The People's Court - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

Friday there was a rerun that I wish I would have skipped.    A pony and dog were savagely attacked by the neighbors Boxers.   The chain link fence on his side (apparently it's a rural area) was actually rolled up, for some reason I didn't catch.    The woman pony and dog owner came home to see her dog savagely mauled, the pony even worse, and the three (?) Boxers standing in her pasture with blood all over them. 

If you happen to be a wildfire fire fighter in California, then apparently Judge M. cuts you a break.    Because she gave the pony owner very little for her pony, but it was also a pony party animal, and the woman had owned it for many years.     The dog owner kept saying it wasn't anything his dogs did, because they were good dogs, and just because there was blood all over three dogs, and they were on plaintiff's property, then it was wrong to blame them.    From testimony, this is not the first time the animals were on the neighbor's property.     

From testimony, the pony owner used to feed the Boxers sometimes too.    However, I don't see what that does to mitigate the damage that the dogs did.   

Near where I live now, there's a no-kill shelter that does good work, getting cats and dogs new homes.   However, anything with a square head is called a "Lab-cross".     I've seen the "Boxer-cross" used too, as zillabreeze says.  

Edited June 8, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[zillabreeze]

2 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

the neighbors Boxers.

Thug speak for Pitbull/pit mixes

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/7/2019 at 8:24 PM, Florinaldo said:

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

I put a question mark at the end of my statement because I've never known a "straight guy" who demanded an enormous, grotesquely enhanced backside(or giant trout lips or DDDD-sized breasts. It's women doing this to themselves, thinking men want this and will find their unnatural, pumped-up-to-explosion level attributes attractive in some way. IMO, they do not.

[Brattinella]

<===Actual Boxer.

[zillabreeze]

17 hours ago, Brattinella said:

<===Actual Boxer.

Oh no!  I love your baby!  Real boxers are usually very good dogs.  What I've noticed on our court shows is that when a litigant is trying to hide a bad pit mix, it magically becomes a "boxer mix".  They know darn well that when 'pit' comes into play, the opinions change.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

Oh no!  I love your baby!  Real boxers are usually very good dogs.  What I've noticed on our court shows is that when a litigant is trying to hide a bad pit mix, it magically becomes a "boxer mix".  They know darn well that when 'pit' comes into play, the opinions change.

Our boxer was a real sweetheart, a love bucket.  We spoiled him rotten, too, and loved it.

I think when litigants in dog cases appear, they should have close-up photos of their dogs at hand.  So there is NO mistaking what breed they are discussing.

[zillabreeze]

36 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Our boxer was a real sweetheart, a love bucket.  We spoiled him rotten, too, and loved it.

I think when litigants in dog cases appear, they should have close-up photos of their dogs at hand.  So there is NO mistaking what breed they are discussing.

I forget which show, but some moron defending their beast for eating someone's pet kept saying "Lab-mix".  Picture comes out and it was very pit.

I've known several boxers.  The happy slobber was the most dangerous part!

[Broderbits]

Today's final plaintiff looked like a 1950s housewife and proved to be a leading contender for Queen of All Liars. Sure she had a platinum & sapphire ring in that car, along with passports, cameras, and an iPad. Sure.......

[Florinaldo]

41 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

Sure she had a platinum & sapphire ring in that car, along with passports, cameras, and an iPad.

I think she should team up with the plaintiff in today's mice infestation case who lived under allegedly unbearable conditions for many months and wanted reimbursement for rent she willingly paid. Her testimony was nothing else than lies from a lying precious liar snowflake who lies.

Together they might constitute an amusing team of scammers, although I doubt their combined intelligence would be enough to ensure the success of their schemes.

[VartanFan]

Quote

I think she should team up with the plaintiff in today's mice infestation case who lived under allegedly unbearable conditions for many months and wanted reimbursement for rent she willingly paid. Her testimony was nothing else than lies from a lying precious liar snowflake who lies.

The whole time, I kept saying to my TV "If it was so bad, why did you want to STAY there the day you were supposed to leave?".  I"d love to hear what happened to get her out after she said she was staying on the 31st.  I was happy when MM finally brought that up.  If it was so bad, you would have gotten out of there immediately (I certainly would have BROKEN my lease to escape rats). 

[patty1h]

The station that runs TPC here in NY has preempted the show with the Woman's FIFA World Cup games until next week.   Reading the comments, sounds like I'm missing some good cases; just have to wait till the reruns start to catch these.  Danggit.

