I think this is going to become one of our Hall of Fame episodes. By the way, the case has something to do with a car and somebody's medications.

A+ for this case summary.

On 5/9/2019 at 10:04 PM, Schnickelfritz said:

And on today's episode of Rode Hard and Put Away Wet, we have quite the assortment. The Queen Bo$$ Bitch of them all being Mickie Story. Well, Mickie Story has "sixty hundred thousand" 992 followers. And her 2 most viewed videos are in the millions 1300s.

Sadly, that will probably triple after today's case but not for the reasons she thinks.

Ridden hard and put away wet is EXACTLY, what I was thinking as well.  Especially the Purple haired D - the outfit, the hair, the lipstick.  THIS IS COURT PEOPLE!  DRESS APPROPRIATELY!!!  And it kind of makes me sad that she has more Instagram followers than I have subscribers on my YouTube channel - but then again - I could never look or be that outrageous online or in real life, so at least I have my self respect.  They were quite the pair of litigants.  And I was somewhat shocked that MM never reprimanded the P when at one point she responded "I know, girl," to her.

On 5/8/2019 at 5:36 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Another hoopty case. Plaintiff, dumb as a stump and way too old to be so stupid, buys a 21-year old Bonneville from the creepy, grinning, hideous Uncle Fester and is shocked - totally! - that the ancient hunk of junk starts spewing brake fluids on the way home. The thing was trying to die. Let it! No, of course, he never bothered getting it checked - why would he do that? - and just handed over the 600$ for the thing, which probably has a million miles on it. Good deal!  I was grossed out by the plaintiff's dental situation until I saw Fester who is even more toothless.  Fester says he'll refund the money, refunds 180 or so dollars and sells the junk heap to another co-worker. I think the place they all work must emit fumes that destroyed all their brain cells and teeth. All of them must be doing well, seeing as how this worthless, broken-down hoopty seems to be an object of desire and keeps getting passed around like it's candy . 

Those were some serious teeth issues.

I didn't see anybody comment on the guy who rear ended not-Tom Cruise with his "love tap" and then had every excuse in the book not to pony up the $250 he promised to pay ON THE VIDEO.  People like that just really make me angry.  I wanted MM to explicitly say that the D had to pay the court costs and statutory interest on the money owed because he really rubbed me wrong way with one bullshit excuse after another.

[DoctorK]

12 minutes ago, aemom said:

A+ for this case summary.

Rather than a summary, I thought of it as a silent scream of pain.

[AngelaHunter]

Loved the case of "Adonis has a brand-new Bag." So if the age difference between the toyboy and Grandma is 25 years, he must be around 50, or else she's calculating it in dog years. No way is that woman less than 75 or 80 unless she's taking "Hard-rode" to a whole new level. Def is a complete nutcase and her trying to be all morally superior provoked JM to read her insane, bunny-boiler texts to Adonis (to the joy of the audience) because she still finds a gigolo who is sponging off an elderly woman irresistible. Def's joy is watching and drooling when her former lover-boy works out, all sweaty and macho(hee!), so she rips down Granny's dilapidated wooden fence and installs a chain-link one, so The Hunk will be visible to her, I guess to fuel her fantasies. Gigolo has lots of time to work out in Grandma's yard on his equipment. I guess Granny foots the bills. Nuts, they all are. Def is ordered to move a tiny section of fence that intrudes on Granny's place. Hopefully, it won't block the magnificent view of Toyboy. Doug in the Hall wants to know what the fuck is going on with this May/Dec August/February big romance with Toyboy and Granny. I mean, Granny is probably too old even for Doug. This question prompted such a spewing of dopey, laughable, garbled Hallmark bullshit from the Toyboy I had to cut it short.  Grandma? The purple hair doesn't make you look young and edgy.  Note: Love it when JM calls these asshole losers "Adonis."

Next: Someone needs to alert Byrd that he has a few more dependants. Neither litigant can speak proper English (I loved how my CC read, "it's mine'S" with an apostrophe) but are experts at working the system. The "mines" used to annoy JM who would correct it, but by now I guess she figures, "What the fuck is the use?" Anyway, plaintiff auntie and def, baby momma to plaintiff's nephew who is or was incarcerated - sure, why not? No big deal - are scamming Byrd by applying for child care benefits, even though def. wasn't working and plaintiff wasn't looking after the kids. 800$/month for this non-care. But hey - all those Pampers Pampers Pampers cost money, you know and baby-daddy isn't coughing up any from jail. JM is disgusted with their scamming and boots them out with nothing. But the news isn't all bad. Def, who by the way, also got her ass thrown in the slammer, is again enceinte. Oh, blessed day.

