AngelaHunter October 15, 2019 Share October 15, 2019 36 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: Remember the family where hose beast mom parked in the handicapped spot while dad and son ran to the ATM? Yes, I certainly remember them and agree the snotty def here needs to piss off a group like that one, Guaranteed she'd put her damn cart in the stall the way the rest of us do from then on, even when it's *gasp* windy or snowing. 39 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: Constant watering is the only solution...and if it’s summertime that produces its own set of problems. This was Florida, in the summer. I'm not in Florida, but we can apply for permission to heavily water new sod (at night) and you just know plaintiff never did that. I want a life so smooth that I can feel horribly mentally distressed by yellow grass. I"m glad JM denied her money grab. 1 Link to comment
aemom October 20, 2019 Share October 20, 2019 On 10/9/2019 at 7:08 PM, AngelaHunter said: They better hurry and sell as many as they can to other idiots. I remember when Beanie Babies and Cabbage Patch Kids were worth a fortune and people wheeled and dealed in them. I can think of other investments that may have a more enduring value. My friend's teenage son is not terribly motivated about anything, but my God, he is totally into his sneaker business. He will line up before the crack of dawn to buy a pair of shoes when they "drop" and then re-sell them online. He has an Instagram account with a bunch of followers. His dad was going to NYC for business and he asked him to visit this sneaker store to look for a particular shoe. His dad was shocked. This fancy place has a ton of shoes in display cases behind glass and many of the people in there were adult men dressed in fancy suits and some of the shoes were thousands of dollars. I'm not so sure that this is a flash in the pan thing - I think it will go on for some time. On 10/10/2019 at 7:24 PM, AngelaHunter said: I didn't find the old geezer nearly as cute or amusing as JM did. I'm nowhere near 80, but yes - I always wait until the person with the turn signal actually starts to make the turn before I go, because I don't automatically trust everyone on the road. I've seen people ahead of me on the highway with their frickin' turn signals on for 20 miles. This case cracked me up. I loved the woman with her dry sense of humour and her outrage that he wrote to his insurance company. I'm exactly the same - wait until you see them turning - because you never know. I've been teaching my kids to drive for the last few years and have drilled this into their heads as well: Always assume that people are idiots and will try to drive you off the road. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 20, 2019 Share October 20, 2019 3 hours ago, aemom said: Always assume that people are idiots and will try to drive you off the road. Absolutely. I always drive defensively and even more so since watching these shows and seeing how many uninsured, unlicensed idiots are on the road. One in particular I remember here was a guy who parked on the street, flung his door open and THEN looked to see if any traffic was coming. Of course he got his door smashed but he said the way he did it - looking after opening the door - is the way everyone does it. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch October 20, 2019 Share October 20, 2019 4 hours ago, aemom said: I'm exactly the same - wait until you see them turning - because you never know. I've been teaching my kids to drive for the last few years and have drilled this into their heads as well: Always assume that people are idiots and will try to drive you off the road. In my younger days I rode motorcycles. Something you learn almost immediately is not to trust other drivers - they plain don't see bike riders, and anytime a car hits a rider the rider comes out the loser - irregardless of who has right of way, the car has right of weight (a saying from a motorcycle safety course I took long long ago) 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 20, 2019 Share October 20, 2019 51 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Something you learn almost immediately is not to trust other drivers - they plain don't see bike riders, and anytime a car hits a rider the rider comes out the loser I ride a bicycle and drive a car, so I see it from both sides. As a driver I know how irritating it is when cyclists think they needn't follow any rules of the road and choose to ride their bikes - head down with their little biking outfits on - on a narrow, two-lane road where I'm forced to stay behind the biker until it's safe to pass. While riding a bike I stick to bicycle paths for the most part and when it's necessary to ride on a street I make sure to follow the rules, like stopping at stop signs and red lights since yes, in any contact with a car even if I'm in the right I am going to lose. 5 hours ago, aemom said: I'm not so sure that this is a flash in the pan thing - I think it will go on for some time. Maybe, but the bottom will drop out. It always does, right back to the collapse of the great Tulip Exchange of the 1600s which no one expected. 😄 These characters will be left sitting there surrounded by all these Kanye sneakers which no one wants any more. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch October 21, 2019 Share October 21, 2019 incomplete sign: P suing for complete refund of deposit he paid D. D was supposed to make/put up a sign for P's business, but P says it was too big a job for D so he fired the guy. Wants $1670..... D says he used the money for materials, and he deserves something for the time he put in on the job before P pulled the plug - he says reason he was canned was he asked for more money when P wanted a bigger sign..... uh huh, P giving off bad jibes here at the start. Seems to have spent lots of time getting hair line and facial hair just so, but comes to court in rumbled shirt and faded jeans - then when MM asks if D had ever done any work, instead of simple 'yes' P starts a narrative about how he really liked D and how D had done other smaller jobs etc etc while dude leans on lectern and looks up/down/and all around instead of at Judge - MM let's him ramble on for awhile, then finally asks about the sign - first mistake, 3 grand plus job but no written agreement - parties agree that 50% deposit paid to start job ($1250 not the $1600+ he's suing for)...... well, dude really sending his case into the toilet when he admits there was no agreement on the sign size, says he accepted size recommended by D cuz D is the sign guy and P is just a pharmacist (and the business owner paying for the freekin' sign) - D made a mock up of sign to show size, with lettering etc - P isn't happy, complains it's hard to read..... haven't heard much from sign maker dude yet, but what P said so far proves D did some work and deserves something for the time and effort of making the mock up.... since P wasn't happy with first sign, they bump it up and agree on bigger sign - 'nother mock up made, and P asks that D make sure to come during the day so he can get a good visual to see if new and improved version will meet his needs - ah, but D comes after dark, and P gets PO'ed - at first he tells D to come back when there's enough light - D insists P at least look at what he has - long story short, P passed and loses confidence D can do the job and, instead of rescheduling P pulls the contract...... 'bout time to switch sides, but P hasn't convinced me he deserves full refund..... nope, D also fails to impress - though at least he's better dressed - in fact as he tries to argue his case it isn't long before MM tells him his argument is stupid - more D talks worse he sounds...... big kerfuffle while they argue in the dark, P pulls contract and D agrees to refund..... ok, rough justice here where MM seems inconsistent from some of her earlier decisions - in email, D offers a refund and says he'll mail a check - in the past, we've seen her take that type statement as an enforceable settlement offer, but here she decides D has right to change his mind (not that I disagree this time - there have been times in past when I felt MM enforced an offer made in middle of settlement negotiation) - this time, as I said, D is out time and materials as he made two mockups only to have P pull the plug.... OK, MM decides on partial refund, saying D deserves to keep $850 - and we find out why P asked for the extra money over and above the deposit - says he hired someone to work in his place while he came to court - uh no - D ordered to return $400 boat sale sunk: P says he sold D his boat without the trailer, but used trailer to delivered it expecting to get trailer back - now D has his trailer, refuses to return it, and is blocking his calls - whoa, what kind of boat trailer are we talking!? Dude asking 5 grand to buy replacement..... D tells whole different story - says P had CL ad offering free boat, and then when boat was delivered P offered to sell trailer for 2 grand - D says he told P he didn't want the trailer, but P went ahead and left the trailer on D's property for years until D finally junked it - see it was raining that day and guess it was too much trouble to put the boat on boat stands in the rain...... from preview we know this one strictly for chuckles as MM asks P in clip how his $2000 trailer appreciated in value 150% after sitting on D's properly 4 years...... ok, not that many chuckles and I end up zipping through most of case - case dismissed bad car deal: p says her friends of 10 years bought her old car, took delivery and are driving it around without finishing paying - wants $3500 (for a '01 junker).... D claims it was never a sale - no they say P's ex gave them car as a gift.... ah, but preview clip has MM questioning Ds who have completely changed story, no longer claim it was a gift but now say they traded vehicles with the ex-bf Michael..... sounds like we need to find out who owned car before D took procession..... ok, P answers that question in her opening - she admits car title was in ex-bf's name, so does she even have standing to sue? - sounds like an 'almost-married' situation with P saying all vehicles were in ex's name, though she claims car were hers.... if I heard right, P says 'she' gave title to D, but whole thing sounds fishy.... when asked, P tells us good old Michael, the legal owner, couldn't take off work to appear at court case where decision is worth $3500 - must have a good job - but he sent a notarized statement (are we going to get to hear MM give Mikey a call?) - over to defendant's side of aisle, where we get the totally new/revised defense since D signed the answer to the complaint..... ok, defense side sounding like the two stooges, just not funny..... I give up & zip ahead - no matter that D has no defense, P has no standing to sue - yep, that's the decision, no standing, case dismissed, but without prejudice so that actually owner of car can sue (or P can come to court with power of attorney to act in good Ole Michael's stead) 3 Link to comment