[AngelaHunter]

Boy, was JM pissed at this plaintiff. We got another loan officer (I think the second one within the last week) who seems to have no comprehension as to what money really is. Plaintiff not only gets rooked into buying a dumb timeshare but puts her boyfriend's name on the loan as well. JM wants to know what provisions were made if she and the boyfriend broke up. "I never thought of that", says plaintiff. Duh. She's a loan officer who doesn't think past today. She's willing to pay anything to keep the boyfriend around and admits she financed the relationship - then - even to the point of buying a 4K engagement ring for herself (for sure Mr. Walgreen can't afford that) and a 3K chain for him. She's a loan officer who has to go one of these usurious lending companies because, well, she really doesn't think money is a real thing and that when you spend like a maniac you have to pay eventually. She makes "six figures" but somehow expected her boyfriend, who works stocking shelves or something at Walgreens, to kick in his share of all this. She cheats on him, so he doesn't feel she deserves to get the payments for the silly timeshare. He wants his water filtration system back. "I care about the water filter," Mr.Walgreen says tearfully.  He got a 30K settlement for some accident, but I guess they blew through that pretty quickly, and now the loan officer is in all kinds of debt. Maybe now she knows that money, even if it's only on paper, is a real thing? I dunno. Anyway, if any people within range of her financial institution need a loan for even the silliest things - giant engagement rings, ostentatious weddings, or big-ass rims, just go see her. For sure you'll get it.  5K for the plaintiff and the beloved water filter for the def. He is also supposed to sign the timeshare over to her.

Then we had a freak show of such proportions it was nearly awesome. We had, 'Yes, I do have a police report... well, I don't' have it WITH me today... I have hospital records and pictures showing def assaulted me, but not with me." Apparently records he did have showed elevated blood pressure. Yeah, that's a danger when you are morbidly obese. And from the def, "I was working that day. Yes, I have records of that, but I never thought of bringing them TODAY. I do have receipts of all the food the plaintiff ate, but I don't have them here." I guess they expected JM to go home with them and check out this shit. Other than that, the most shocking thing was the plaintiff stating that def cheated on his wife, something which plaintiff felt duty bound to inform the wife, along with a recorded threat to come back with a 9-millimeter pistol. If the defendant - also morbidly obese, unable to stand for this case and with a nasty grill - can find all these "girls" to do nasty "stuff" with, there is no hope anywhere.

Ho hum. Gross def. buys an 18-year old Honda from the plaintiff, pays him only 600$ of the 1300$ she agreed on and then pays him nothing else because she says the car has problems, and nothing was in writing so she doesn't have to pay, right? I guess she's a lawyer in her spare time. She never noticed these problems. like the driver's side window not working,  since she was too damned lazy to bother with a test drive. Plaintiff is kind enough to fix some shit on the old beater after she bitches about it, but that's not good enough for the nasty blob def. I wish JM would start telling these morons to knock it off with the "basically" which defendant must have used ten times in this case. She actually tries to act like the victim here. Disgusting person. I really hope the plaintiff learned not to let some deadbeat have a car before they paid for it. After all, once it's in their possession, what is the incentive to pay what they owe?

[Broderbits]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I wish JM would start telling these morons to knock it off with the "basically" which defendant must have used ten times in this case.

Like, basically, you know, I can't stand the way they talk either!

[AngelaHunter]

I sit down to enjoy my snack. It was nearly ruined by the puke case. Def, a dull-eyed moron so dumb he could barely articulate a single thought is being sued by the plaintiff after he got drunk at some company party and puked all over plaintiff's suit. Disgusting. Anyway, the plaintiff appeared to be so mature,  well-spoken and well-dressed (in his 18-year old suit) until he explains to JM that he thought about "fighting" the moronic def. over this incident, but restrained himself in spite of urgings by other attendants to do so at this elegant soiree. Def. brings his Grandmama here for moral support and I just bet she bought him the ill-fitting mortician's outfit he was wearing here. Plaintiff has no receipts for his ruined suit, which he bought online 4 years ago. JM does a little eBay scanning and finds the very top price for a used suit like his is 140$ She includes the cost of the dry cleaning, and plaintiff gets 150$ instead of the 1K he wanted. He is not happy and is visibly fuming in the hall. 

Then some girls decided to go into business together, making and selling "head wraps" whatever they are. The plaintiff wanted out and wanted her investment back and goes and pounds and kicks def's door, so the def. says, and it was very emotionally distressing because her mother was there and mom was one month pregnant at the time. There are threatening texts, restraining orders and so on. All this drama over about 140$. Who cares? Anyway, does no one ever think of going to school before they start pumping out babies?  It seems not.

Finally, we had a truly amazing case of attitude and entitlement. The plaintiff, a young, able-bodied woman of normal intelligence somehow got Byrd to pay her first 3 months of rent, and most of it for the following three months. She even has a garage, something I certainly never had when I was renting, not that I needed one. I had no car because I had to give it up and had to pay for all the rent myself. Is she grateful for that? No, she is not. Predictably when she had to pay her own rent, the plaintiff started stiffing the def. landlord. The landlord can't stand her nasty, complaining, entitled ass, so gives her a 30-day notice to leave. Even though she had a month-to-month lease, how dare the landlord ask her to leave? Everyone should take care of her! Plaintiff stops paying rent, of course, and wants the def to pay her 5,000$ for her moving expenses and deposit on a new apartment, even though she is still there!  JM detested her, gives her nothing and awards the def. all the rent that is owed. Plaintiff does not get it, and is obnoxious and rude to Doug-in-the-Hall, saying JM didn't let her present all her evidence. "The door is that way, " Doug tells her. 

