The People's Court - General Discussion

[Brattinella]

3 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Honestly, my jaw literally dropped and stayed there when we found out that the D did the photoshopping to make a man look like a pedophile.  And while he acted contrite and looked about to cry in the courtroom when he got his (TOTALLY JUSTIFIED) reaming, his hallterview was like 'meh, dindu nothin'.  Man - then the whole name drop of her husband.  Crazy crazy crazy.  

OMG.  I really hope there are no further developments in this!  Giving the REAL NAME on TV?  Falsifying a photo (which I seem to remember is a felony in itself, kind of like pedophilia) and trying to frame someone?  Gah!

[SRTouch]

dental woes: oh my, this P is setting a new low mental quotient. He's suing restaurant owner for 5 grand in dental bills, saying he broke a tooth taking a bite of eggs at a Father's Day breakfast. Yep, sure nuf he's missing a toof - we know because he opens wide several times to show us the gap. Thing is, though, he had already seen a dentist and been told tooth was rotten and about to fall out on May 1st - so about 6 weeks before the June 17th breakfast outing. Defendant in case really doesn't need to say anything, though he does offer his theory that P is just trying to scam someone else into paying his dental bills. Case settled when MM has dufus P get his dentist on the phone. Poor mentally challenged P can't figure out what dentist means when talking about left versus right side of his mouth. MM even explains dentist is talking about P's left, not right, but it's too complicated for P to grasp. P wants MM to come take a closer look at his mouth, but she says no way does she want to look - then sends poor Douglas over for a gander. Quick decision, case tossed

neighbor feud: p says she loaned neighbor some money and neighbor not only refuses to repay loan but has started harassing her so much she attempted get a restraining order.... D says it's P who has a screw loose - says she repaid the loan in full - oh and restraining order was laughed out of court.... when litigants came in I noticed all the old folk, then learn these litigants are neighbors in a complex for elderly and/or disabled - like MM I have to laugh when we hear D say 60 years old qualifies as "elderly" - geez that means I've been elderly for years.... ok, same old same old, but with old folks - not really interesting and I left it running while I went to fix lunch while P starts telling us we're talking about multiple little loans and, no she really can't tell us how much was loaned when, but really Judge, trust her, D owes her $774 or some such..... ok, these two agree that loans were made, but P says total was over a grand and D says more like $900 - P claims a couple hundred was repaid and D says everything was repaid..... unless there's texts or something more I haven't heard P has no case.... actually, when I zip ahead it appears MM finds D testified in the restraining order case that she still owed money and was making payments after the date D testified here that loan was paid in full - oh dear, that doesn't help defendant's credibility much. I zipped through most of case and missed some while out of room, but P must have shown enough to convince MM as she gets her $774

tenant suing over utilities: this one is kind of different - for those who skip the intro, slow down and watch D get lost as he wanders around trying to find his lectern while wife motions him over... P is long time tenant who discovers she's been paying for the electricity in the garage which only the landlord has access to - she wants years of back electricity bill totalling over $3600.... seems P lived there for 15 years and all that time a power line coming off her meter went to garage which landlord's kept for storage - landlord's say it was strictly storage and nothing was plugged in or used electricity... ah, but when P noticed the power line going back to garage she got suspicious about D claim no power was being used in garage, so when she saw D heading to garage she flipped the main power and cut off the power.... what do you know, turns out reason D were heading for garage was to have a security system installed - uh, says MM to D, so, there is no electricity in garage, yet you have AT&T come to install fiber optics for a security system which require electricity.... hmmmm is D easily confused because of age or just not making sense - after all he did get lost coming into court..... ok, something must be going on, says MM, for long time (15 year) tenant to be in court suing landlord over something which they should have been able to resolve - ah, this is a rent control place and sounds like D has already checked into forcing P out, but can't - seems we'really talking 30 day lease but she can stay unless he can justify giving her notice to vacate..... next we have discussion about how, when workers/roofers came to do maintenance they use power from garage - ok, MM is convinced garage had power paid for by P, but where did P come up with her $3600 claim? Oh, says P, she just decided $20 a month seemed fair... ok, rough justice time.... nothing for anything from the past, but MM orders P to cut the cut and get separate meter for garage

[AngelaHunter]

31 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

dental woes: oh my, this P is setting a new low mental quotient.

What a palooka he was!  Trying to get the defs to pay to get his grill cleaned up. OH, god  - the way he kept pulling up his lip nearly put me off my dinner. And yeah, poor Douglas is nominated to go look at the oaf's dental situation. Gross. Get outta here, you scammer. 

34 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

neighbor feud: 

Those big battleaxes were really scary, especially the rough-hewn def. Their behavior is outrageous, but I know this high-school girl clique thing goes on in senior residences. My 84-year friend lives in an over-60 condo apartment complex, and this is a gorgeous place - brand new and high-end, but that doesn't stop the residents from squabbling, gossiping, snitching, bitching at each other and shunning this one or that. I guess that's how they prefer to spend their remaining days.  Even JM couldn't summon up any tears or sympathy for the old viragos.

38 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

slow down and watch D get lost as he wanders around trying to find his lectern while wife motions him over

He seemed a little lost in space, didn't he? As for plaintiff, who now has her middleaged daughter living there in this rent-controlled situation - I know nothing about this, but if daughter is earning a living the rent-control thing might need a closer look.

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

what do you know, turns out reason D were heading for garage was to have a security system installed - uh, says MM to D, so, there is no electricity in garage, yet you have AT&T come to install fiber optics for a security system which require electricity

This may be what really happened (and I think so myself), but both plaintiffs and defendants were inarticulate and clearly not technologically knowledgeable. JM may also be a bit out of date. The only equipment the defendant said was installed was a camera, a simple job but definitely beyond him. Fiber optic was thrown around a lot, but by people who couldn't tell FO cable from a vacuum cleaner hose. It is possible (though unlikely) that the cable they showed being installed was CAT6 copper jacketed for exterior use or direct burial. If the camera was an IP camera, all of the power it needs can come over the network copper (I have used Power Over Ethernet (POE) in several instances to simplify things. So it is possible that the security camera was powered from in the house. That brings up the question of what the camera covers - if garage interior only, electricity cost is on the defendant, if exterior to the garage and covers the house exterior, it is on the plaintiff.

Why I wonder how long it has been since MM has been on a construction site is that many or most of the hand held power tools used these days are battery operated, and it is not unusual to have a generator on site, especially if building/house power has to be shut off, or if heavy duty power tools draw more power than you can get from a 120V 20A outlet, especially if a long extension cord is needed.