The last case was the usual, with a twist. Plaintiff buys an old car for 1500$ from def, Maritza, but finds he can't register it because the title is not in def's name. Def, looking spiffy with her matching hair and outfit, claims the title is in her sister's name. JM asks her to point out that name on the title. Oh, well - it's not there, but Maritza probably has evidence at home somewhere. Plaintiff wants his money back. Maritza gives him the runaround and has no intention of refunding him for a car he can't register or drive. Since the title is not in def or her sister's name, JM orders her to pay the def the 1500$ and tells him to turn the car over to the police. The sad part here is that Maritza gets to keep the 1500$ since the show will pay plaintiff, which is outrageous but at least he got his money back from that lowdown Burgundy Hustler. I've heard people refer to themselves as "we". With Maritza, it's the first time I heard someone refer to herself as "they."

[Florinaldo]

What a parade of litigants competing in loathsomeness in the first two cases! Along with some very dubious hair choices, both in colouring and in styling; no matter how hard I try, I cannot find any aesthetic justification for the half-shaved skull on one side look, especially on that very hyper lady.

Another curious hair colour choice in the third case, this time choosing to dye it the same purple as the 1930s New Orleans bordello style of dress she was wearing. Stylish maybe, but a scammer nevertheless.

[patty1h]

First case today (6/04):  Probably a number of viewers will be skipping this case of a pitbull attack, but it got juicy at the end.   The gist:  plaintiff had been attacked twice by the dog owned by negligent neighbors.  Also, about 4-5 other neighbors had complaints about the dog being loose, and they were trying to get Animal Control involved to get the dog removed from the home.

The neighbors were a 40ish couple - he was sitting/had crutches, and the female was pretty beefy, with a sour puss.  They both had attitudes and would not take responsibility - their 7 & 9 year olds were letting the dogs out, the dog was a sweetheart, the plaintiff was making a big deal out of nothing, etc.  MM ended up reaming the defendants for making excuses and not taking charge of the dog.  The judge had just ruled against the defendants and left the bench; as they gathered their papers you could hear the guy say "you pissed her off" and the woman shot back "I pissed her off?".  The guy said "yeah" and the woman snarled "well, you weren't talking, stupid!". 

Oh, you know that there was going to be a screaming match between those two on the ride back.   While talking to Doug, they were still saying how their puppy was the best puppy.  I'm sure the dog saw a lot of fighting, going by the couple's actions right there in the courtroom.

Edited June 4, 2019 by patty1h

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

I'm sure the dog saw a lot of fighting, going by the couple's actions right there in the courtroom.

It's probably where he learned his violent behaviour. I wonder which of those three bites the most...

Their obstinate refusal to acknowledge responsibility is typical of people who give dog owners a bad reputation. They did not seem to realise that an animal can be perfectly fine with people it knows and lives with, and then become agressive with strangers.

[AngelaHunter]

Security deposit kerfuffle: Plaintiff, who is so polite and well-spoken I was sure she was in the right but that changed. She gripes about mold in her apartment. She is here for the 2600$ security deposit she paid the def, her landlord. Neither of them believes in putting anything in writing. JM wants to know why the landlord doesn't use a contract/lease/agreement in writing. "Uhh... I dunno," he says but I'm pretty sure he just didn't want to say the real reason. Both of them deal only in cash. Plaintiff gives the old, "That big meanie wouldn't give me a receipt." The landlord says she's a liar and it was 1300$ which he kept it to fix up the mess she left behind. IF the rest of the place looked anything like the disgusting pile of dog hair, dust and filth under her sofa, I can see why.  The no-receipt was fine with the plaintiff then, but JM wants to know if she has proof she gave him 2600$. "Why, yes, I do have proof! Oh, you mean you want that proof TODAY? Well, no, I don't have proof WITH me." Like JM hasn't heard that a zillion times. She also stopped paying rent and squatted for a couple months because she needed to save money to move. Neither of these morons gets anything. In the hall, the plaintiff declares, "It is what is."

Then we had plaintiff suing the used-car dealer for a car she gave him to sell for her. The plaintiff is a woman past middle age, who never thought about getting a contract or one single thing in writing because the def, a total stranger who sells used cars for a living, seemed trustworthy and "noble." He's a slick character who states he had the paperwork outlining the agreement between him and the plaintiff, but (abashed grin he thinks is cute) well, he just threw it away. JM called him "incompetent and bone-headed" but I think he's just kind of a crook taking advantage of dull-witted women who think anything a male says to them is carved in stone and beyond reproach. I lost interest before the end. 