Guest October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 Case 3. I am waiting for everyone to chime in on the cast of characters before I say anything i will say though that I have hanging picture frames on my walls that are nowhere near as square as the defendant’s face. I was contemplating coming in an hour earlier thus changing my lunchtime from 2:00 to 1:00. After today’s collection of casting rejects from The Hills Have Eyes remake...I’m staying with my schedule. I could use the guffaws Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 39 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: After today’s collection of casting rejects from The Hills Have Eyes remake Honestly, I have never seen so many douchebag hairdos and facial hair as I saw today. In the third case with the lovely couple, the Bullfrog and Ichabod in the Case of the Old POS Car (I'm glad litigants aren't making a liar of me when I say no nitwit on this show ever battles over a beater less than 15 years old) well, yes - people give old wreck cars as gifts all the time. Oh, no they don't. They just say it's a gift to cheat on their taxes. I don't know how this ended up as I fell asleep. 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: P has no standing to sue - yep, that's the decision, no standing, case dismissed, but without prejudice so that actually owner of car can sue Thanks! Yeah, come and sue on behalf of some absent boyfriend who has such a demanding career he can't possibly take the time to come to court. 1 Link to comment
meowmommy October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: Seems to have spent lots of time getting hair line and facial hair just so, but comes to court in rumbled shirt and faded jeans This guy is a pharmacist? "I didn't see nothing" comes out of the mouth of someone who holds a doctorate?? I can't imagine that the original 2' sign would have been big enough for anyone to see. The whole kerfuffle about coming at night and not bringing a ladder doesn't really give the plaintiff the right to blow off the whole contract and stiff him for the work that's already been done. I don't know why the plaintiff got to keep anything since he's the one who breached. 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: from preview we know this one strictly for chuckles as MM asks P in clip how his $2000 trailer appreciated in value 150% after sitting on D's properly 4 years Must be the only thing on wheels built in this millennium that appreciates in value. 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: no matter that D has no defense, P has no standing to sue - yep, that's the decision, no standing, case dismissed, Like so many of these "cases," where there is no legal case to be made and should have been tossed in the first ten seconds, just entertainment for the masses. Meowdaughter just suggested we'll see them again in a later episode. 1 Link to comment
Guest October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Honestly, I have never seen so many douchebag hairdos and facial hair as I saw today Frankly, a trip to the electrologist would not be squandered time for the plaintiff in case 3. And as a friendly amendment I suggest she book clean through Easter week so as not to skip a session Quote They just say it's a gift to cheat on their taxes. I don't know how this ended up as I fell asleep. You fell asleep? You’re Batman! I had a hard time finishing my Fritos after seeing the defendants. I just imagined they smelled from sweat and urine. Let’s collectively hope those two specimens did not/cannot reproduce. Now maybe I can sleep tonight Edited October 22, 2019 by PsychoKlown Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 12 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: Let’s collectively hope those two specimens did not/cannot reproduce. Watch "Idiocracy." It foretold all of this - that only moronic mutant idiots are breeding like lemmings. 1 Link to comment
Guest October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Watch "Idiocracy." It foretold all of this - that only moronic mutant idiots are breeding like lemmings. I sense sleepless nights staring at the ceiling fan. Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 25 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: I sense sleepless nights staring at the ceiling fan. See if this reminds you of a large segment of our litigants> As one commenter noted, it's a silly comedy that turned into a documentary. Link to comment
SRTouch October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 (edited) family rental drama: p and gf needed a place to squat when they moved from Florida up to Massachusetts, so his sis agrees to let him move in with her brood for $75 a week. They don't play nice, so P moves out - but sis claims he owes rent, so decides on little self help and won't let him take his Playstation and games - he values his PS & games at $510, which is what he's suing for ..... defendant intro doesn't dispute holding his toys, but says she's hanging onto them until he coughs up the $110 in rent & utilities he owes..... unless I missed it, she didn't file a counterclaim, sooooo offhand quicky solution would be to order return of his toys and get the heck off my teevee, but nooooo gotta air the silly laundry..... not to be too judgemental, but these folks should ditch the video games and go for a walk to the park, assuming they can walk that far carrying all that extra tonnage.... turns out they lived together fine a couple months, then the close quarters had them getting on each other's nerves - sis, the D, claims P's gf and her 10yo got into it and the (supposedly) adult gf was heard telling gf's mommy back in Florida that the kid is a brat.... could be kid is the devil spawn (D even admits only child daughter something of a brat - course not her words), but as MM points out not the best thing to say when you're bunking in your bf's sister's spare room (even if you are paying rent). To fill time MM asks about why the bitch gf wasn't getting along with the brat 10yo. P brother decides best to move out, says gf wanted to go home to her mommy back in Florida.... More family counseling, guess we have to fill time somehow as there isn't a case to watch - but then I have the magic zip button so I fast forward through commercial break straight through to decision - yep, as expected after first few seconds, self help not a defense - D ordered to pay what P can prove he spent on toys ($361+ not $510) - not sure why p gets money instead of return of Playstation but not going to rewind to find out - also, from hallterview sounds like sis' bf also source of friction..... more counseling to mend family - Doug gets bro to hug sis during hallterview, maybe sis will invite him over to play on the Playstation during Christmas holiday shady auto shop: p says she paid shady D to fix her car, car still messed up when she picked it up, took it elsewhere and was told first shop didn't repair anything - asking for complete refund (maybe if she has something from the second shop saying first did nada for the money) plus something extra for the pain and suffering - wants a grand..... D says he did in fact fix the car - says P waited 2 months before calling to complain, and who knows WTH happened during that time (car is 10-11yo jeep with messed up suspension after she bounced through mother of all potholes) - D filed matching $1000 tit-for-tat countersuit for stress and aggravation..... when testimony starts I'm thinking P maybe ought to save up and buy a reliable car as she tells MM that within the past 5 years she has taken 3 clunkers to mechanic D many times - at least more ten 10 times - unless she's including routine maintenance/oil changes etc that sounds a tad excessive..... D may be great mechanic, but sounds like business smarts skipped him - I know some places require signed written estimates, but nothing in writing here is not good business.... P testimony not helping her case when she admits she was satisfied first week or so after picking up car, but says then suspension started going bad.... could be she hit another pothole or maybe the damage from first pothole was worse than D thought and he missed something....... anyway, her testimony is that instead of going back to D she abandoned mechanic she had been using for years and went elsewhere (walmart) - nope not buying it..... but wait, sounds like D was supposed to do an oil change while he had it, and she says when she checked it was low, and oil looked old and dirty - wonder if the written estimate we don't have would show he was supposed to change oil or just do suspension..... ah, but never mind that, seems P does have written statement from second shop saying more stuff needed to be replaced (not surprising on 11yo jeep) but, worse for D, is written statement that some of his work was done wrong.... D defense seems to be he can't defend his work against second shop's charges because P went off on him and cussed him out, never letting him look at her old jeep again..... more discussion of D's lack of paperwork - he not only has no written estimate, but no itemized work order to show what was done - if dude had paperwork he might have a defense, but MM might slam him just because of lack of any paperwork...... like last case, I hold down the FF buttoned at the commercial break until decision.... not sure if MM decided he did bad job or charged for work not done, but since what he claims to have done had to be redone by second shop (a Firestone shop) MM awards P $600 tenant suing over roach infested room: p claims he rented a room and very first night creepy crawlies came out and bit him - says he's allergic, and ended up spending rest of night sleeping in his car - wants the $600 in rent he paid.... D claims her condo is beautifully kept and has nary a roach and she doesn't know WTH P is talking about, but she's not refunding the month of rent..... P has to have to prove the roaches to get a penny - he doesn't - case dismissed (yeah, not much of a recap - cuz it didn't sound all that interesting and I decided zip through and go wash my car since we had one of those dust/sprinkle storms where everything gets dusty followed by a sprinkle that makes car looking really dirty but isn't enough to wash off the dust Edited October 22, 2019 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 20 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: I am waiting for everyone to chime in on the cast of characters before I say anything Imagine! We thought they were bad. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: family rental drama: p and gf needed a place to squat when they moved from Florida up to Massachusetts, so his sis agrees to let him move in with her brood for $75 a week. Not much to say about this bizarre and freakish cast of characters, but I did note that my CC is becoming snarky. CC added the quotation marks to what def. said: "I couple of issues had "arised." The family counselling made me FF. Overwhelmed alley mechanic who doesn't believe in putting anything in writing and admits he knows "the IRS are coming after me" was boring AND annoying. He has an accountant now (Ho!) but not sure what this accountant is supposed to work with since there is no paperwork, bills or work orders from def. since it seems all work is done for cash under the table. JM? "Cock-er-roaches"? Really? 😯 Plaintiff was too distressed to get any proof whatsoever that the place was infested with roaches. I did get distracted from the case by the def's little girl pigtails. Speaking of cock-er-roaches - Levin in the second case: "It's the case of "Now I"m gonna shake your booty." What did that case have to do with booties? Why did you mention booties, Levin? WTF is wrong with you? Just PLEASE fuck off and die, you lowlife pond scum. 3 1 Link to comment
Guest October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Speaking of cock-er-roaches - Levin in the second case: "It's the case of "Now I"m gonna shake your booty." What did that case have to do with booties? Why did you mention booties, Levin? WTF is wrong with you? Just PLEASE fuck off and die, you lowlife pond scum. When I heard JM say that I initially thought she was reading from the plaintiffs statement but then she said it wrong twice so I suppose she meant to add the extra syllable. Color me perplexed on that one And Levin...I was just as confused as you. Booty? At least he didn’t say “Shaker? He hardly knew her” And while I love Doug’s sarcastic tone I was a bit uncomfortable with him trying to be a family counselor to those two siblings. A blind man could see they wanted no part of a reconciliation much less a hug and Doug forced it. Uncomfortable. Reminded me of my first month as an intern in family services. I sat in on a counseling session of a troubled kid and his mother and grandmother. The counselor was trying to wrap up the session in a nice bow and wanted the three to do a group hug. Even in my newbie status I knew that wasn’t going to work. You could cut the tension in there with a knife. The three did hug but the kid held his head high in the air (a sure sign of disassociation from the gesture). A few months later the kid attacked his mom with a knife. Not that I predict that for the siblings, I just think they need time to cool off and have their own space. Point being Doug pushed and he probably should not have. Link to comment
meowmommy October 22, 2019 Share October 22, 2019 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: More family counseling, guess we have to fill time somehow as there isn't a case to watch Just once, once, ONCE, could MM please decide the merits of a case on the merits of the case, and not drag family relationships around to my ever-living boredom and frustration??? 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: CC added the quotation marks to what def. said: "I couple of issues had "arised." CC wants you to know they're not the ones murdering the grammar. They're just the poor transcriptionist and they have standards. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: plus something extra for the pain and suffering I want to be paid for pain and suffering for every non-injury case where someone tries to tack on pain and suffering. MM doesn't know WallyWorld does oil changes? That's not exactly new. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: "It's the case of "Now I"m gonna shake your booty." What did that case have to do with booties? Why did you mention booties, Levin? The only thing I can think is that the plaintiff had problems with her car's suspension, so the car shook, and that's where scummy Levin got his shitty pun. However, I'm totally on board with your suggestion that he FOAD. MM said they were in Ohio. Ohio is a one-party consent state for recording, so I don't know WTF MM was talking about when she refused to listen to the recording and accused the plaintiff of a felony. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Plaintiff was too distressed to get any proof whatsoever that the place was infested with roaches. I did get distracted from the case by the def's little girl pigtails. I'm surprised MM didn't break out her speech about cell phone cameras being for more than dirty pictures. Plaintiff had not a shred of evidence. I was distracted by Heidi's pigtails, but also by Heidi's BF (husband?) who just needed a bell to chime to fill in as Tio Hector Salamanca. 1 2 1 Link to comment
Broderbits October 23, 2019 Share October 23, 2019 42 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I was distracted by Heidi's pigtails, but also by Heidi's BF (husband?) who just needed a bell to chime to fill in as Tio Hector Salamanca. Now I'm sorry I skipped today's episode! Link to comment
DoctorK October 23, 2019 Share October 23, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: JM? "Cock-er-roaches"? Really? I also live in Florida and the "Palmetto Bugs" (which sounds a lot nicer than damn big roaches) are big enough to rate an extra syllable. Edited October 23, 2019 by DoctorK 3 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 23, 2019 Share October 23, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, meowmommy said: CC wants you to know they're not the ones murdering the grammar. They're just the poor transcriptionist and they have standards. 😄😂 Sometimes CC does correct some mispronounced words, but in this case, CC threw hands in the air and said, "Screw it!" Edited October 23, 2019 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
SRTouch October 23, 2019 Share October 23, 2019 (edited) cell phone feud: litigants having too much fun, neither can keep the smile/smirk off their face and what is with D's slow entrance with dude acting like he can't figure out what to do with his hands (by end of case I decide it's just an uncomfortable ill-fitting new shirt) - before intro is finished I'm suspecting put on case. Same old story of friend putting friend-since-middle-school on her plan - friends have falling out - P friend wants $1300...... D insists phone was a gift and deal was he'd pay his monthly bill, says friendship hit the crapper when he started hanging with new crowd and P got jealous - he was current on the bill when they had their kerfuffle and P cut off his service.... ok, maybe these two are just silly kids awed by the cameras, because as they talk they seem to have forgotten their script, but then D claims to be some rapper dude so should be better performer - when MM asks D what their fight was about, D denies they had a fight, so MM wonders why P would have cut his service out of the blue..... hope they get act together as I'm already thinking about zipping ahead & don't like cell phone cases..... D testifies he was current on monthly bills, had already paid April's bill, but in mid April he stopped receiving calls/texts - says he went to Sprint to see WTH and found out his phone had been cut off by P - uh-oh, when MM asks dude if he called his good friend since middle school, the one who he says gifted him with the $800+ phone, his answer is he couldn't cuz his phone had been disconnected - MM says surely he could borrow a friend's phone, and dufus says he doesn't know her number.... I'm thinking maybe so, maybe he doesn't do numbers, can't call anyone not in his contacts, but can't you still see contact info when you have no service..... anyway, as we go to commercial MM is wondering how dufus can walk down the street without getting run over - after break, we hear again how he couldn't call because his phone wouldn't work, and he doesn't know her number, and P interjects they live right down the block from each other.... one thing about MM, seems just when I'm getting fed up with stoopid litigants and about to pick up the remote she switches gears and crosses aisle to other side.... first thing we hear from P is P disputing D was making his payments on time - says she didn't cut the service, phone company did, and she can prove he had not been paying his bills - ok, says MM, show us the phone bills - ah, but P says she's into the whole paperless accounting deal, and when deadbeat bestie missed paying March and April the mean phone company cut her access and sent her to collections..... huh, is that something new? We hear all the time how people go months without paying and phone company lets them slide while tacking more and more onto the bill - now P is claiming 2 missed payment and not only his line was suspended, but she can no longer access her account? And is she going to claim next that phone company didn't send her several notices before cutting her off and sending bill to collections?.... oh, ok, even stranger, P didn't add D to her account, she opened account in his name using her credit as he couldn't qualify on his own - so, she was what, a cosigner on his account? who was getting the bills? MM wondering why they set it up like that, but thing is I'm not really caring, case looks