Oh well, this is far too much from me on a simple case but editing for brevity has never been one of my strong points.

[meowmommy]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

oh my, this P is setting a new low mental quotient

And considering the average TPC litigant, this is a bar a flea couldn't crawl under.

MM:  This says you had a tooth extraction on May 1.

P:  No, I never had it done.  (Points to gaping hole in mouth as proof.)

Yup, future brain surgeon.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

MM even explains dentist is talking about P's left, not right, but it's too complicated for P to grasp.

And even assuming (huge illogical stretch) that was true, the dentist said boo about seeing the patient on 6/28 with a broken tooth on the other side.

The call had to have been set up ahead of time, or there was heavy editing.  No way does the receptionist grab the doctor immediately, no way is HIPAA bypassed that quickly, and no way does the dentist remember the exact dates and treatment plan without stopping to say he has to get into and review the records.  

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

And yeah, poor Douglas is nominated to go look at the oaf's dental situation.

Didn't know he had that skill set.  Good on Douglas.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

like MM I have to laugh when we hear D say 60 years old qualifies as "elderly"

I live in a retirement community, and I'm 61.  My address gets me bombarded with snail mail solicitations for funeral and cremation services.  I comfort myself knowing that a few people have said to me, "Oh, dear, you know you have to be 55 to live here."

Only three eps into the new season and we get to hear the TP and crayon lecture.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

actually, when I zip ahead it appears MM finds D testified in the restraining order case that she still owed money and was making payments after the date D testified here that loan was paid in full - oh dear, that doesn't help defendant's credibility much.

And she claimed to have made a payment in person on a date when the TRO was in effect.  Oops.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

next we have discussion about how, when workers/roofers came to do maintenance they use power from garage

Interesting that the daughter paid attention to all the times there were workmen in the garage, but for fifteen years living there, neither she nor her mother had ever noticed the wires running from their meter to the garage.  I think they should have gotten a nominal sum, because there has to have been some electricity used in 15 years, but not much.  But seriously, how could they prove the damages MM demanded to see?  

Right after the last break in this case, my local channel showed a commercial for low-income discounts on electricity by the power company.  

[Mrs Shibbles]

I thought it was telling that the toofus’s wife didn’t even show up with him as a witness.  I haven’t seen courtroom antics like that since the Brady Bunch.

[AZChristian]

If you google "broken tooth in restaurant," you'll find that there are a whole bunch of scammers who do this, and attorneys who take their cases.

I've read many articles where people bring a dead bug in a baggie with them, and they "discover" the bug on their plate when the meal is almost finished.  Obviously, they're looking for a free meal but not willing to risk being arrested for a "dine and dash."  

I think the plaintiff just wanted someone else to pay for an implant or bridge for the pre-existing gap in his upper mouth.  Better luck next time, dummy.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I've read many articles where people bring a dead bug in a baggie with them, and they "discover" the bug on their plate when the meal is almost finished.  Obviously, they're looking for a free meal but not willing to risk being arrested for a "dine and dash." 

It didn't work when Julie Andrews tried it in "Victor/Victoria."

[SRTouch]

car wrap fiasco: case watched from afar while fixing & eating lunch. P went to defendant to get her mobile pet grooming van wrapped. Job seems to me doomed from the start - silly P doesn't bring van with her to shop when shopping for estimate and equally silly/inept D accepts job based on picture off computer without  laying eyes on vehicle - sooooo job delayed when it turns out wrap doesn't fit and customer flips out when color is more purple than the blue she expected. When she shows up to pick up van there's big kerfuffle with big crowd of her friends chanting "Go Home!" and calling D an "A-rab," which had me wondering how this black woman would react to a crowd of surrounding her dog grooming business van shouting racial epithets because they didn't like how she groomed Fido or Roover. Kerfuffle results in police being called. Cops agree with D who refused to release her van without a signature acknowledging she took it - but next day D let's her friend take the van. She isn't happy with color and wants a full refund. Part of her case is a statement from some other car wrapping business which disses D and says he did crappy job - maybe so, but she 'ate the steak' and is driving around in car wrapped by D. MM ends up ordering a partial refund - 2 grand out of the requested 6 (Does it really cost that much for these car wraps? And if color was that crucial, why didn't P insist on an actual sample and look at it in multiple lighting conditions?) Don't think I would have given P anything without proof that she had paid someone else to change the color - but than MM was also upset because finished job did not have all the extras shown in computer rendering of the proposed job. Case ran long, lasting 30 minutes

family feud over funeral: p claims defendant pocketed half the money from mom's funeral insurance policy - D answers that P was estranged from his mom and that mom put her (D) in charge of estate because P can't handle his own affairs let alone mom's estate..... this is another 30 minutes case and I really wasn't that interested in watching the litigants air their dirty laundry.

Edited September 12, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, meowmommy said:

P:  No, I never had it done.  (Points to gaping hole in mouth as proof.)

And what? At least three times. It was so gross and he couldn't just discreetly show the gap. He had to open his mouth like a cavern and show everything. Yuck.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car wrap fiasco: 

Well, that certainly escalated. I find it fascinating when we see litigants like the plaintiff, acting all demure and sweet and then we see a candid video showing behavior like a wild animal. I hope everyone within viewing range of this ep does NOT hire her to groom their pets. I certainly would not, after seeing her nasty temper and penchant for violence. Imagine if a dog acted up? I can see her grabbing whatever is at hand and bashing the poor creature over the head. I guess her witness, in the inappropriate outfit, is yet another woman who thought JM wanted to see her breasts. Ladies, please!!!! Leave the plunging necklines at home! And maybe it's my Teevee, but that truck looked blue to me.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

family feud over funeral: 

The plaintiff , whose mangled English hurt my ears, thinks there was some conspiracy to substitute a different body for that of his "mama". "THat's not my MAMA!" he howls. Maybe he just didn't recognize her since it seems he wasn't around much, leaving all her care to his cousin defendant, who mama named as trustee. He's suing for "mental anguish" and tried mightily to squeeze out a tear when talking about his late mama. He failed. There's a whole 515$ at stake here and he wants that, mental anguish aside. Even though def's language in the phone call was pretty ugly, I can almost understand it. Plaintiff comes around from Kansas PDQ to pick the bones. I really don't know what else he wanted but he gets his 515$. Congratulations to him.
 

[patty1h]

I shook my head at the defendant wailing that it wasn't his mother in the casket -- he just doesn't realize that illness and disease can drastically change a persons appearance. 