[Florinaldo]

In the "don't tread on my patio while I'm scantily clad!" case, why the hell did they send the mother alone on the defendant side? She was totally clueless and completely incapable of formulating a cohesive argument. Is her son even more lost at sea than her when it comes to being landlords and is that why he stayed away? She did say this venture was her last attempt at parenting; sounds like the boy needs a lot of support, even as an adult. It seems it never dawned on them to consult a lawyer since she treated JM's suggestion as an illumination descending from heaven. They would be well advised to do so; someone needs to look into those relocation fees and determine if the relevant regulations are correctly applied in their case. A 10 k$ penalty for each tenant sounds very stiff.

She was lucky that the plaintiff's case was baselees and that JM did all the job of unraveling it

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

In the "don't tread on my patio while I'm scantily clad!"

Only in CA does "I was uncomfortable" make a lawsuit. Luckily she wasn't too uncomfortable to go charging outside in her skimpy jammies. Def Momma bought her boy a property to play with and he was the one who was there, but maybe he was too uncomfortable to appear here and back up clueless Momma, who knows exactly zero about tenant/landlords rights and responsibilities. Plaintiff was a month-to-month tenant but is going to be paid 10K to move? I think I might want to live in CA. But seriously, if the plaintiff makes a living as a fortune teller, shouldn't she have known the inspector was coming and put some clothes on? 

What about yesterday's trip through Mr. Roger's Neighbourhood, well, if that neighbourhood included guns and drugs and altercations and arrests? Okay, I get it. The RCMP raided my house. They broke down the door and then broke down the bathroom door, where my boyfriend who was on parole was hiding. Why? I have no idea, since I did nothing wrong and neither did my jailbird boyfriend. He was wearing a cute little bowtie. Shouldn't that mean he's innocent? Of course, he wasn't wearing it when arrested for disorderly conduct. Must have been really disorderly. I wonder if the kids witnessed all this chaos and violence? Anyway, plaintiff thinks landlady should pay her for all her crap being stolen due to the FBI breaking down the door. Yeah, right.

[VartanFan]

Quote

Only in CA does "I was uncomfortable" make a lawsuit. Luckily she wasn't too uncomfortable to go charging outside in her skimpy jammies.

Ugh - she was ridiculous!  She's saying 'we went back and forth' about when she would "allow" them on the property...and in all that time she couldn't put on a bra an da solid t shirt.  UGH.  PS - Doug is NOT really sorry you lost your case.  

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, VartanFan said:

and in all that time she couldn't put on a bra an da solid t shirt.

From the looks of her, I think she habitually takes a long time to put herself together in a manner she deems acceptable for public display (she's not vain, she's got standards you know). Plus she does not appear like someone who likes to cooperate when she can create a little foofaraw instead.

I hope the cluelees landlord do seek legal cousel; even if they are liable for relocation fees because their house was deemed a single family home and not suitable for renting apartments, perhaps they do not have to shell out the outrageous amount quoted by the plaintiff.

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

But seriously, if the plaintiff makes a living as a fortune teller, shouldn't she have known the inspector was coming and put some clothes on? 

Yep, this is always a laugh when phony baloney seers and psychics get busted and act surprised. As soon as I heard that she makes her living by reading palms and Tarot cards (i.e., taking money from poor desperate fools), I said "grifter and a hustler looking for a bonanza".

[Florinaldo]

10 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Yep, this is always a laugh when phony baloney seers and psychics get busted and act surprised.

The usual excuse the so-called psychics and fortune tellers use is "my powers do not work for MY future, only for others". Or perhaps this was too trivial an event for the cards to bother showing her that "2 dark strangers will invade you porch privacy".

Those quacks are never wanting for excuses to justify and protect their scams.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

The usual excuse the so-called psychics and fortune tellers use is "my powers do not work for MY future, only for others".

Or like the evangelists who promise that if a substantial enough "plegdge= $$$" is made their cancer will be cured. When that fails to happen, they're told, "Well, obviously your faith is just not strong enough," so it's the victim's fault. 

But can someone really make enough to support herself with fortune-telling and Tarot cards? Oh! Maybe she's the overnight shift on the "Psychic Hotline" that I see advertised on TV all the time. Only 1$/minute!

[patty1h]

The plaintiff in the keyed car case did not fool me with her 'big innocent eyes' ploy.  She and her sister were lying liars with the shoe tying scenario.  It was sweet watching her view the video tape that showed her NOT tying her nephews shoes.  Then she had the audacity to get belligerent with Doug in the hall that the plaintiff didn't deserve the $ awarded by the judge.   

Some of you may remember a old school court show headed by Hispanic female judge Maria Lopez, which ran about 5-6 years ago.  It only lasted a short while but I still use one of her catchphrases to this day:  "sin verquenza", which translates to "without shame", and these words came to me as I watch Miss Door Scratcher.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

The plaintiff in the keyed car case did not fool me with her 'big innocent eyes' ploy.