to only be half over, MM needs to move things along as remote now in hand with finger hovering over zip button - soooooo, neither side has evidence except for P holding single page telling her account going to collections - nobody has phone records - D claims he physically went to phone store to make payments, of course he never bothered to keep any receipts and this claim is kind of dubious because of his claim that he made April payment, then went to store when service was cut mid-April to see if he needed to make a payment - so, no phone records to verify payments or determine whether Sprint or the P cut the service - now MM switches to the big ticket item, that $800+ phone - when MM asks D where it is, he says when he couldn't use it he threw it away - seems he knew it was worthless since it was locked and he would never consider getting it unlocked, cuz that'd be illegal..... after 'nother commercial break, we come back and P calls up her witness who testifies he saw on instagram where D was offering to sell phone for $500, but of course witness just gum flapping with no proof phone actually sold..... ok, MM ready to try to figure out the amount of actual damages - seems Sprint is after P for $800, and she decided to assume D sold the phone for $500, and she thinks she should get to add that to the Sprint bill, which is why she wants $1300 - nope, not happening, says MM, if she decides to make D pay the Sprint bill that would mean D is paying for the phone, so it'd be his to sell or trash...... not that simple, though, as D had made some payments towards the phone with the monthly payment he made, which leaves MM to do some guess work as the only evidence anyone produced is the unpaid monthly bills - which does not include the unpaid balance on phone - rough justice, MM tacks the $220 sent to collections onto her guess that $700 is owed on phone and awards $920, and cautions P to hurry down to Sprint to pay it off or each month the total owed will continue to increase - P agrees to settle with Sprint, but who knows letgo app car deal: p claims he paid $775 for D's hoopty, but D won't produce a clean title - have to laugh at intro clown's explanation of the damage claim - dude wants back the $775 paid for car, but has tacked on more than double the amount for car rental fees for total of $1637.69.... D claims he sold car to a woman and has no idea who P even is - says woman drove car around without plates was caught and car was impounded - says P can have car, but since D paid impound, registration and insurance he needs to be reimbursed - countersuit for $1799..... almost skipped this, but when testimony starts MM begins by telling us that this is an 'amazing story.' Guessing she means 'amazingly convoluted.' uh huh, right off bat P confirms he did not buy car from D - no, his part of the amazing story is that he paid a Miss Johnson, who couldn't make it to court today, for the car, and it was this woman who bought it from D. Ok, assume that's correct - why sue D because you paid someone who jumped title and never owned the car.... ok, amazing part of P case is fact he bought this hoopty over internet, sight unseen, from some teenager and expected things to go well, then sued another stranger who he learned was the actual legal owner of the hoopty, and then came on national teevee to tell the story - oh, and let's not skip over fact that he knew when he bought the thing that the teenager did not have a clean title (paid cash, of course, on May 13th).... MM has fun making fun of P's foolishness, then begins with D.... D says he sold car to young miss Benay on 5th of April after posting CL ad - sold it for $1000 - ah, something fishy going on with D - seems he's a dealer with an actual dealer location, but flips cars purchased at auctions from home - sounds like lines are blurred from his dealer business and the flipper side as I thought there were hoops to jump to get a dealer license - anyway, this was not his personal vehicle, but a car bought at auction and sold from home, then he slapped on his dealer plates and delivered it to Missy Benay, then took plates off without ever registering car in his name - he explains Missy had all the necessary paperwork from the auction to register car at DMV.... Missy never went to DMV, she had car with no title or plates for little over a month before she put it on letgo and was paid $775.... 'nother amazing thing from D is that Missy asked to borrow his dealer plates to go on a road trip, and he has texts where she asks and he tells her no way, she needs to register car and get insurance before going from New York to Jersey.... ah, but Missy wanted so so much to go to Jersey to show her auntie the new ride that she ignored him - after buying the car and getting it delivered she hits the road and 4 hours later D gets text saying she was stopped for no plates and car impounded..... oh my, next amazing facet of D's testimony - all paperwork now in Missy's name with auction holding title, but D pays to register car in his name and insure it to get it out of impound, but trusts sweet young thing Missy enough to leave her in possession of the car.... MM questions his motives, but I'm thinking he was doing this to protect his dealer license, especially as he registers/insures it in his personal name instead of his business name..... anyway, D leaves car, now registered and insured in his name, with the young and bewitching Benay, accepting her promise that she'll pay him back all the money he spent getting car legal..... next he knows, a month has passed and P is calling asking for title - D doesn't want car, has already collected his asking price, but isn't going to sign title over without somebody paying what he is out making car legal....... not sure how MM can settle this one except to order P to return car to legal owner and go sue the young bewitching scamming little Benay..... oh, what's good for P works for D - P owes him nothing on the countersuit, his deal was with Benay, and if anyone owes him money it's her - even if he gets car back, sounds like it was worth a grand before the impound so he isn't going to get his money back selling the car..... nobody gets a penny, and surprising to me P not ordered to return car to legal owner (maybe I missed that while laughing at how foolish these fools were - and D even brought his son to watch dad look foolish on national tv.... mildly entertaining case for something good I knew was going nowhere before intro was completed business office rental fail: p rented an office space on month to month basis - decided to leave because he claims landlord disrupted office bringing in other prospective tenants, but claims landlord inventing stuff to hang on to deposit - wants $1110.40..... D says rental agreement included standard 30 day notice, says he agreed to rent by month as long as he could show place to potential long term renters - says P moved out 10 days before end of month with no notice, and P is lucky he returned any portion of the deposit..... seems that showing space to potential renters caused the problems, p claims he was fine with showing place after hours or on weekends, but not while they were conducting business..... well, I get both sides as I can see how it might disrupt business, but OTOH, landlord was letting them rent monthly while looking for long term renter, and best time to show business space would be during business hours, so will have to see what contract says..... ok, contract bunch of legalese that has MM scoffing at lawyers - what I took from what she read was that this was landlord's standard 1 year agreement, and that landlord could begin showing place 30 days before end of lease - to me sounds like, with a month to month, he could pretty much show place anytime - but when MM asks how often he showed place P's witness says he actually never did.... huh, did I miss something? I thought that was the big bone of contention - but, nooooo problem didn't arise until landlord sent perfectly polite and reasonable notice that he had potential renters coming to see space mid Wednesday morning, to which office manager, P witness, says nope, not happening, schedule it after hours or weekend - and things rapidly go downhill, in fact office manager had landlord listed as "don't pick up" on her contact list. P position unreasonable from get go, but his witness' texts quickly get rude and totally go against my understanding of the rental agreement while landlord remains professional even after her texts (and this coming from landlord with spikey Mohawk-like do) - eventually, landlord reminds P that he has right to enter, office manager shrew says no you don't, and landlord threatens eviction proceedings and P says good luck with that, we're moving out - so notice actually given on 10th of month. Ah, seems deposit was 2 month worth of rent - landlord due something for short notice, but then he starts over reaching for damages without proof/receipts. Here P looking better as he has video of place looking pretty good - ah, but while D failed to produce evidence for some of his deductions, he prorated rent when he could have charged the whole month..... math works out that that landlord owes $360 Edited October 23, 2019 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