I found that out myself when my sister developed liver problems and required dialysis.  I hadn't seen her in about 6 months and when an occasion came for a family get-together, I/two other sisters didn't recognize her and neither did several other relatives.  I probably wouldn't have been able to pick her out of lineup.  The illness and treatment had changed her body/face so much.  It happens.

[zillabreeze]

3 minutes ago, patty1h said:

The illness and treatment had changed her body/face so much.  It happens.

Yes, it most certainly does.  Also, funeral homes aren't exactly red carpet make-up artists.  Add that to illness appearance and it can look like a stranger.

Years ago, my grandmother was made up with a wig and troweled on make-up.  Her own kids actually had to do a double take, it was so un-realistic.

[DoctorK]

43 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

And maybe it's my Teevee, but that truck looked blue to me.

Interesting, the defendant's pictures from inside his shop (probably under fluorescent light) looked totally blue. The plaintiff's pictures taken outside in sun light looked off toward purple side. Lighting can make a big difference, but these days when everybody has PhotoShop with filters and other editing tools, as well as varying quality printers, I don't really trust any of these pictures, quite possible both sides doctored their pics to improve their case. For future reference, if I have to document a color, I will include both some people (because skin tones tend to show any tint editing) and a clearly recognizable business in the background with well known color scheme. If the McDonalds Golden arches are orange, probably doctored.

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, patty1h said:

he just doesn't realize that illness and disease can drastically change a persons appearance. 

Of course. If he had put as much effort and determination into visiting her as he put into trying to get his paws on her pension cheques he would have seen that.  Also, these funeral people tart up these bodies, often to a horrific degree, which is why my mother requested no "viewing". This is JMO, but I don't see the point, other than paying the funeral director more, in displaying the deceased. It's always seemed very barbaric to me.

[zillabreeze]

27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

This is JMO, but I don't see the point, other than paying the funeral director more, in displaying the deceased. It's always seemed very barbaric to me.

It's creepy as hell.  When I have to attend a service with an open casket, I don't go anywhere near it.

Our family long ago agreed all around.  Call the franchise crematorium, $1200. Done.  It works.  Costco has urns.

Son of The Year wasn't just after the pension.  He was twisted that the cousin was beneficiary for funeral policy and didn't spend all of the money on the funeral.  For whatever reason, he thought he should get the unspent money.

Nothing like a death to bring out the best in people.

[Guest]

Recently went through a funeral.

I don't know which world Son of the Year (love that) lives in but in the real world you cannot get a funeral for under 7k if you choose to have an open casket, viewing and some sort of service. 

The idea that the open casket funeral was 3.5k is nonsense.  Absolute rubbish.  There are so many small things that add up in the funeral home...unless his mom was in a cardboard casket that alone costs a couple thousand.

I will however consider his notion that it wasn't his mom in the casket and that there was some grand conspiracy to do a switcheroo with the corpse.  Maybe.  If I had that follicle-challenged vulture as a son, I too might consider faking my own death just for the peace and quiet death (real or faked) would bring. 

He didn't even have the sense or decency to be ashamed of his behavior.  But then again, I think that is a prerequisite to appear on these fake court shows. 

Edited September 12, 2019 by PsychoKlown

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I guess her witness, in the inappropriate outfit, is yet another woman who thought JM wanted to see her breasts.

Ah, but the plaintiff brought the added bonus of her magical chest tats.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

big crowd of her friends chanting "Go Home!"

Golly, scratching my head, just can't imagine anyone saying something like that.

26 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

Yes, it most certainly does.  Also, funeral homes aren't exactly red carpet make-up artists.  Add that to illness appearance and it can look like a stranger.

The fact that my father looked so different in his casket than he did in life actually helped me get through the funeral.  When my mother died, she was bald, emaciated, and bright canary yellow, and I couldn't imagine how the funeral home could fix her up to look even semi-normal for the relatives.  As soon as I told my brother how she looked, he decided closed casket.  I hadn't started watching Six Feet Under yet, where every week they magically transformed even the worst accident victims into cover girls.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

"THat's not my MAMA!" he howls.

Then he should have had the DNA tested before she went through the final furnace.

He brought pictures of his mother alive and dead for MM to review??? WTF!?  Glad MM moved right past that.

I'm so sorry the defendant has this moron for a relative.  Surprised MM is coaching them on how to skip probate.

[VartanFan]

Quote

As for plaintiff, who now has her middleaged daughter living there in this rent-controlled situation - I know nothing about this, but if daughter is earning a living the rent-control thing might need a closer look.

I get why rent control exists but I"m not exactly sure of how it's calculated or whatever.  It seems like this woman certainly has gotten more than her value's worth with the rent control than the few bucks in electricity may have cost her.  I'd have given her 200$, let the landlords evict the DAUGHTER, separated the electric, and called it a day.  

[zillabreeze]

4 hours ago, VartanFan said:

I'd have given her 200$, let the landlords evict the DAUGHTER, separated the electric, and called it a day.  

That's just about right.  Online calculator say $13.69 per yr for a 75w bulb to burn 5 hrs a day.  15 years - $205.35

The pictures they brought didn't show the garage completely.  I would bet that there was one single bare light on the ceiling.

[SRTouch]

tenant suing landlord claiming he ignored a water leak which resulted in damaged personal property. From preview sounds like she's after lotto win with jacked up value for furniture and harrassment claim - wants 6 grand so from some jurisdictions with high max claim - oh wait, she jacks up the amount to 10 grand once MM asks her to present her case... P claims window was leaking and she complained in November and again in January and nothing was done - landlord claims that the entire window had been replaced the previous May, and that he sent out maintenance in November to re-caulk - nope she says there was still a leak in January...... anybody else wondering how a leaky living room window allowed enough moisture in to damage her dresser?.... D acts like he has maintenance records showing he sent repair guys to visit in November but MM skips ahead to the exaggerated damage claim - first she tosses the extra 4 grand that P tried to verbally tack on in court - next she starts in on the value placed on the dresser - P places value as 3 grand, claiming it was an antique family heirloom passed down by her mother - well, maybe not an antique, but her mom bought it for her as a 16yo teenager and it's the only dresser she has used since - she claims it was 'quality' furniture bought at Levitz, and figures it should have added value since Levitz went bankrupt and she can't find an exact replacement.... probably shouldn't have mentioned Levitz, since MM recognizes the name and says they were known for discount prizes not quality.... I guess P does have a point about how hard it might be to find a dresser that will match the rest of the bedroom set, but 3 grand?!? Nah. Knock a zero off and maybe .... well, how 'bout that - when MM asks landlord he says he offered her $300 for damaged dresser - ok, MM is skipping over dresser for now and going over restimate of claim - $300 for move (or maybe it was a discounted rent) - part of her claim was money to move, which she now admits she received as a rent discount - lost time/harrassment - oh dear, when she starts in on how - oh the horror!  she had been there going on 5 years, she was currently a month to month, and when management offered to let her move out of the swampy/waterlogged apartment they wanted to actually sign a lease! - oh wait - newsflash - turns out she's on section 8, why am I not surprised? .... and turns out this isn't first time she's sued D - awhile back she sued asking for $900 when maintenance guy broke her flower pot (which he says she wasn't even supposed to have where she had it) - not sure what happened, as by now I'm using the zip button.... anyway, MM asks why management is letting her continue to live there (in a different apartment) when she decided she didn't want a new lease - doesn't their section 8 require a lease? Why hasn't Management just said enough and asked her to just find somewhere else to live... P ready to talk about more harrassment, but I'm reached my limit and zip ahead again - geez, case still going on at 25 minute mark..... P wins a whopping $500 from her 6000 10,000 dollar claim - in hallterview sounds like D still willing to honor her original lease, and yes, P confirms she's staying