[zillabreeze]

27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

The landlord can't stand her nasty, complaining, entitled ass, 

For the life of me, I don't know how people make money as landlords.  The squatting and destruction are just rampant.   It wouldn't bode well for me if little Miss Smirkson parked her entitled ass on my property and refused to leave.   Her shit would be on the curb and I'd have to spend the night in jail.

I'll never understand why the laws are so skewed to allow this stuff to go one day past thirty days of non-payment.

[AngelaHunter]

39 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

 It wouldn't bode well for me if little Miss Smirkson parked her entitled ass on my property and refused to leave.

Where does this attitude come from? If I were living on peoples' taxes, I think I might be a little more humble instead of issuing orders and making demands as though sucking up the hard-earned dollars of strangers is my right and I somehow not only deserve that, but another stranger should pay my moving costs.  Like, basically - wtf? Can't pay 1200$/month rent for a place with a garage, even though some government agency thinks, for some bizarre reason that you deserve it? Go live in a room. Plenty of those advertised on CL.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

"The door is that way, " Doug tells her. 

Doug is too much of a gentleman to say anything nasty to these entitled creeps, but I'd love to know what he's really thinking as they sashay their asses out of court.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

but I'd love to know what he's really thinking as they sashay their asses out of court.

He's probably not thinking, as I would be, "Shut up and GTFO!". Or maybe he is.

[VartanFan]

Ugh - in the gym case (similar to a recent one on JJ), I think the gym owner should have gotten her overdraft fees.  The client should NOT have gotten the money back and so the owner should not have overdrafted.  SInce the client shadily disputed the charges, the owner had money pulled out that shouldn't have been.  

[Florinaldo]

16 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

in the gym case (similar to a recent one on JJ), I think the gym owner should have gotten her overdraft fees.

I was leaning towards that also. The owner had made provisions for certain amounts of her revenue/expenses in a certain way and had not planned for that particular disbursement, which was caused solely by the precipitous actions from the bad faith defendant. On the other hand, it is risky to live so close to the financial edge when you are in business; you should always have some sort of cushion, because you never know what kind of unexpected obligations you might suddenly have to face. Of course, this seems to be a very small scale operation, with not much cash flow to speak of.  At least she has learned a few lessons from this (JM was very generous with her advice) and should now tighten her procedures.

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Even though she had a month-to-month lease, how dare the landlord ask her to leave?

She is another one in a long line of litigants who somehow manage to think that once they ensconced in an appartment, they are now due lodgings permanently, from the landlord or from the state. Whether they have a month-to-month or yearly lease, it alway seems to come as an utter shock to them that they now have to move because their tenancy is not renewed. We know they do not make any financial plan for such an event since they expected to live there forever or at least until they decide unilaterally it's time to leave. And of course, someone has to compensate them for the tragic inconvenience and for their moving expenses, something the rest of us manage to pay out of our own pockets, thank you very much Miss Smirkson.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

We know they do not make any financial plan for such an event since they expected to live there forever or at least until they decide unilaterally it's time to leave.

I believe the rent was 1250$/mth? Considering she got three months on Byrd, and three more months half-priced, she's in 5400$, courtesy of the people who pay taxes. Plenty for a deposit and moving, but no - the landlord should pay that. She doesn't want to take a penny from her own pocket for anything, well, nothing that doesn't directly benefit her or give her pleasure so it's more "gimme gimme".  So she squats and saves yet more money and the show will pay the landlord so the leech still wins. These cases make me so angry.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I saw a rerun this morning (at least I think it's a rerun), of the two people with the road rage incident, that could easily have ended in tragedy.    A man passes a woman's car, does the sudden breaking routine to make her mad, at a split in the road, the man blows the light to follow her some more, cuts her off, pounds on the top of her car with his fists, and it's all caught on the 911 tape.       Don't those people realize that the other drive could be armed?   Two friends of mine never made it home, because the driver harassing them shot them, so it does happen.   

Edited June 14, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I saw a rerun this morning (at least I think it's a rerun), of the two people with the road rage incident

I never saw this one, and boy, did JM hate these litigants, with very good reason. Stupid plaintiff seemed to find something amusing about her behavior and the def, a huge pile of disgusting manure who thinks throwing coins at moving vehicles is a "fun thing" to do.  But he's Sir Galahad. He doesn't believe in terrorizing women who are alone! Well, in the plaintiff's case, she may as well have been alone since I can't see her namby-pamby big baby boy protecting her. Super-slob def must have said, "To be honest" and "honestly" about 6 times, as he continued to lie. For sure he rehearsed his folksy tale of his youth for his pathetic wife who must have found him irresistible. Imagine. JM's face, as she listened to the crap spewing from his blubbering pie hole, was simply awesome.