Guest October 23, 2019 Share October 23, 2019 I really have no words of wisdom to those fools who "put someone (boo, sis, mom, friend-from-grade school, one night hookup, friends with benefits, or someone the plaintiff just met, and this new acquaintance happens to be a SSM) on their phone plan. I am not kidding when I say that no one...no one EVER, has asked me to add them to my phone plan. What rock do these people crawl out of that seems to generate their requests of being added to a phone plan? And the youtube clip AngelaHunter posted...I only laughed when "Jr." wanted to know what happened to his "junk" because I definitely see it as a documentary or perhaps a commentary on where this country is headed. Sad any way you look at it. Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 23, 2019 Share October 23, 2019 I think I lost brain cells watching today's eps, and I can't afford to lose any. The future is certainly looking bright, judging from our young litigants today. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: cell phone feud: Okay, so plaintiff seemed intelligent and well-spoken except for her constant repetitions of 'basically.' I guess she was desperate for a relationship with the def, an overfed, dull-eyed, stupid, douchebag-haired, illiterate aspiring rapper who has lousy credit. In spite of all this, plaintiff agrees he should have an 800$ phone. I guess he's just that important. Then there's some argument where plaintiff allegedly got pissed off because she couldn't keep this prime specimen all to herself at the club and she cuts off his phone. As I say, if you want a man who is successful, intelligent and handsome, you must figure that other women will want him too. Well, he decides he'll just give the phone away to some other person who is seriously in need of a locked 800$ phone. He must be a philanthropist. In the hall, the dimwit assures Doug that he "doesn't care" how he ripped off the plaintiff. He even bends over to say those words directly in Doug's microphone. He then takes his lardass and stupid hairdo off down the hall. I must say that the litigants looked like twins. More MENSA members in the next case. Jittery, silly little twerp gives some girl 775$ in cash for an old hoopty. Def. works at a dealership, but sells cars from his home sometimes. I bet the dealership found that information interesting. Dealer says he bent over backwards for this skeevy girl, running all over the place and getting insurance, etc for the beater when girl gets it impounded. Of course he wasn't looking to tear off a little on the side. No! He's just - all together now - a really nice guy. Whatever. He wanted his kid here to listen to JM insinuate he wanted a little more than a car sale from this girl who, according to him, turned into a "monster". Both idiotic litigants deserved to be scammed. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: business office rental fail: More genuises. Dopey plaintiff has a snarky girl working for him and she thinks she can tell the building owner what he can do (even though plaintiff signed a lease outlining that landlord CAN do it) and when and orders him, in an imperious manner, to not set foot on the space to show it to prospective renters when she's there. Def, sporting an overgrown lawn sticking straight up on his narrow head, tries to prove that filling in two holes in the wall requires him to paint the entire space after the plaintiff vacates is going to cost him a ton of money. I can't remember how much. Of course he brought no proof of any such thing. This case was both dumb and boring. 2 3 Link to comment
meowmommy October 23, 2019 Share October 23, 2019 18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: I am not kidding when I say that no one...no one EVER, has asked me to add them to my phone plan. I added my adult daughter to my cell phone plan last year. It costs me an extra $5 a month, and she got my old iPhone 4. You have no -- excuse me, bad -- credit, and you need an $800 phone. Dude, you are what burner phones are for. Ok, I know what burner phones are for, but you know what I mean. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: MM says surely he could borrow a friend's phone, and dufus says he doesn't know her number I don't know my daughter's number, the number I pay for. Sad, I know. She's in my contacts. MM needs to move forward a little bit. It wasn't that long ago that she was explaining every day what Craigslist is. I don't believe defendant gave the phone away, and he probably sold it on the street, but MM was ridiculous in ragging him for not having the phone illegally unlocked. Criticizing him for not breaking the law? Ok, yeah, he probably did have it unlocked. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: p claims he paid $775 for D's hoopty, but D won't produce a clean title If the defendant gave the divine Ms. J an auction title that she has to take responsibility for and doesn't, how does this become his problem? Oh, because instead of telling her to do what she's legally required to do, he goes off and pays the tow, then registers and insures the damn thing in his own name. Just like every used car dealer does for his customers, especially 19 year old girls. Little side benefit, probably. Didn't like much MM's snarky comments about it though, with the young son sitting right there. And yet another case where it could have been settled in the first 30 seconds, because the plaintiff sued the wrong person. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: landlord with spikey Mohawk-like do My, that hair was unfortunate. More unfortunate that it was deliberate. Long rant: I've never had a business lease, but the last time I rented a house, they were on a mission to get me out, because they wanted to engineer a short sale. I had a lease with several months left on it. I asked if I could just be let out of the lease, and they initially refused. But the agent wanted to show the house whenever they felt like it, although my lease said I required 24 hours notice for any intrusion. So they argued with me about that, but I just kept repeating the language in the lease. Then they decided after the first showing that since it was now more than 24 hours since they first mentioned they wanted to show the house, they could then show it any time they wanted. Nah uh. It was contentious right up to the point where they accidentally let my cat out during a showing. And it was the showing agent, not the listing agent, who called me, very apologetic, to let me know, and also told me she had notified the listing agent as soon as it happened. The listing agent would have let my cat run away. I flew out of work, crying the whole 20 miles, to go find him, and he was ok, but it was war after that. I ended up buying a house. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch October 24, 2019 Share October 24, 2019 (edited) 'nother 2 case day wedding reception disaster: P originally planned low budget wedding at courthouse, but then was gifted enough for a 3 grand reception to be held a couple months after wedding. Bride had grand vision of royal themed affair, wedding party wearing crowns, red carpet, even plug-in deodorizers to provide proper scents. Ah, but her royal champagne reception had a beer budget. Her decorator/caterer etc had very vague contract, additions/deletions/changes made to contract with handwritten notes in margins, scraps of paper, texts, voice and email - who knows what all was expected - at one point D enters into evidence a sheet of paper full of hand written notes to show what was agreed upon, but tells judge just ignore the writing on back of page in P's handwritting..... what we know is that D didn't not provide everything both now agree she was supposed to provide, and decided make some unilateral substitutes (oh, like a promised red carpet for grand wedding party entrance started with no carpet, half way through, when bride and groom are coming in there was 10 minutes intermission until a black carpet was put down with help of wedding dancers) - 'nother complaint was waitstaff dressed sloppy, and a picture of staff in sandals (they argue they're not really sandals because they're non-slip, but MM responds waitstaff's toes should not be seen at royal themed wedding)... so, P didn't even get what her beer budget provided - MM returns $750..... D hallterview made no sense to me, something about not trusting people with money, then what was supposed to be snark about bride wearing wig and girdle while D and her witness look like they're getting ready for Halloween Parked car burned: D sitting in his parked car, engine running, when car catches fire and burns, damaging P's car which was parked in front of him. P didn't see anything, but whole thing caught on nearby surveillance camera..... D was sitting in running car fiddling with phone looking at email when another driver yelled that his car was smoking - D gets out, sees the smoke, and calls 911- D apologetic at time and promises to pay for P's damages, but figures he's in clear when his insurance denies claim. Thing is, P can't point to any negligence on part of D - and without proof D did, or failed to do, something besides sit in a running car P is out of luck. Sucks for P, MM says maybe if he can prove there is a manufacturer defect he might have case against manufacturer, but he hasn't proved his case against D so case dismissed actually missed middle as we had little storm cell blow through (complete with pea size hail) before I got reception back for decision...... funny, 3 of the cats become ghosts as they hide, new kitten, Lucy is deaf and she slept through storm, while other two cats and I standing watching the hail through the screen door Edited October 24, 2019 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 24, 2019 Share October 24, 2019 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: wedding reception disaster: Gee, I never really thought about it but I too am feeling very slighted that I, as an Irish-Canadian, have not once ever been invited to any royal event. What's with that snub? Anyway, I'm pretty sure those other royal weddings cost more than 3K. I saw that the King knew enough to let his Queen do all the talking. Whatever, but these were some outfits, eyelashes, eyebrows and wigs. Wow. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ah, but her royal champagne reception had a beer budget. Not exactly the social event of the season, since of the 80 guests invited, only 23 bothered to show up. And where's the fruit?? That's what we need to know. The Royal Wedding was totally ruined for lack of fruit and the appearance of toes at the reception. Oh, and the missing red carpet. I'd be more distressed at the gap-toothed smile myself. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Parked car burned: Double doofus case, but the plaintiff was more of a doofus. Def ignores someone needing parking, because he really needed to get all his devices plugged in and answer some emails as he sat in his beater. Understandable. Probably something urgent about national security, or maybe a Martian invasion that needed his attention ASAP. Beater goes up in flames. Mumbling plaintiff doofus wants def to pay for the damage to his car, even though plaintiff didn't deliberately set his own car on fire. After his case is dismissed he still insists in the hall that the fire is def's fault because "he didn't try to put out the fire." How he would do that was not made clear. 3 2 Link to comment