puppy sale: p (backyard breeder) sold puppy to D, D has pup but still owes..... wants 5 grand...... D claim P upped the price after they had paid the agreed upon price..... ok, I usually skip cases which start out with ''puppy' especially when I hear 'breeder' but start watching this one one because of the preview clip where P talks about owner of other dog which bred his - MM asks if this other guy is in court and P says no, apparently not seeing him over on D side as a witness - what makes this even funnier is that a BIG guy, standing head and shoulders above D couple with broad shoulder almost as wide as defendants standing next to each other... ok, P doesn't sound like typical backyard breeder, he says he's big time and his his normal pup sells for 5 grand - says that's what his mama dog cost him - says D witness owes the papa dog, and brought down to him to buy the puppy at low low price of $1500 - turns out papa dog's owner not regular partner in dog breeding business and actually related to defendants........ 

Ah well, that's where today's recap ends. I have something of a reputation here as a 'cat daddy' and someone who will take in/foster critters whether they meow or bark. Wouldn't you know someone just knocked on my door and by the time I got up and looked outside there was no human but was a white kitten in a cardboard carrier. Appears to be pretty well socialized, but skinny and VERY thirsty. Looking at it, appears to be flea dirt but no live fleas. For now, it's segregated in the back bathroom.

Edited September 17, 2019 by SRTouch

[Bazinga]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing landlord

I really didn't like this plaintiff.  Ordinary twenty year old furniture got wet and she wanted the moon and then added an additional satellite.  It's an "heirloom" because her mother bought it for her?  There is more to being an heirloom then the prior generation bought it for you.  Extra credit for the store not being in business anymore!  Just ridiculous.  Thought JM was wrong in giving her $500.  Had no proof of the value of her furniture NOW.  That's her burden.  Twenty year old furniture is not worth $500 even with "rough justice."  The standard is replacement at the current value.  Why wasn't that the case here?  If she tried to sell that furniture before the damage, do you think she would have gotten $500?  I think not.  Was the furniture even unusable?  Did she throw it out?  Doubt it.  JM also said that part of the recovery was for moving expenses.  Not even clear why she had to move in the first place (due to a leaky window that was fixed???) but the defendant said she already got paid and she, after initially denying, eventually agreed that she got a rent rebate for moving, so why was she getting anything for that?  Just a despicable plaintiff who got rewarded for being entitled and overreaching instead of getting slapped down.  JM should have given her the same $300 the defendant said he offered and I think that was too much.  Would have served her right to just get $50.  JM was trying to throw shade at the plaintiff for being difficult and strongly hinting to the defendant to evict her.  He is probably scared to mess with her as he will be sued as he owes her something in her mind and overly sympathetic judges seem to allow her to get her way, unjustly.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Bazinga

[zillabreeze]

17 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

  If she tried to sell that furniture before the damage, do you think she would have gotten $500? 

My "Nextdoor" website has way nicer stuff than that for $100.  She got that little Sec8 entitlement attitude rolling and it had no bounds.  She wanted to be paid for something everytime she took a breath.

I bet that poor landlord was counting the seconds until he had the exact legal out to boot her to the curb.

Oh hell, no!  Second case folks, you ARE NOT wasting my TV pixels trying to convince me there's a pitbull on Earth worth $1,500, much less 5 grand😂🤣!

You can't throw a rock anywhere in North Texas and NOT hit one of those hellbeasts! They're like rats in NYC, f-ing everywhere!  Vermin.

In fact, I just spent last week in a lively email discussion with my councilperson about getting those nasty things out of our shelter, so some decent family dogs could have a spot. Ugh.  5 thousand bucks???? Not if they came with a JJ  caliber diamond studded tiara.

Dude number 3?  Cry me a river, I have paid mechanics to look at used cars before purchase since I was 16 years old.  Too dumb to breathe.  

[AngelaHunter]

n/m

Edited September 16, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, Bazinga said:

It's an "heirloom" because her mother bought it for her?  There is more to being an heirloom then the prior generation bought it for you.  Extra credit for the store not being in business anymore! 

I didn't understand, with this apparently recurrent leak, that she did nothing to protect her heirloom dresser from that high-end furniture emporium Levitz (I've bought stuff there, too) that she treasured so much.  Put a tarp over it, move it out of the way, something.  Oh, and invest in renter's insurance.

2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

My "Nextdoor" website has way nicer stuff than that for $100.  She got that little Sec8 entitlement attitude rolling and it had no bounds.  She wanted to be paid for something everytime she took a breath.

I'd gone without a dresser since 2013.  A couple of months ago, I found a beautiful 'heirloom' maple bureau at one of the local thrift shops for $150.  I love it.  (Also snagged a good-as-new butcher block kitchen island that retails for over $1K for $125.)  The store is stuffed with gorgeous furniture the owner picks up at estate sales.  I only wish I had room in my house for all his stuff.  Imagine what I could do with $500.

Love how she has the time on her hands to pseudo-lawyer into the 51 page lease.  She wants $30/hr for her time lost from work.  If she is making $30/hr at her job, she has no business being subsidized under Section 8.

Backyard breeders should be banned, fined, jailed, burned at the stake, etc.

2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Dude number 3?  Cry me a river, I have paid mechanics to look at used cars before purchase since I was 16 years old.  Too dumb to breathe.

Why do the producers keep taking these cases when everyone knows how they're going to turn out?  Oh, as MM said, to keep feeding herself and Douglas.  But when we all know how they're going to turn out, the entertainment value is nil and the educational value is nil.  Because apparently there are still thousands of car buyers out there who still haven't learned the lesson.