Only two cases today. The first took up so much time as JM got very emotional, wanted to do a little counselling and delved into the dynamics of the girlfriend vs. family after girlfriend's boyfriend died. I guess it was in the middle of making whoopee since both were nekkid. Jomar went into extreme distress but instead of calling 911, plaintiff calls Jomar's mom to ask what she thinks she should do. It seems she needed to take some time to get dressed and didn't want the paramedics to see Jomar au naturel. According to the def, the girlfriend didn't call 911 for nearly an hour, by which time Jomar had sadly expired. Plaintiff's parents agreed to lend def money to bury Jomar. They even all went to a bank to get a promissory note witnessed and signed, but still def. doesn't think she should pay the money back. The only person I believed and had any sympathy for was the plaintiff's dad.  I know the plaintiff called herself Jomar's "wife" but had she been married to him, she and not her parents would have had to spring for the funeral cost and been reimbursed by the insurance and/or government money

Then girlfriend goes into loud, hysterical sobbing. I must say I admire people who can go from violent, wailing grief to dry-eyed composure in the blink of an eye. This case should have lasted 10 minutes since the promissory note said all that was needed to be said. 

Was it a Freudian slip when girlfriend/wife says she wanted the family to "all sit together and celebrate the death of 'mar"?

[zillabreeze]

On 6/14/2019 at 10:49 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I saw a rerun this morning (at least I think it's a rerun), of the two people with the road rage incident, that could easily have ended in tragedy.    A man passes a woman's car, does the sudden breaking routine to make her mad, at a split in the road, the man blows the light to follow her some more, cuts her off, pounds on the top of her car with his fists, and it's all caught on the 911 tape.       Don't those people realize that the other drive could be armed?   Two friends of mine never made it home, because the driver harassing them shot them, so it does happen.   

Did anyone else notice that even as MM was tearing them new assholes, woman litigant was trying not to laugh.   I don't think she deserved a dime.  I truly believe she started it by throwing stuff.

Edited June 16, 2019 by zillabreeze

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think that the woman in the road rage case made a very foolish mistake when she honked at the man after they were going different directions.    I bet it wasn't a little beep either, but laid on the horn, and that started it all again.     Both drivers are lucky that it didn't end with someone bleeding out, which has happened all too often.     

I caught the (I guess rerun?) rerun of the woman who buys the horse, was a first time horse owner, and rides the horse many times over the three days she stayed at the seller's house.   Then the horse gets off the trailer, won't stand stock still at the mounting block.     Some horses do sense when the rider is nervous, and an absolute beginner who can't control them.     Then starts showing neurological symptoms, and is finally diagnosed with EPM (neurological disease), that eventually means the horse is retired.     The woman who did not get a pre-purchase exam on the horse by a vet, and signs a contract saying 'As Is', still wants a full refund.      She gets nothing, and deserves exactly that.    

Edited June 16, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

On 6/14/2019 at 5:28 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Well, in the plaintiff's case, she may as well have been alone since I can't see her namby-pamby big baby boy protecting her.

Well, the son was the most reasonable person in this encounter since he tried to prevent his mother from further escalating a situation already gone very bad. Not provoking further that big lug of a brute was a wise course of action in my view. If acting wisely is equivalent to namby-pambiness, then I am all for the latter!

The two main litigants were both unrepentant in their foolish behaviour and seemed even proud of it. It's too bad JM could not deem it mutual road rage and call it a draw.

[VartanFan]

Quote

For the life of me, I don't know how people make money as landlords.  The squatting and destruction are just rampant.

We have a duplex and just really aim to cover the mortgage, so I wouldn't say we 'make money'.  But we have a great tenant because I called references, I did a background check, I did a credit check, I looked at paystubs, etc.  With the attitude coming off the plaintiff in huge waves, I would have never rented to her.  

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, VartanFan said:

But we have a great tenant because I called references, I did a background check, I did a credit check, I looked at paystubs, etc.  With the attitude coming off the plaintiff in huge waves, I would have never rented to her.  

Most of the landlord litigants on these shows do not do even a small fraction of the necessary homework you put in, which explains why they land in court.

Although in the case of that lady, the usual checks could have been skipped because her attitude was a clear sign that things would go bad and that the answer should be a clear and immediate rejection (unless of course she can temporarily dial back the attitude for the interview, which appears doubtful; judging from her demeanour, this is how she behaves every minute of every day).

Edited June 17, 2019 by Florinaldo

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 6/10/2019 at 6:06 PM, Broderbits said:

Today's final plaintiff looked like a 1950s housewife and proved to be a leading contender for Queen of All Liars. Sure she had a platinum & sapphire ring in that car, along with passports, cameras, and an iPad. Sure.......

Did she creep anybody else out as much as she did me? She didn't happen to mention a body in the trunk, did she?. . . . . 

On 6/11/2019 at 6:06 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Gross def. buys an 18-year old Honda from the plaintiff, pays him only 600$ of the 1300$ she agreed on and then pays him nothing else because she says the car has problems, and nothing was in writing so she doesn't have to pay, right? I guess she's a lawyer in her spare time. She never noticed these problems. like the driver's side window not working,  since she was too damned lazy to bother with a test drive. Plaintiff is kind enough to fix some shit on the old beater after she bitches about it, but that's not good enough for the nasty blob def. I wish JM would start telling these morons to knock it off with the "basically" which defendant must have used ten times in this case.

Basically, she's a basic idiot. And trying to charge over $3000 to repair a driver's side window? Years ago I had the same problem with my old Aerostar (laugh if you must) van. Drove to the junkyard and they pulled a motor for $20 for the window. Had my now Ex replace it and voila, I could peruse any drive-through window I wanted. 