Guest October 24, 2019 Share October 24, 2019 Wedding Reception Disaster - aw, I felt a little bad for them. They tried. Crowns, toes and all. The problem was that the bride and groom hired someone that knew less about weddings than they did. Poor guy's only request was fruit on the table because he said all royalty has fruit on the table. I haven't a clue where he got that idea but if that's what he wanted then the bride should have made sure it happened. If not, she should have asked on the of 23 guests to take a quick trip to Wegman's and get a few pieces of fruit. And I'll tell you - the toes did bother me too. And what about town rules? Not sure a catering company can serve in sandals. Doesn't seem kosher to me.... And what in fresh hell does a girdle have to do with anything? The low rent caterer had talons (that I know if swabbed would contain E-coli) and fake hair the color of tree tinsel not to mention stretch marks that had more lines than a Rand McNally map. And this circus freak claimed the plaintiff caused her to lose business. And a fun fact: I was eating wedding soup (and a half of a roast beef sandwich) while this was on. Maybe the wedding soup had something to do with me feeling a bit warm to the clueless couple. I don't know. And the car...isn't that why you have insurance? What about JJ's mantra that an accident isn't on purpose but you're responsible just the same? I didn't get that judgement...that poor sap lost his truck and all he got out of it was a Mother's Day lunch. Really into the cases today.... Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 24, 2019 Share October 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: The low rent caterer had talons (that I know if swabbed would contain E-coli) and fake hair the color of tree tinsel not to mention stretch marks that had more lines than a Rand McNally map. Oh, shit. And I thought I was a meanie.😄 I missed the talons and the stretch marks. I was too distracted by that flowing gray wig that seemed to be slipping ever lower on her forehead. This is your big TeeVee appearance and this is what you choose for that occasion? I choose to skip the halterview so didn't hear any girdle comments. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch October 24, 2019 Share October 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said: Wedding Reception Disaster - And I'll tell you - the toes did bother me too. And what about town rules? Not sure a catering company can serve in sandals. Doesn't seem kosher to me.... Also, mention of frizzy hair had me thinking of hair nets - open toe footwear, sleeveless shirts, etc are big no no when city food inspector comes around for their periodic checks - which had me thinking it's probably past time for me to renew my food handlers card.... yes, I'm a driver and I don't prepare food at the pizzeria, but we're supposed to have that card even if all we do is mop the floor and wash dishes And, yes, where the heck was groom's apple. All he asked for was some fruit and all bride cared about was fondue Edited October 24, 2019 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
Guest October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Oh, shit. And I thought I was a meanie.😄 I missed the talons and the stretch marks. I was too distracted by that flowing gray wig that seemed to be slipping ever lower on her forehead. This is your big TeeVee appearance and this is what you choose for that occasion? I choose to skip the halterview so didn't hear any girdle comments. LOL! I just kept thinking she has ten petri dish samples under those disgusting talons! I didn't catch her name but I can only imagine the webpage for that traveling bacteria cafeteria. And I really doubt that she'll get a boatload of customers after her behavior on TPC. And the way she stormed off after snapping at Doug! Her tinsel hair didn't follow her head movements. It was a given that this was one chick he wasn't going to suggest participate in a group hug with the newlyweds...no way. She would have hit him over the head with her big purse and I think Doug knew it. He wisely kept his mouth shut! Link to comment
meowmommy October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: P originally planned low budget wedding at courthouse, but then was gifted enough for a 3 grand reception to be held a couple months after wedding. How fucking stupid. Someone gifts you $3K and you don't use it to pay bills, add to your 401K, make a down payment on a home...you blow it on a stupid party, except it's not actually enough money for a non-tacky blowout party. And of course, she's not invited to royal events because she's black. Not because she's not rich, famous, friends with royals, or British, like the other millions of us who don't get invited, either. And she seemed truly shocked that MM, who is rich and famous, although not British and probably doesn't know any royals, doesn't get an invite to royal events. Is the plaintiff stuck on some Disney princess she saw as a child? 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I was too distracted by that flowing gray wig that seemed to be slipping ever lower on her forehead. Yes, if her hairline got any lower she'd have had it in her eyes. She just slid it around her head. I was more distracted by the inappropriately tight sheath dress she had pumped herself into. Maybe that's why it needed zippers on top. 2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: The problem was that the bride and groom hired someone that knew less about weddings than they did. 80 guests invited, and only 23 showed up? The whole thing feels like a gift grab to me anyway, and maybe 57 people thought the same thing. "Invest" 3 grand and expect a bo-nanza. You don't get to complain that your servers look tired. Not your business. Although she has every right to be aggravated when contracts aren't complete, MM is still unrealistic when she gets mad that people have phone conversations instead of memorializing everything in texts. I've never, ever, seen fresh fruit at a wedding reception. New hubby didn't say word one until the fruit fuss. Oy. These people wanted the royal feast, like at the RenFaire. Pay accordingly. 2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: And the car...isn't that why you have insurance? What about JJ's mantra that an accident isn't on purpose but you're responsible just the same? I didn't get that judgement If the defendant's insurance refused to pay, then the plaintiff's insurance should have paid under the comprehensive policy. I missed whether his insurance paid. Would have been nice if at least the defendant had covered the deductible. But then, I think of cases where someone's house burns down and it spreads to other houses. I don't think they get to sue the original homeowner unless the homeowner negligently or deliberately caused the fire. It gets filed under Shit Happens. 4 Link to comment
Guest October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 18 minutes ago, meowmommy said: But then, I think of cases where someone's house burns down and it spreads to other houses. I don't think they get to sue the original homeowner unless the homeowner negligently or deliberately caused the fire. It gets filed under Shit Happens. The prospect of this happening can certainly keep one up at night. Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: How fucking stupid. Someone gifts you $3K and you don't use it to pay bills, add to your 401K, make a down payment on a home...you blow it on a stupid party, except it's not actually enough money for a non-tacky blowout party. That was my first thought. They had no money for any kind of wedding, get a few bucks and immediately blow it on this Royal Wedding nonsense. I can understand kids doing that, but they left their childhoods behind long, long ago. Who cares about the future anyway? I'm Queeen for a Day! 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: These people wanted the royal feast, like at the RenFaire. Yes. The groom said as much, with his hand motions and whatever he said about the way they did it in at olden days royal feasts, maybe like in Henry VIII's court. Henry could afford such things. 2 Link to comment
Zahdii October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 I agree that for people of their age, their use of the $3000 gift was stupidly spent, unless the money was expressly intended for an over the top reception, and I doubt that. Still, they should get what they paid for, and they didn't get it. So they should get back some money for the botched reception. I also think that the couple hoped that the big reception of their dreams would garner even more money from the guests, completely ignoring the fact that most people buy a gift for the wedding and might give money at the reception for the honeymoon, but not when the reception is held long after the wedding. At some point the new couple has to pay their own way. That might be why so few people attended the Royal Reception. The invited guests might just have been signaling that they'd already taken time off from their daily lives to celebrate the wedding and had no more time or money to give to a supposedly mature couple who wanted to be treated like royalty weeks or months later. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 The event planner seems to have some happy customers. Not to my taste since I prefer a more sedate look, but they seem to give people what they want. I guess anyone demanding a Royal Wedding for 3k is bound to be disappointed: Jack of All Trades Event Decor Link to comment
SRTouch October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: The event planner seems to have some happy customers. Not to my taste since I prefer a more sedate look, but they seem to give people what they want. I guess anyone demanding a Royal Wedding for 3k is bound to be disappointed: Jack of All Trades Event Decor Except for the one posted after TPC aired, looks like excellent reviews - so much so that I wonder if friends and relatives might not be pumping up as the reviews sound like ads. Oh, and following links came across the Jack of Jack of All Trades. She has link to TPC episode and her comments indicate she had a GREAT time even though she lost case 1 Link to comment