And about seven minutes of filler about how angry he got and the confrontation requiring a call to the police.  Because we all knew how it was going to turn out.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I have something of a repeat here as a 'cat daddy' and someone who will take in/foster critters whether they meow or bark. Wouldn't you know someone just knocked on my door and by the time I got up and looked outside there was no human but was a white kitten in a cardboard carrier. Appears to be pretty well socialized, but skinny and VERY thirsty.

Awww....

OT:  While at the pool in my retirement community last week, I struck up a conversation with a lady who told me she went to adopt a kitty after losing hers, and being rudely told by all the shelters that she was too old to adopt.  If she wanted to adopt, she would need a co-signer.  Yeah, better that another unwanted animal be put down than take a chance on an elderly lady.  She ended up doing an end-around with a friend who does rescues, who found a perfect furbaby for her.

[NYGirl]

12 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Why do the producers keep taking these cases when everyone knows how they're going to turn out?  Oh, as MM said, to keep feeding herself and Douglas.  But when we all know how they're going to turn out, the entertainment value is nil and the educational value is nil.  Because apparently there are still thousands of car buyers out there who still haven't learned the lesson.

I came here to ask that exact same question.  I'm guessing we reached our quota on tolerating this crap.  Every single day there's a stupid car buyer.  You mean they can't find something ??  Anything??? Bueller?

[zillabreeze]

36 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

I came here to ask that exact same question.  I'm guessing we reached our quota on tolerating this crap.  Every single day there's a stupid car buyer.  You mean they can't find something ??  Anything??? Bueller?

Maybe TPTB think they are providing some great public service by showing these cases over and over?  Apparently,  the concept of an "as is" sale is as elusive as the fundamentals of reproduction, birth control and asymmetrical string theory.  

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

She got that little Sec8 entitlement attitude rolling and it had no bounds.  She wanted to be paid for something everytime she took a breath.

A perfect characterisation.

But as much as I disliked her, I had little sympathy for the landlord because he still tolerates her and does not want to go through the bother of evicting her, even though she is in effect month-to-month, which would make it simple. He probably knows that with her attitude, she would find one pretext or another to sue; did she not say that a move was something she had not planned and therefore she should be compensated? Another tenant who does not grasp the concept of month-to-month and believes that once her ass is ensconsed in a place she has an absolute right to stay there for all eternity, instead of taking measures to be ready in case her stay does come to an end in the absence of a formal lease, as it should have done a long time ago.

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

being rudely told by all the shelters that she was too old to adopt.

There's a whole mess of shelter operators and rescue group honchos that are getting a serious God Complex.  They need to dial it down.

12 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

in effect month-to-month, which would make it simple

Even without a lease, couldn't she still be Section 8?  She didn't strike me as anyone that would sit still and pay full normal people rent. 

I would think shooing off a Section 8 resident would take an Act of Congress and two sticks of dynamite.

[meowmommy]

58 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

Apparently,  the concept of an "as is" sale is as elusive as the fundamentals of reproduction, birth control and asymmetrical string theory.  

If MM hasn't already written it, she should--The Definitive Guide on How to Keep Your Money and Stay Out of My Courtroom.  Chapters to include, as is car sales, putting agreements in writing, keeping your damn dog on a damn leash...

[Florinaldo]

10 hours ago, meowmommy said:

The Definitive Guide on How to Keep Your Money and Stay Out of My Courtroom.

But then, as she indicated yesterday, she and Douglas would starve for lack of litigants. Unless her book is a runaway bestseller and she can live comfortably enough on the royalties. However, where would that leave her bailiff and the rest of the crew?

[Katy M]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

But then, as she indicated yesterday, she and Douglas would starve for lack of litigants. Unless her book is a runaway bestseller and she can live comfortably enough on the royalties. However, where would that leave her bailiff and the rest of the crew?

The people in her courtroom probably don't even know how to read in the first place. And even if they did wouldn't take her advice.

[aemom]

Nobody mentioned Friday's episodes:

First there was the wife who was suing her soon-to-be-ex-husband to share in the cost of their daughter's competitive dance classes, competitions, etc.  In the end, she got nothing and MM told her to bring it up in the family court that they were still in the process of working through.  MM gave wife a dressing down because at one of the dance competitions, she wore a shirt that read "Daddy shows up to watch, but Mommy pays for everything" (I might be paraphrasing).  MM said that you never bad mouth the other parent for any reason because that just damages a child.  MM is 100% right.  The wife agreed afterwards in the halterview with Doug that it was not her finest moment.

Case two was the guy who hired the D's company to repair his FOUR toilets because they weren't working properly.  How on earth do you get to the point where all your toilets are non-functional before getting them repaired?  There was a problem with one of them after the repair and there was back and forth and back and forth umpteen times before MM ruled that because the hubby (in the hubby and wife owned repair business) had offered to settle, that it was a done deal, and they owed the P that money.  It did not help that only the wife showed up in court: sans-affidavit from hubby as well.

Third case: I'll be damned if I can remember what it was.  🤣

Edited September 18, 2019 by aemom
Typo

[DoctorK]

7 minutes ago, aemom said:

Third case: I'll be damned if I can remember what it was.  🤣

LOL, I find that that happens to me a lot lately.

[VartanFan]

Quote

Love how she has the time on her hands to pseudo-lawyer into the 51 page lease.  She wants $30/hr for her time lost from work.  If she is making $30/hr at her job, she has no business being subsidized under Section 8.

I said this exact thing to my husband and I would have hoped MM said it to her (optimistic that it was edited out).  I hate these people who throw all sorts of shit at the legal system, hoping something will stick and they'll get something for nothing (or something MORE for nothing).  

Quote

MM gave wife a dressing down because at one of the dance competitions, she wore a shirt that read "Daddy shows up to watch, but Mommy pays for everything" (I might be paraphrasing).  MM said that you never bad mouth the other parent for any reason because that just damages a child.  MM is 100% right.

So, yes, MM is right but I hate these non custodial parents who freaking think that 'child support' covers everything.  It doesn't.  Period.  It's a mathematical computation that is based off of (yes, among other things) what money you have...NOT what it takes to support a child.  AND he agreed to pay toward it.  The P's problem was she said she would have paid for it anyways.  She should not have bad-mouthed the dad (bad-tshirted?) because, frankly, the kids figure it out themselves when they get older.  

ETA - I know dance is not what it takes to actually keep a kid alive and it's extra, but my feelings about child support still stand. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by VartanFan

[Katy M]

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 7:46 PM, meowmommy said:

Love how she has the time on her hands to pseudo-lawyer into the 51 page lease.  She wants $30/hr for her time lost from work.  If she is making $30/hr at her job, she has no business being subsidized under Section 8.