I had a co-worker who had one of those old Hondas. She ended up getting a new car and somebody bought the Honda off of Craigslist from her for $3300. Apparently they are all the rage where the young guys fix them up and put big exhaust pipes on them and race them. So, basically, the basic defendant was again, basically an idiot. 

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

And trying to charge over $3000 to repair a driver's side window?

She probably wanted a new, factory window. A friend of mine did this after her 13-year-old Toyota got sideswiped resulting in a dented door. She went through her insurance and demanded a factory door after her mechanic said he'd get her one from, of course, the junkyard. *sigh* we all know that even though we pay through the nose year after year for insurance that having the audacity to make a claim will get us dropped, which is what happened to her. 

Today's Momma suing on behalf of her giant daughter, for a return of rent, was disturbing. Mom wanted her daughter, a 25-year-old woman, to experience being on her own, so found the idiot def. - another person who can't pay her mortgage so brings in anonymous characters on CL to live with her - and moved daughter in with her. Daughter is a student taking courses in massage therapy and has an "anxiety condition" which apparently compels her to eat every cookie in sight and makes her unable to clean her own shit off the toilet seat or to throw out rotting food in her room. Def. landlady gave her notice to leave when she couldn't stand the mess and stink anymore.  Daughter has until the end of Nov to find a new place, but moves back in with Mommy in the middle of Oct so Mom wants the rent back . JM gives it to her. 

[Florinaldo]

Did I hear correctly? That monstrous useless disgusting slob of a daughter is studying to become a massage therapist? I would not let her touch me even if both of us were wearing AZMAT suits.

I would have let the landlord keep more, if not all, of the rent.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Did I hear correctly? That monstrous useless disgusting slob of a daughter is studying to become a massage therapist?

Imagine you go for a nice massage and that frightening, vacant-eyed Godzilla comes lumbering in? Imagine the terror you would feel? Good lord.

[VartanFan]

Quote

I would have let the landlord keep more, if not all, of the rent.

I'm in a serious rut of not agreeing with the judges in these shows lately.  I can't BELIEVE she gave the last 2 weeks of Oct back to the Plaintiff?!  I feel like the whole 'special needs' and 'anxiety' were thrown out there to garner sympathy from the judge and it worked.  Those things shouldn't mean you're allowed to be a completely disgusting slob and invite all sorts of vermin into the house.  

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

  I can't BELIEVE she gave the last 2 weeks of Oct back to the Plaintiff?! 

I'm not sure, but I think maybe she ordered the Nov rent returned because the landlord told plaintiff she could leave (as would we all)?  I believe JM took care to clarify that was so, IIRC.

I also don't know why she gave back the Oct rent since plaintiff lived there in Oct and as we know from these shows, if you're there one minute past midnight after the last day of the lease, you owe that month. Just because plaintiff would rather run home to Mommy than clean up her fetid bedroom and shitty bathroom was her choice. 

[Florinaldo]

51 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

I can't BELIEVE she gave the last 2 weeks of Oct back to the Plaintiff?!

It will only encourage that slob in her behaviour and pattern of not taking responsibility for her actions. And Mommy will also feel vindicated about supporting her baby for acting like a pig.

JM told her that a great way to control anxiety is to get down, scrub and clean; if the alleged anxiety swayed her, she was being inconsistent, once again, this time in a span of just a few minutes. I did not hear her justify the October rent return though.

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Imagine you go for a nice massage and that frightening, vacant-eyed Godzilla comes lumbering in? Imagine the terror you would feel? Good lord.

Not to mention that her B.O. would probably clash with the lovely lavender scented oil burning in the room.

[SRTouch]

Well, after a month of not watching and doing recaps, I turned on TPC as I went in to make lunch. In zero time flat I remembered why I decided to take a break for a while. Good grief, sounds like MM is turning into JJ as she got impatient with the idjits in the first two cases. Only question I had from first case was why D was wearing a cat toy on her head while fighting over possession of a dog. After first few minutes of inconsistent testimony (lies) from both sides of the aisle, I put some okra in the air fryer and the fan drowned out rest of case. Not worth starting over, so not sure of the outcome - just as well,  as I'm not sure who was suing who for what. 2nd case was woman suing for everything to do with a hoopty purchase from stereotypical slimball used car lot. Quickly lost interest as MM tried to find out if P had a full time job. Last case, not sure WTH it was.... lunch was over and I turned off the tv when I got back to the remote in the living room. Tomorrow think I'll go back to watching reruns of Pit Bulls and Parolees

Edited June 18, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

19 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Only question I had from first case was why D was wearing a cat toy on her head

I thought it looked like she'd twisted a bunch of jumbo pipe cleaners and stuck them on her head.  She has diabetes and mental problems, but she had to elaborate on her testimony when asked what happened between her and the plaintiff, to get in that she goes to church. She helps a blind person go to church (even though she stands there lying to JM). Doesn't that make her a saint? She had to flee the state of CA to escape her persecutors, including the plaintiff beau - the plaintiff stole her dog but she did nothing about it for six months -  and her sister, and the whole racist, corrupt Oakland police force who seemed to be conspiring against her. Well, they were all corrupt and racist except for a Hispanic officer Rodriguez, who was very nice (I guess she did her homework on JM and decided to do a little ass-kissing along with the lying), but she demanded a female POC officer when she called the next time. JM did call her on all this but was laughing about it, which she wouldn't have been if a white person said she requested a white officer because all the others of a different race, colour or creed are racist, evil, and corrupt. 