She was horrible - a nasty, unrepentant little liar. I was really thinking JM may fall for the bigeyes innocent look, but glad she didn't. In fact she was so offended by the lying and vandalizing by the little twit she even awarded the plaintiff emotional distress. That really surprised me. Since when do scratches on a car cause emotional distress to the point it's compensated?

Tee shirt case: Not too interesting, except that the def was an arrogant windbag who tells Doug in the Hall that he doesn't care that he lost the case since he's Big Business and the 2K he was ordered to pay is just a drop in the bucket for him. If that's so why didn't he just give the plaintiff his money back? He's another one who doesn't believe in doing things in a business-like way. In his world, "Cool" makes a contract. 

Then we had all kinds of lowdown hijinks. The couple who smokes and sells weed and gets incarcerated together stays together. Must have been some heavy weed selling to result in 1 1/2 years in the clink. The plaintiff just can't stop with the weed and violated the probation. Her husband-not-husband-boyfriend is not mentally competent and lives with his niece, who is his payee. He has a learning disability. Maybe all the weed messed up his brain. Anyway, jailbird plaintiff moves in with boyfriend and niece but doesn't think she needs to pay rent. She claims she left a whole bunch of stuff at the niece's house after she was kicked out for not paying rent. Now, uncle has a brand-new bag (since a non-working, disabled, druggie ex-con is quite a prize for some women) and plaintiff has nothing. She has no proof she ever had anything except for a selfie with some bags or stuff in the background.  She says she left her hypertension medicine behind but never bothered to get more since then because she might have to pay for it. Her tatted-up daughter doesn't seem to think the medication is too important either. Stroke, anyone?  Best part is when def's witness cannot shut her trap and stop shouting from the sidelines and agrees that she - a mature adult - is unable to control herself and leaves. Good riddance.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

But can someone really make enough to support herself with fortune-telling and Tarot cards?

Gullibility is one of those rarest commodities: a constantly self-renewing resource, which translates into a near-infinite customer base.

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

Then she had the audacity to get belligerent with Doug in the hall that the plaintiff didn't deserve the $ awarded by the judge. 

She had to keep up her "official story" that she did not do it and that the video should have been considered fake news anyway. The best twist in this case were the damages for emotional distress JM awarded the plaintiff, which means the lying little weasel doe not get any share of the total award kitty.

In the aquarium case, we had the typical loose bahaviour often observed between small-fry businesses and their customers. It seems to be especially prevalent in the sports fans sub-universe, but also in other fandoms. At least the defendant was more consciencious in following procedure as far as submitting and approving design changes, which saved his bacon.

As for the third case, do women wih ample behinds really think that encasing them in skirts that are 2 sizes too small is a flattering look? We had 3 examples of that trend between the 4 litigants!

They probably are trying to ape that famous Kardashian lady, but it does not look good on her either.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

41 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

They probably are trying to ape that famous Kardashian lady,

It's my understanding that there are Big Butt parties, where women inject industrial-grade silicone or cement into their buttocks, because giant, outsized butts are fashionable and attract mates? It seems quite a few of our litigants have availed themselves of that service. Other than that I have no comment on this (insane) practice, but then I don't understand most of what's going on these days.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

because giant, outsized butts are fashionable and attract mates?

I'll never understand how straight guys (or at least some of them) think (and lust).

Edited June 8, 2019 by Florinaldo

[zillabreeze]

7 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

It's my understanding that there are Big Butt parties, where women inject industrial-grade silicone or cement into their buttocks, because giant, outsized butts are fashionable and attract mates?

Oh lawd, I am so old.  All these decades trying to figure out how to reduce my big hiney.  Now it's desirable...

Trying to figure out where to place my natural ample boobage...flat, no bra was how we used to roll..

Must be exhausting to be a young woman these days. Butt here, boobs there, lips this, tattoos that...

We've come a long way, baby...so glad we marched...

Edited June 8, 2019 by zillabreeze

[Florinaldo]

An attraction for a shapely, firm and slightly voluminous behind, both on men and women, is certainly nothing new (see the famous Venus Callipyge statues). But these three ladies brought it to a level that I can only call grotesque, both in volume and in unmoving cement-like appearance. I would fear breaking my knuckles if I were ever inclined to grab such an object.  Being given an ample anatomy by genetics is one thing, but deliberately aspiring for this extreme reaches quite another dimension of strange faddishness.

But considering how they all seemed very light in the brains area, I suppose they needed a solid counterweight and ballast to preserve some physical balance and stability.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Florinaldo

[zillabreeze]

3 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

An attraction for a shapely, firm and slightly voluminous behind, both on men and women, is certainly nothing new (see the famous Venus Callipyge statues)

I tried explaining my "Rubenesque" proportions in the 80's...  It was a tough sell.

Edited June 8, 2019 by zillabreeze