Maybe she only works 15 hours a week.

19 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

She should not have bad-mouthed the dad (bad-tshirted?) because, frankly, the kids figure it out themselves when they get older.  

What makes it worse is if you badmouth the other parent while making the kid feel bad.  I know this guy who complained about child support to his kids and then called them little leeches. I wanted to smack him.

[meowmommy]

3 hours ago, Katy M said:

Maybe she only works 15 hours a week.

Then she wouldn't have needed to take time off from work, paid for by her landlord, to pursue her bogus lawsuit.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Then she wouldn't have needed to take time off from work, paid for by her landlord, to pursue her bogus lawsuit.

She would if that was one of the days she had to work.

Actually, it reminds me of this one time a friend of mine got sued.  I forgot for how much.  Maybe $1,000 or so.  The guy suing her also tried to sue for $1500 for missing work to sue her (which of course he didn't get as we all know from TPC).  But I was like "why would you sue for less money than you can make in a day?"  It made no sense to me.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Katy M

[meowmommy]

3 minutes ago, Katy M said:

She would if that was one of the days she had to work.

I've deleted the episode, but IIRC, she was asking for 48 hours at $30/hr.  Are you, by chance, a relative of hers?  🙂

[aemom]

Sept 17 episode:

1. Couple who were married for 5 months and are already divorced.  He's suing her for a loan that he made to her to get a car repaired (a promissory note is involved).  There is a lot of back and forth about who paid what and why she doesn't owe him, blah, blah, blah.  They were both reasonably well spoken and dressed.  MM rules in favor of the P for the loan, but nada for each of them for "emotional distress."

2. Two cousins (a male and female) decide to do business together.  No paperwork - which means that they wind up on TPC.  P (the woman) decides that she wants to redo houses so she watches a bunch of YouTube Videos to learn how to do that.  I shudder to think about the half-assed jobs that she's been doing on the houses/apartments, because if it was so easy to be a contractor, you wouldn't need, I don't know, Trade Schools? Oy Vey!  Her male cousin is licensed, so P's friend hires her to fix up an apartment for rent, and also hires the D to be the "licensed person that is needed to make the job legal."  P is suing because he still owes her $400 and change for materials and $1000 for labor.  He disputes that, but she has enough proof and wins.

Halterview to Defendant: "How do you feel about your cousin after losing?"  "I love her to death."  P's response - the same, but she's not speaking to him at the family reunion in June because she needs time. "We can be cousins again next year."  That made me laugh.  They were both also reasonably dressed and well spoken.  The P's friend/witness had a serious rat's nest on her head though.

3. MM didn't need her magnetic board with the cars, because the P brought his own model cars to demonstrate.  The litigants were both "older" and we know that MM always gives them more latitude with things.  He claims that he was sitting in his car in a parking lot while the lot was emptying after a show.  There was bumper to bumper traffic and she took advantage of a break and pulled out, but side-swiped him.  Instead of jumping out and confronting her, he memorized her license plate and then only confronted her a week later (they both volunteer at the place).  She's like "What? I hit nobody and you're coming to me a week later?"  She also claims that there's no damage on her car.

MM looks at videos and is none too impressed with how the P handled all of this but at the same time, D has matching damage which is not dirt as she keeps claiming, so she finds in favor of the P.  Both were properly dressed and spoke well.

This episode was something of a surprise overall.  No dog attacks, no second-hand car purchases filled with remorse, no idiot women buying the love of a sad-sack man - just well dressed and spoken people with their evidence and mildly interesting cases.  More of these types of litigants please!  Maybe Levin was out sick the day that had to plan this episode.

Edited September 20, 2019 by aemom
Clarification

[aemom]

Sept 18 episode:

1. First case was a makeup artist who didn't show up on the bride's wedding day to do her makeup and the six bridesmaids.  They had worked together for two other occasions before and it had gone well, but two days before the wedding, she didn't show up for the bachelorette party because she had a job interview.  The day of the wedding, she was supposed to be picked up by the hairstylist and they would make the 2.5 hour drive together.  Except D lost her phone.  Did she just get dressed and wait outside to be picked up that morning?  No.  Instead, she spent hours trying to find her phone, and when she did, finally texted the bride at 3 pm to say that she wasn't coming.  They had already figured that out a long time ago, since you were supposed to be picked up at 7 am.  Meanwhile, the wedding planner managed to rustle up a replacement who charged triple the price she was supposed to pay the D.  MM had zero sympathy for the D and ordered her to pay back both deposits (bachelorette party and wedding), the difference in what she had to pay the other artist, plus $100 for emotional distress.  MM's parting words: "Shame on you!"  I have to say, it would have never occurred to me to spend money on someone to do my makeup for my wedding.  Is is really that hard to do your own makeup?  I even did my own hair because I didn't trust anyone to do it the way I wanted it.  It took me almost 4 hours, but hell I'd do it all again.

2. Next case was two young women who live in Brooklyn who changed their mind on January 2 not to renew their lease (ending Jan 31), but to finish the lease out and leave.  The D landlady wanted to keep the security deposit for not giving 30 days notice.  Because this is NYC, nobody has to give notice and the D was able to rent the apartment for February, so she wasn't out anything rent-wise.  There was some damage to the floor, so the Ps have to pay back $200 of the deposit.

3. A guitarist is suing the D for not paying him for recording tracks for his album almost 5 years ago.  He's worked for him in the past, but D says that he didn't have money to pay him.   Over the years the P had asked for money, but the D kept putting him off and the P has a voice mail from a few years ago where he promises to pay.  MM finds in favor of the P.  Both say no hard feelings.  The D says the guitarist is the best one around and the P says that the D writes amazing songs.  Considering MM's penchant for music, I am really surprised that we got zero performances out of either litigant.  I got a serious chuckle out of the D's companion who was grinning like a loon the entire time and appeared to have some sort of plush monkey bag with the straps/arms? wrapped around his body.  It was certainly one of the most interesting accessories I've seen on the show in a long time.

As an aside: Where's everyone gone here?  Is everyone OK?

Edited September 20, 2019 by aemom
Monkey bag, not money bag

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, aemom said:

As an aside: Where's everyone gone here?  Is everyone OK?