Then another distasteful case. Plaintiff buys a car from the sleazy, Fugazi used car dealers. She lied about her working hours on her application for credit, but car dealers don't bother verifying it until after they let her drive off in the car. They also don't believe in keeping any records of sales at all and come here completely empty-handed. "Oh, we don't have that here!" Of course, they don't. JM should trust their words. Plaintiff wants her 2K deposit back. Defs claim they had all kinds of expenses in repossessing the car, but have no proof of any of that. JM awards plaintiff 1500$.  All parties were so shady I was surprised there was any judgment. 

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Good grief, sounds like MM is turning into JJ as she got impatient with the idjits in the first two cases.

I think their problem is that whatever kinds of ugly braids they have had done with their hair are too tight and they interfere with their thinking processes. Or else they are naturally that idiotic and confused. At the end of the case, the plaintiff in the car case still did not understand what "full-time job" really means.

Too bad the car dealer was dumb enough not to bring the necessary documentation (assuming it exists); it might have decreased the award to the stupid plaintiff.

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Well, after a month of not watching and doing recaps, I turned on TPC as I went in to make lunch. In zero time flat I remembered why I decided to take a break for a while. Good grief, sounds like MM is turning into JJ as she got impatient with the idjits in the first two cases. Only question I had from first case was why D was wearing a cat toy on her head while fighting over possession of a dog. 

I think those were fabric covers on her braids.

[SRTouch]

Okkkkk, sort of a repeat of yesterday. Turned on TPC and went to kitchen to fix lunch. Difference today was first case actually caught my attention enough that I rewound it and started watching. 

1. Whose name's on the title!?!: p bought an ancient car knowing seller didn't have title, but was promised seller a title shortly. Remarkable thing is buyer telling us he would have been happy with the $450 1998 car if seller had ever produced the promised title. But, nooooo, 4-5 months after paying and taking delivery he still has no title, gets disgusted and leaves the car in seller's driveway. Oh, wait, dude left car in driveway so that seller couldn't get his other cars in/out of drive, ah, must have forgot to leave the keys. MM has some fun with this case, as D is terrible with things like dates, names, etc and who actually owned car at time of sale. Says he eventually got title - evidently it took so long because he was trying to get DMV to issue the title online instead of getting off his butt and going in person. Yeah, dude finally got title, but nooooo, didn't think to bring it with him to court. MM orders seller to return P's money, plus court costs, plus interest from time car was 'sold'
2. guy wants to be paid for merchandise: Ps say they own/operate a custom blind/shutter business, installed blinds for D in new house, still owned $1600+. Total price something over 5 grand. D says inept P kept screwing up, ordering wrong size, damaging walls trying do install, and after 8 months enough was enough - oh, and P has a potty mouth and used foul language in the house. D files countersuit for $800 for damaged walls. Lots of back and forth, yeah install obviously wrong at beginning (install prevented windows from opening). Months go by, D says P eventually succeeded in installing most of the shutters, but there's still an issue with kitchen window. Yet another time when I wonder why a small business owner would come on national TV instead of bending over backwards to make customer happy. Not sure how often this business installs these 'plantation style' shutters, but TPC isn't best forum for drumming up future business. Anyway everyone seems to agree D paid for the correctly installed shutters/blinds, but when installers wanted back in to try - again - to install kitchen window shutter the homeowner was disgusted and wouldn't allow them to complete contract. Ah, but as MM goes through D's photos of complaints things start shifting and D starting to come off as one of those impossible to please customers. Yeah, that first install pic where window couldn't be opened was bad, but rest of these pix are just nit picking and making D look bad. Uh, yeah, totally normally for little things to go on a punch list for contractor to fix before final payment. You don't shut them out because they won't address all your concerns mid-job. Oh, and the intro talk of foul language is morphing to D not appreciating P's tone when she's had it up to here with the nitpicking and D's refusing to let hubby/installer finish the work. Not sure what exactly the $1600 represents, whether that's just the labor or the actual cost of shutter. Right now, waiting for commercial to end I'm thinking P should be paid minus labor for that 1 window, and give shutter that P ordered to D. Oh my, we're back to the foul language - guess it was more than just tone. When P realized he messed up and the window wouldn't open he got upset and dropped an 'F' bomb. Really, Lady?!? Anyway, her counterclaim is for damage because P's initial solution was to make it fit by trying to trim away part of the window frame. Good grief, P made a 4" cut the width of saw blade along window frame. As we've heard from Hot Bench's Judge DiMango, little toothpaste and paint will cover that. D claims it will cost $2400 to repair (part of that is that she says whole room will need to be repainted). Uh - no, not happening - any sympathy I had for D at beginning of case just went poof. I would give P everything they're asking for, but MM is nicer and subtracts what she thinks is reasonable ($300) for D to bring in someone to address all her little punch list complaints - oh and orders P to deliver the shutter he ordered and has that was never installed. P nets $1300 of the $1600 he asked for
3. tenant wants rest of deposit: yawn, back to same old tired story. I zipped ahead and turns out landlord left evidence at home, so  has nothing to justify keeping what they kept. Tenant gets close to $1200.

Think I'll go out with Silly and check the yard - me to see if there are ripe blackberries I can pick/eat while my Sillycat checks bird feeder activity and munches some grass (he's such a good boy, helping keep the grass trimmed when I need to mow - course then he comes back inside and pukes in the middle of the carpet)

Edited June 19, 2019 by SRTouch

[zillabreeze]

13 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

any sympathy I had for D at beginning of case just went poof. 

Ooh, not for me!  I'll grant the possibility of a padded counterclaim, but if someone started whacking into my BRAND NEW window frame or wall to accommodate their measurement F-Up??  They would have been shown the door, post haste.

Edited June 19, 2019 by zillabreeze

[Broderbits]

21 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

course then he comes back inside and pukes in the middle of the carpet)

He's just trying to help you keep the carpet clean! Pets work so hard......

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Uh - no, not happening - any sympathy I had for D at beginning of case just went poof.

Same here. She was certainly overinflating the cost of the repair. P was precipitous in using the saw on the frame without asking her first, but it did not justifiy the outrageous amount she was asking. Of course at that point he had irrevocably scrambled her delicate sensibility by dropping the F-bomb; not the most professional behaviour, but nothing to make such a fuss about.

She was obviously one of those impossible to please customers with unrealistic expectations, who make it a habit of arbitrarily deciding at any moment to put a stop to the work and forbid the contractor to try and correct small problems. Am I mistaken in thinking that most of those are women in the renovations/construction cases we see on these shows?

Edited June 19, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Whose name's on the title!?!

If you look up "Pathetic scumbag/tiny little loser con artist" you'd see both the def's pictures. He's such a loser he peddles his 20+-year-old Corolla to the plaintiff, knowing full well he didn't have the title to the thing. Amazingly, the car is fine. Go, Toyota! The kid wants his money back because he can't register the car for which he paid 450$. Slimy, ugly def in a fancy shirt gives cringe-worthy excuses - "I tried to do it online for months (sure, you did) it was registered to Uber(??)... I have a heart condition, oh poor me!... I told him I'd pay him" and his sleazebag, lowlife, desperate girlfriend (amazing how water always finds its own level) backs him up.  But yes, he's a stand-up guy and got the title after maybe 8 months. Where is it? Well, at home naturally.  Gee, is it possible he didn't really have it? JM gave him a pretty good reaming, but not enough. She did enjoy hearing how the plaintiff left the thing at def's house - those scumbags turned off all their lights when he rang their doorbell -  blocking their driveway. That plaintiff's dad was fine with his buddy, the spineless, pin-headed def, ripping off and screwing over his kid was disturbing.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

guy wants to be paid for merchandise: 

I found it kind of shocking that the plaintiff, in the blind business for 24 years, started sawing away at the window frames to make his blinds fit. Maybe it's time for Mom and Pop to retire? But, the defs simply ignoring the messages because "I didn't like her tone" escalated this to a new level. These days, it seems people feel that if they are offended by a "tone" of an email, voice mail or text, they can just ignore the whole contract thing?  And then, naturally, the def does have the paid bills for correcting the work, but she doesn't have them WITH HER. Of course not. It never occurred to her to bring evidence about the very thing for which she's being sued. I think we all know that when we hear this, it's because there is no evidence and the litigant is a liar who thinks JM is so stupid she'll fall for this trite garbage. "Trust me. I'm a Christian. I go to church! Look at my cross! I never lie!"

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tenant wants rest of deposit:

I liked how the landlord got caught in a great big money-grubbing lie by saying the plaintiff damaged the garage door when it was already like that before he even moved in so who would believe anything else she said?  She and her... whatever he is, the bargain-bin Antonio Banderas - looked like utter fools as she chuckles while stating that yes, of course, she has bills that show what she paid to fix plaintiff's damages, but well - *chuckle hee hee* - she never thought to bring them with her. So cute. But who would bring evidence?  How a judge can maintain patience while listening to this utter BS is amazing, but I guess they've heard it all.

[zillabreeze]

9 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

She was obviously one of those impossible to please customers with unrealistic expectations, who make it a habit of arbitrarily deciding at any moment to put a stop to the work and forbid the contractor to try and correct small problems.

I grant you that she was a silly histrionic bitch that was trying for a ka-ching moment from MM.  

My issue was the oh so basic screw up in measuring.  You're in the blind/shutter game how many years???   When the first room is wrong, we revisit our game plan.  If the first I know of trouble is the sound of a saw, I am concerned.   

My dogs and I are going to bugger up those new pristine walls soon enough.  I'm not paying a sub $5k to help.