Thanks for picking up the recapping torch..... can't speak for everyone else, but I stopped watching game when reruns started. TPC used to be my mid day show. When new TPC started I watched/recapped a couple days, but  just haven't gotten  back in the habit of watching. These days I'm watching new HOT Bench and JJ from previous day during lunch. Think I have a week's worth of new TPC episodes on the DVR. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

Bro suing sis over motorcycle (mom witness for sis): very forgetable case. (Unlike when I do the long-winded blow by blow recaps and type as I watch, today I watched the whole thing and then typed my impressions - by the time I was ready to type this I had to rewind to remind myself what it was about.) Bro bought a MC from his sis on payments, well except he never bothered to finish paying it off. He tries to tell MM he was making the payments, but when questioned has to admit sis was last priority, he figured he could pay her 'what he could' rather than what he agreed. Sis wasn't exactly honest with bro - she withheld title and bro was paying her money for the insurance...... seems bro had a dui and the two decided to cheat the insurance company by not admitting bro was the owner. Not only was sis willing to cheat the insurance company, but she was lieing to bro about how much she was paying for the premium. Bro gets suspicious when sis can't keep remember what she told him she was paying, so he calls up and asks what she was paying. Big kerfufle when he finds out she's been lieing, they stop talking, and he stops letting sis pick up his 4 yo for visits with mom (seems he was doing end around wife and letting sis take kid to visit grandma even though wife doesn't like granny.) Sooooo - bro has bike but still owes sis a grand while sis retains title, which she won't surrender until it's paid in full.... he wants the title and she wants rest of money. MM orders he finish paying minus what sis overcharged for insurance - I guess sis had to sign over title but I didn't hear/don't remember

old lady wants 5 grand because she got wrong eyeglass frames: another very forgettable case. Old lady says she ordered Gucci frames, but has no proof/receipt. Eye glass store dude says she got the frames she ordered. She picks up frames, charged to her CC, then comes back and wants to swap. He agrees to swap, but not for the very expensive Gucci. Turns out he was willing to upgrade to a more expensive frame and give her half off the upgrade. She decides she isn't happy with the upgrade and gets charges reversed on CC. Eye store guy protests and gets charge reinstated. She's suing for the $350 CC charge - plus wants pain and suffering for grand total if 5 grand. D wants $50 he says he was charged even though he successfully won the CC appeal. She has no proof, neither does he, everybody goes home with the free lunch and chance to brag they shook hands with Doug on the way out

tenant suing landlord: another very forgettable case on a day of forgetable cases - P wins points for being very well spoken for only being in the country 2 years - also points for gross factor when she tells how roach crawled in baby's ear. Ah, but she loses points when we learn she's suing for security back despite not paying rent for 4 months. D landlord also very well spoken. His problem is he talks around questions instead of giving an answer, and MM is convinced he's playing with zoning and renting to P illegally - if I understood all his non-answer answers, place is duplex zoned as 2 family, he claims he's permitted to run a day care in half the duplex and permitted to live downstairs in the basement while renting upstairs. As a good samaritan, he moves out of the basement and let's P move in - well, except he collects $1000 a month rent for doing this good deed. MM doesn't believe D is allowed to rent to two families and run a day care in a duplex zoned for 2 families..... maybe, she says, he can live in his half of the duplex while operating a day care in  his half, but he shouldn't collect rent for both duplexes AND use one for his businese. MM ends up ordering him to return the security when he can't point to any damages. I didn't like fact P played the system and stayed until day before marshals came to show her to the curb and paid no rent for 4 months. I wouldn't have returned the deposit - I would have told her that decision should have been settled in housing court when she was ordered to move out

Edited September 24, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

P wins points for being very well spoken for only being in the country 2 years

She wins more points, as JM pointed out, for learning how to work the system to live for free in that short time. A physician couldn't detect a cockroach in a baby's ear and just says, "Use olive oil"? Okay, then. That's some doctor.

[Pepper the Cat]

$4000 for pain and suffering because she had to wait for her glasses? Unbelievable!

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Unlike when I do the long-winded blow by blow recaps, I watched the whole thing and then typed my impression

I'm still glad you did it.  The weather people preempted the intro today (why they're complaining about today's wonderful rain and breeze when it's been over 100 for months I do not know), so I relied on you!

I kept staring at the three inch black roots.  And mom's glasses frames that ran directly across her eyes.  They don't appear to be reading glasses.  How the hell did she see?

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I guess sis had to sign over title but I didn't hear/don'the remember

Yup.  And then MM finished with something in Spanish which of course the litigants understood but MM didn't bother to translate.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Old lady says she ordered Gucci frames, but has no proof/receipt.

She claimed she had to go without seeing for months, but she walks into court without wearing her glasses.

I paid $1 for my cheaters at Dollar Tree.

Who doesn't hold onto their receipts for a relatively large ticket item like glasses, especially when you're unhappy with them.  And she didn't bring proof of the sale, either, to claim that she was supposed to get Guccis at a discount.  Wouldn't the dollar amount she claimed be a dead giveaway that they weren't Guccis?

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

P wins points for being very well spoken for only being in the country 2 years

She said she's from Guyana, where English is the official language.

[VartanFan]

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I would have told her that decision should have been settled in housing court when she was ordered to move out

I agree with this 100% and wouldn't have given her anything.  There was a serious vibe from the D that he rented her the apartment (and gave up his home) because he was into her.  It was never outright stated (that I remember) but she was working both the system and his attraction to her.

I feel similarly when we see divorced people...unless the person is NOT doing something they were ordered to do in the divorce, I don't see why you're here.  Dismissed without prejudice and let your local court dismiss it.  BYE!  

I'm seriously considering making myself a PC litigant.  My brother borrowed 750$ in December of 2017 and promised to pay it back by APril of 2018.  He still owes $170 after repeated, repeated requests from me.  He makes good money but makes sure to go to Vegas, buy his adult children things, pays for some martial arts classes...and so on.  Unlike some people.  I've kept the old phone with all the text promises.  So, even though it's 170, I get why people come onto the show for small amounts.  It really is the principle of the thing.  

[SRTouch]

Lousy paint job on classic car: this was a paint job destined to fail. Older P bought this car new way back when he started his business - IIRC it's an '88 mustang and he's an auto detailer - think he said 69 thousand original miles, so he's cherished and babyed this car for 30 years. D manages auto paint shop which is part of a unnamed national chain. P expects top quality and D runs more of a 'spray it and get it out the door' shop. P paid $2600+ and got some warranty. When he picks up car lots of little things wrong. He has the warranty so he points out what's wrong and leaves it - but when he goes back to pick it up the second time problems not fixed. Funny part of case is mouthy D belittling customer's concerns - then tries to be dismissive of MM when da'Judge starts agreeing with P. MM pretty much decides P has to go back and let D's shop have a third attempt to get things right, but then D gets mouthy and talks herself into having to pay.... straw that makes MM not give her a third try is when D tells us her contract says dust/dirt can be in there dry paint - At first MM says show me where contract says that, D tries to argue maybe it says that in the estimate (which she doesn't have with her) - MM disgusted with D and refunds half what P paid, saying P shouldn't be made to waste his time going back a third time when mouthy D won't even admit anything is wrong..... too bad P didn't come in with estimates, because sounded to me like poor prep and to get a good job might require whole new paint

Long time tenant wants back security: p has rented from D for 10 years - oh and is another one working the system to get assitance... if I caught this right, she's getting assistance because she was incarcerated - but is she still in the same program for 10 years?.... anyway during that time she has moved at least once within the building. First problem with her case is that she's asking for security back, but has nothing proving she actually paid security except that landlady agrees she did - ah, but they disagree on the amount  - D kept the money because P moved out without giving notice. Ah, except this is NYC where month to month tenants aren't required to give notice. P says she didn't have a lease - D says yes you do - P tries to argue no she doesn't, saying her caseworker said the lease she signed is illegal because of rent increase - MM has to tell her it's not illegal for landlady to raise rent just that the rent increase was more than assistance program would approve - but hey, P signed legally binding lease, so she's still on the hook..... ok, P doesn't have much of a case so far, but what's with D trying to claim 5 grand - appears D not only wants the security for rent after no-notice move, she also wants rent for remaining term of lease - but has nothing showing she has tried to find a new tenant. Rough justice has MM announcing her ruling, but gives P 3 weeks to produce proof she paid $1700 security instead of the  $1250 D claims (yep, neither side brought proof of what was paid to court) - on the rent for rest of lease - nope, MM awards her the security  as 1 month of rent - not rest of the year...... P gets zip, D gets couple hundred for now, but not if P produces proof she paid what she claims..... oh, and Harvey tells us P did not provide the proof, so D ends up with security plus $350

bro suing his brother over jewelry: p says bro borrowed his $2800 gold chain and never returned it - I expect a silly he said - he said case and zip ahead to decision time..... MM decides D bro lost the chain, but P bro has nada establishing how much it's worth..... her rough justice decision grants P $500 (apparently based on photo of chain) - about 4 hundred more than I would have given him, but hey she listened to whole thing and I skipped 15 minutes

[patty1h]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bro suing his brother over jewelry: p says bro borrowed his $2800 gold chain and never returned it

It is ridiculous to see these grown men doing that "let me see your chain/bracelet" thing.  I remember that from grade/high school in the 70's.  It was a socio-economic/status thing in the hood (even though I grew up in a middle class area of Brooklyn and went to Catholic school); a kid would come to school with a nice new piece of jewelry and a "friend" would ask to wear it.  The borrower wore it to get some recognition for having some GOLD! - it meant your parents weren't cheap and broke ass.  You usually grew out of that kid stuff by senior year.  

These guys are still loaning jewelry to each other so they look like players?  Damn, that's sad at their ages (plus that chain was tacky!) .

Edited September 24, 2019 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

oh and is another one working the system to get assitance...

I'm going to hold up the corner store so I can go to jail and get rewarded  for my crime to the tune of a 1600$/month dwelling. She was all choked up about her kids, but if she cared about them so much maybe she shouldn't have committed some crime that sent her to jail, away from them. That "beehive" was a wasp nest, btw. I love how both litigants scrunched up their faces in confusion and disbelief when JM read to them their own sworn statements.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Lousy paint job on classic car

That woman was outrageous. I certainly wouldn't give my car to her. I enjoyed the exterior scenes, so reminiscent of the great Judge Wapner days.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

her rough justice decision grants P $500 (apparently based on photo of chain) - about 4 hundred more than I would have given him, but hey she listened to whole thing and I skipped 15 minutes

Thanks. I gave up watching this "3 carats. OH, maybe it was something like 2 carats? I dunno. I paid 3K for it... or maybe it was 2K. I dunno. No, I have no proof of anything," and the Extreme Clown/standup comedy acts that JM allowed, after five minutes. Yeah, I'd let my drunken idiot of a brother borrow something really expensive of mine so he can show off in front of his drunken idiot friends.

[meowmommy]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Older P bought this car new way back when he started his business - IIRC it's an '88 mustang and he's an auto detailer - think he said 69 thousand original miles, so he's cherished and babyed this car for 30 years.

I was looking through a magazine yesterday and they were talking about vintage cars--vintage being all late 80s.  I felt so goddamn old.  Vintage to me is a Model T.

I liked the field trip to the parking lot, although in my world, if I was going to be on TPC, I'd end up stuck parking about eight miles from where they tape, not right by the front door.  I also liked that they didn't present the usual trope of moronic old guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.  The plaintiff knew exactly what he was talking about.  He knew the defendant's business better than she did.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

MM disgusted with D and refunds half what P paid, saying P shouldn't be made to waste his time going back a third time

She said he shouldn't get all his money back, as if that made sense.  He got a substandard product that he may to have to replace in its entirety; as you say, he might end up needing a new prep and paint job.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm going to hold up the corner store so I can go to jail and get rewarded  for my crime to the tune of a 1600$/month dwelling.

And as usual, it never occurs to her that if the defendant should have to cough up the security, that money should go back to the taxpayers who've been paying all her damn rent for ten years.  And she's so quick to say the rent increase is "illegal," which she thought was her get out of jail free card. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

That "beehive" was a wasp nest, btw.

You call the city complaint line because bees decided to move in?  I had a nest of wasps outside a house I rented.  I bought a can of wasp killer.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I love how both litigants scrunched up their faces in confusion and disbelief when JM read to them their own sworn statements.

Ya mean they didn't actually write them?

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

p says bro borrowed his $2800 gold chain and never returned it - I expect a silly he said - he said case and zip ahead to decision time..... 

OMG, Hallclown trying to sound hip in the intro...painful.  

Learned a new word:  he "likeded" it.  And he named his son Sir.  Oh wait, that's the defendant's son.  I couldn't tell who was the dad and who was the uncle.  I'm getting a headache.

MM grinning at the defendant brother describing his life as a happy drunk...no, no, Marilyn, just no.  Didn't you prosecute and judge drunk driving cases?

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I gave up watching this "3 carats. OH, maybe it was something like 2 carats? I dunno. I paid 3K for it... or maybe it was 2K. I dunno. No, I have no proof of anything,"

He has no receipts and no proof of value of his ugly-ass chain; tried to claim a few diamond chips constituted a 3 carat diamond.  If it was truly valuable, it should have been insured.  WTF is MM thinking?