[SRTouch]

1. high-priced 50th BD bash turns ugly: big burly Shirley paid for dinner and lounge package to celebrate wife's 50th. Says dinner was fine, but then bar manager tried to steal their tables. Big kerfuffle - pushing/shoving - cops called - P's party tossed. Lots of back and forth with all the litigants yapping over each other and not bothering to listen to or answer MM's questions - couple times I was worried about poor Douglas being outnumbered cuz I thought things might turn physical. D brought a lousy video which doesn't show whole scene and hurts as much as helps his case - would have been nice if he brought the floor manager or any of the other employees with first hand knowledge of what went down. D sells these package deals online without bothering with contracts. I was wondering why, if these package deals were reserved online, no one took a screenshot of the Web site of what the packages includes. Anyway, they're in court with no contract or anything written down. D tries to claim it's printed on menu, passes up the menu and MM doesn't find what he says is printed. It was D's evidence more than anything else that made P's case. P won, but doesn't collect nearly as much as asked for (wanted $1600 and got $600) - oh and took half an hour
2. Trashy couple of year's bad breakup: whoa, would you take a look at these two. P in dark long-sleeved dressy shirt with matching tie and sporting short hair on sides and long greased back man bun - D sporting Elvira eyes, hands on hips and chest out, while doing hair toss looking like some character from one of the "women of__" whatever shows (maybe "trashy strippers of the trailer park", but then I live in a trailer park and have never seen the like.) Anyway, when the loving couple split, P says she went online and posted he's HIV+ and loaded down with STDs so he wants defamation - oh, and money for car he says she wrecked. D counters with how he was physically abusive and how he posted video of her having sex..... when she starts bragging about how many thousands follow her on social media (this was after MM questioned how she had so many followers without some porn (hey all the groups that I follow that have thousands of followers all have lots of pussy cat pix) I doublecheck and this really is supposed to be TPC, thought maybe it was Springer - I zip ahead - yep this crap case lasts half an hour - nope, had enough, not sure what happened but caught enough of both hallterviews to make me decide no need to rewind and watch 

Edited June 20, 2019 by SRTouch

[babs j.]

I love how the young man in the car title case got his revenge - way to go, kid.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

high-priced 50th BD bash turns ugly

It's always lovely to hear about people past middle age giving themselves or having big birthday bashes and then ending up in a great big brawl.  Okay, so I FF at the beginning of cases so as to not hear a word from Hall Clown or Scumsucker Levin and sometimes I miss things. Am the only one who had no idea that that plaintiff - who we saw in the vid needing to be held back from attacking the restaurant staff - is a woman? I only realized it at the end as JM was making her judgment and said "She" and "Her" and I thought, "Who is she talking about"? This case went on and on and I have no idea who was right or wrong but really don't care except for being annoyed with people who want all kinds of services then complain and want every penny back. 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Trashy couple of year's bad breakup

"Trashy" doesn't even describe them. JM was actually shuddering with disgust and revulsion by the end of this.  Plaintiff is an annoying little nu-male twerp with some extreme douchebag hair ( I remember an old movie about the last days of Pompeii in which a gladiator had a similar hairdo. Maybe Douche-boy thinks he looks like that?) My CC tells me he was crying?  Anyway, def. is a rough, no-class, hard-rode slag with giant fake lashes and nails who is covered in trashy tats and has some huge following on Instagram or some other idiotic social media because she likes to display her oversized breasts, which I"m thinking are also fake. An impressive accomplishment, Miss! Congrats! Plaintiff beat her up "all the time" but that didn't stop her from staying with him for 4 years and getting engaged. What's a little beating when it's True Love? But it's not all bad! Slag is expecting a blessed event but has "no comment" on whoever or whatever sired the upcoming generation. I'm sure she'll be an exemplary mom even though it appears she is uneducated, ignorant, sleazy, and has no brain, judgment or morals. What was with def's slack-jawed "witness" who appeared to be possessed of even fewer brain cells than the def? I really felt the need to wash my hands after viewing this distasteful garbage. I guess Levin was jonesing about it though. This kind of sordid crap is right up his alley, the little root rat. 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

not sure what happened

JM awards both of them what they were asking for - 10K for each - and then can't wait to get away from them. Those two lowlife peabrains aired all their filthy laundry and revolting videos for nothing.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

high-priced 50th BD bash turns ugly: big burly Shirley paid for dinner and lounge package to celebrate wife's 50th.

The best part of this was when Burly Shirley asked JM "Which one is my wife?" and JM said something to the effect of how am I supposed to point out your wife, you're married to her.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Anyway, def. is a rough, no-class, hard-rode slag with giant fake lashes and nails who is covered in trashy tats and has some huge following on Instagram or some other idiotic social media because she likes to display her oversized breasts,

Didn't you just love how her shirt was clearly two sizes too small and straining to cover her ample, perky, breasts? 

I've stopped posting but just had to come one here, say hello to the regulars, and say that this had to be one of the better episodes of TPC.   I am not ashamed to say that a slight tear formed in my eye when Romeo and Juliet did not kiss and make-up.  I will continue though to hope that they come to their collective senses and work on building a meaningful and lasting relationship.  All the signs are there....man bun, Tony Manero gold chains, Elsie-cow eyelashes, protruding nipples and lest I forget - restraining orders (two of them).  

Hope all is well with all of you.