SRTouch October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 (edited) couple of almost-married drunks: typical almost-marrieds breakup after 7 year relationship where one is suing other for money spent when they were getting along, with the added elemento that they're both drunks. Perfect relationship in the beginning, she's a functioning alcoholic and bartender with a job and he's a drunk who works just enough to get unemployment then he quits or is fired (oh, also playing the workers comp game) - neither side wants to talk about the boozing, but MM drags it out of them, apparently neither really sees booze as a problem, dude even tries to excuse his 4 DUIs, saying no real problem as they came over 30 year period - big kerfuffle when gf comes home to find dude passed out drunk with dog crap all over apartment 'cuz poor dog suffering yet another bout of diarrhea (only sympathetic character in story is poor dog forced to relies on these drunks) - P leaves when he sobers up enough to stagger out door and never comes back - sounds like it was nasty enough that gf took out a restraining order - he's here suing for $4500 for 2 'loans' that became loans after the breakup...... MM cut this one short, as case cut and dried and these two both look like they've been rode hard (and dude either still drunk/hung over) and are less than riveting entertainment - case dismissed homeowner wants back deposit to handyman: woman hires dude to come in and do some carpentry work and painting, and give him $3000 deposit (total job supposed to be 4 grand)..... dude starts work, but says he only completed about 2 days work over a 2 week period before he left job - hmmmmm, why did he leave job, you ask? Seems woman has a nanny cam set up in a bedroom he had no business entering, and he was caught on video about to go through dresser drawers (camera has light that comes on when motion is detected, so as he reached for drawer a light came on and he scrams) - his story, which he sticks too even after MM replays video multiple times, is that he opened bedroom door to let out meowing cat and took maybe 1-2 steps into room before cat ran and dude followed cat out of room - only question in my mind at this point is whether he forfeits the two days pay since woman admits he did some work..... exchange between MM and handyman dude reminds me of George on Jerry Seinfeld show..... oh, and even if there was a meowing cat in the room, WTH would he think he should open the door and let it out - hey, I have cats, and if I am having workmen come paint or do carpentry work I put them in a back room to keep them safe and out of the workers way (I've had kitty prints left all over after a cat walker through wet paint - never mind possibility of cat getting out and lost).... next MM quickly asks & dude answers, yes, he's been convicted of burglary - guess she can ask since this case isn't criminal but about whether homeowner had reason enough to refuse handyman access unless her ex is there to watch (video did it for me, I would have fired him then and not even offered to let him continue supervised, but woman figured she'd never see any money back if she just fired him) - this doesn't work for D, he's insulted at very idea that he needs to be supervised, so he quits and refuses to refund any of the 3 grand...... MM decides he does get to keep something ($200) since everyone agrees he did do some work (and apparently bought materials though I didn't hear how much he spent) - once again we hear someone claim they were just doing a friend a favor and MM answers no, you weren't doing a friend any favor when you're changing over 4 grand...... again during hallterview I would think that was Jason Alexander playing George - oh, and if you don't look too close, P sort of looks like Elaine car smashup: p claims defendant smashed into his taxi and it's taken 2 years to find D and drag her to court, seems he was driving cab, and is looking for $5236 in damages.... D says it was P who caused accident, and thinks P is running a scam because part of his claim is for medical costs and his records or suspect.... hmmmmm 2 defendants, gf's car being driven by bf - when testimony starts we learn accident happened in Cleveland - for some reason, D gf is doing the talking even though first thing she establishes is that bf was driving when they left club 'cuz she was tipsy - ah, I think I know why gf started out doing the talking, it takes like zero effort for MM to get bf to admit taxi had right of way and he (D bf) caused accident..... notice look on gf's face as she turns her body away from bf when he admits he caused accident - only hope now is to minimize claim with proving the whole 'fake injury' scam..... when MM asks if anyone was injured bf tells gf to do the talking, and she assures us they checked to make sure no one in cab was injured before they left, or fled, says MM, as she establishes they left the scene of the accident - and why did you leave the scene, MM asks bf, were you, maybe, also intoxicated - oh no, he says, he was just nervous and didn't want to get in no trouble - ok, MM says, but why flee because you're nervous, you're changing a simple traffic accident to criminal case leaving the scene of an accident..... ah, and now P is telling us that before D fled scene he was trying to buy his way out of situation, even offering witness in third car $500 not to report what he saw..... hmmmmm I'm wondering if there shouldn't have been a criminal case pursued against D - even better, guy from other car not only witnessed accident, but had a dash cam video - D denies offering witness anything, but admits he offered unspecified amount of money to P - back to gf, the owner of the car, and we quickly establish car was uninsured...... geez, this girl really working the cute young innocent look, what with grin and dimples and all, as she just keeps admitting to stuff - maybe she's watched enough MM and is banking on the sweet innocent look buying her a break..... MM not exactly happy to learn that cops given the video of accident at the scene, but it still took 18 months before D are tracked down and receive tickets for no insurance and causing accident (criminal charges for fleeing scene never pursued)..... no question of liability, only question is how much it's going to cost - seems damage to taxi already paid by fund for damages caused by uninsured drivers (though I wonder if D shouldn't be forced to reimburse the fund) - what P is suing for is pain and suffering, lost wages, and the payments he had to make on the lease of the taxi after the wreck when he couldn't drive it.... oh dear, taxi dude was doing so good, but now when MM questions his figures for his wages and cost of car etc it begins to look like taxi dude is over reaching like so many litigants do - not looking good as dude has nothing showing how long it took to fix car - we're finally getting to the possible fake medical records and charge of a scam for pain and suffering..... little Missy looks happy, as she tells us about possible misspelled words on med records leading to her concluding they're fake, but having seen many doc scribbles in my time working inpatient pharmacy I can assure you unless you know the lingo and common abbreviations what looks fake could be genuine medical squibble.... oops, her claim isn't even based on that, but fact that nurse noted that patient said he had taken a friend's percocet and she knows that would be illegal and doesn't believe a nurse would write that in his/her nurse's notes...... uh, no, medical records are protected because the doctors need to know what they're dealing with - if patient tells nurse he has taken something - legal or not - it needs to be written down so patient can be properly triaged/treated..... ok looks like extra time where MM is going to 'bond' with cute young thing as preview has her telling story of her causing an accident *gag* even worse than family counseling, I hope this doesn't mean blondie is getting let off easy...... ok, MM reads dudes medical records and finds nothing 'scammy' - in fact doctor recommended he see a chiropractor - he didn't because of cost/no insurance, and of course at that time person who caused accident was in the wind and it would be 18 months before cops tracked them down - hey, maybe he should get extra for the pain and suffering caused by D leaving scene.... next D shows picture of damage to her car, saying look, nothing major, how much pain and suffering could he have had.... nope 'nother swing and miss and lame attempt to dodge responsibility.... ok, MM announces she was not taken in by blondie's dimples, but that she can't award the requested amount for lost wages since he brought no proof (not even a pic of the damage to taxi) - but she does award him pain and suffering in fact IIRC he asked for $1500 and she ups it to $2000..... Edited October 26, 2019 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: couple of almost-married drunks: Were they two of the most ridiculous drunken losers ever? But she doesn't get quite as drunk quite as often as he does, or so she says. Actually, he looked drunk here or maybe just severely hung over, and she looked like she'd just come off a two-week bender. At their ages, every binge shows on their faces. This was over a car, when neither of them should be driving ever. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: dude even tries to excuse his 4 DUIs, saying no real problem as they came over 30 year period Yeah, what's wrong with that? He wants to drink and drive and he's been driving drunk his whole life - everyone else on the road can go screw themselves - but only got caught four times. Pretty good, in his half-closed eyes. I've never had a DUI in my life and have never even known anyone who has. Both of them work at a bar. LOL! Well, apparently SHE does, since he couldn't keep any jobs. I guess he was dipping into the inventory too much? Idiots live together for over 6 years but never bother getting married, but JM - take our word for it - he/she owes me money. Plaintiff refused comment to Doug in the Hall. I think he really needed a drink asap and couldn't linger. Doug didn't want to talk to the def. She was standing close to him and guess the whiskey fumes were more than Doug could take. Drunks shouldn't be allowed to have children or pets. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: homeowner wants back deposit to handyman: That guy was such a weasly, bug-eyed, mealy-mouthed "I seen" moron. I guess he saw that camera flash and thought better of snooping through the plaintiff's dresser drawers for something of value. But he insists that even if it's on camera, it never happened even though he was clearly reaching for the drawer. He'd rather come here and be shown up for a lying petty thief and reveal his arrest for burglary - gee, how did JM guess that? - than just give back some of the money. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: car smashup: These defs were despicable. Smirking, over-aged Barbie is a 25-year-old woman who thinks she's a very cute 17. She and her dopey, no-neck idiot boyfriend flee the scene of the accident he caused because as douchebag-haired b/f said, "I didn't want to get in no trouble." I guess that while stupid g/f was "way beyond intoxicated" (yeah, that's really funny you bimbo) he was merely intoxicated. It's amazing how water always finds its own level and they are a perfect pair. Slag-Barbie may not be able to use proper grammar or stop drinking before she's piss-drunk, but she's an expert in accident reconstruction, the serverity of injuries, spelling mistakes and what drugs are legal or not. Not even JM's ass-whipping could wipe the foolish grin off Barbie's face. Cops had a video of the accident and it takes them 2 years to track down the dingbat Bonnie and Clyde? Must be a lot of really serious crimes where this happened. The two nitwits tell Doug in the Hall they are very embarrassed. Yeah, I don't think so. In order for that to happen, a person has to have a capacity for shame. 4 Link to comment
Broderbits October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: and she looked like she'd just come off a two-week bender. Actually, she looked like she just came off a two-YEAR bender! I know heavy drinking ages one, but yikes! 1 2 Link to comment
meowmommy October 25, 2019 Share October 25, 2019 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: dude even tries to excuse his 4 DUIs, saying no real problem as they came over 30 year period As an adult child of alcoholics who always denied they ever had a problem, I was quite pissed at this attitude. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Drunks shouldn't be allowed to have children or pets. out of prison. Probably not a popular view, but I'm bitter. Still. Is it MM or JJ who likes to talk about refusing to divide the pots and pans? 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: oh, and even if there was a meowing cat in the room, WTH would he think he should open the door and let it out - hey, I have cats, and if I am having workmen come paint or do carpentry work I put them in a back room to keep them safe and out of the workers way Exactly. That's the whole reason the cat will be in an odd room--to keep it safe and out of the way. Any reputable workman would know the cat was confined for its own safety and not let the cat out. Don't hear the cat crying in the video, either. Don't you just love his fake indignation? The guy jumped back like his hand was on fire when the camera went off. This is when I love that MM is an ex-prosecutor. She didn't buy the bullshit for a second. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: But he insists that even if it's on camera, it never happened even though he was clearly reaching for the drawer. The plaintiff should have filed a criminal complaint. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: D denies offering witness anything, but admits he offered unspecified amount of money to P What's odd is that defendant said he offered money because he didn't want to get in trouble for hit and run, but of course, when he's still standing there at the scene, the hit and run hasn't happened yet. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: oops, her claim isn't even based on that, but fact that nurse noted that patient said he had taken a friend's percocet and she knows that would be illegal and doesn't believe a nurse would write that in his/her nurse...... uh, no, one reason medical records are protected is because the doctors need to know what they're dealing with - if patient tells nurse he has taken something - legal or not - it needs to be written down so patient can be properly triaged/treated. As a nurse, I would have documented simply that the patient had taken a Percocet, so that, as you correctly say, we need to know what's in their system when we treat them. It wouldn't have mattered to me from a documentation standpoint where he got it. Defendant bitch is snarking about misspellings, right before she says, "He had TOOK Percocet for his pain." Also, most doctors and nurses, unlike your humble correspondent here, can't spell for shit. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: but she does award him pain and suffering in fact IIRC he asked for $1500 and she ups it to $2000..... I like when she does that. I don't even care whether the poor man might not have had pain and suffering, although I think he did. He had to wait two years for justice, was nice enough not to press charges, and they turned around and screwed him. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 26, 2019 Share October 26, 2019 54 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I was quite pissed at this attitude. Since it seems he didn't manage to kill anyone, what's the big deal? 55 minutes ago, meowmommy said: What's odd is that defendant said he offered money because he didn't want to get in "NO" trouble for hit and run, Edited for accuracy. The round-headed idiot is so stupid he could barely put together a single sentence. Not sure how Perma-Grin, dumbbell Barbie knew there were errors in the report. Seeing two 25-year old adults so moronic and irresponsible is infuriating. Forgot to mention that of course, she had no insurance. *smirk* Why would she, when both of them like to drink and drive? Maybe she's working on it. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: Is it MM or JJ who likes to talk about refusing to divide the pots and pans? MM. I don't blame her when you have people that age who screw up everything and expect her to fix it. Ugh. 3 Link to comment
Guest October 26, 2019 Share October 26, 2019 There’s not much more I can add, you all have done exceptional analyses on these specimens who identify as upstanding and at times, indignant citizens but I do have a few more observations I’d like to submit. The Almost Married Drunks - I actually have a lot to say about this but can’t. I can say that yes he has a serious addiction and unfortunately he may be involved in an accident where he and/or someone else will be killed or permanently disabled. Same comment about her I also will say that he’s taking on the “weary old soul” persona. And while he certainly does have residual effect from the alcohol he is adopting this style for sympathy. Someone must have told him that chicks like deep-thinking guys. He also shows signs of flash temper...not good at all Ex-Con Picasso Thought he was a dead ringer for Jerry Van Dyke. Not just a thief...a moronic thief Car Smashup Male defendant looked like a stuffed sausage in that shirt but come hell or high water he was going to wear his Burberry shirt on TeeVee. You never know what reality show opportunity will present itself after this gig. Oh, and the fact that he got it for 29.99 at TJ Max makes it all that much sweeter That’s all I got I think we all need the weekend to recover Link to comment
AZChristian October 26, 2019 Share October 26, 2019 17 hours ago, SRTouch said: Seems woman has a nanny cam set up in a bedroom he had no business entering, and he was caught on video about to go through dresser drawers (camera has light that comes on when motion is detected, so as he reached for drawer a light came on and he leaves room) And I was just sitting there wondering why her motion-detector "nanny cam" is pointed at her bed. 4 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 26, 2019 Share October 26, 2019 1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said: Not just a thief...a moronic thief Most thieves and other criminals are pretty dumb. If they weren't, prisons would be empty. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch October 26, 2019 Share October 26, 2019 16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Since it seems he didn't manage to kill anyone, what's the big deal? Probably one of those drunks who thinks he drives better drunk.... may be right, as seems he may either be drunk or hungover..... besides, betcha all 4 of his DUIs were cuz the cops were out to get him - yeah, he didn't do anything wrong 16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Edited for accuracy. The round-headed idiot is so stupid he could barely put together a single sentence. Not sure how Perma-Grin, dumbbell Barbie knew there were errors in the report. Seeing two 25-year old adults so moronic and irresponsible is infuriating. Forgot to mention that of course, she had no insurance. *smirk* Why would she, when both of them like to drink and drive? Maybe she's working on it. Think someone ought to point to drunks from first case and tell Barbie and her beau "that's your future in 10-15 years, prematurely aged and string of DUIs" 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 26, 2019 Share October 26, 2019 19 hours ago, meowmommy said: 20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Drunks shouldn't be allowed to have children or pets. out of prison. Probably not a popular view, but I'm bitter. Still. That we had FOUR drunk drivers on one episode is infuriating and scary. I don't care who drinks themselves to death - good riddance - but how dare they inflict their decisions and actions on others? 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Think someone ought to point to drunks from first case and tell Barbie and her beau "that's your future in 10-15 years, prematurely aged and string of DUIs" Definitely! It will be - including being unable to keep a job, getting arrested and moving from one shitty apartment to another - If they live that long. 1 Link to comment
Guest October 27, 2019 Share October 27, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Most thieves and other criminals are pretty dumb. If they weren't, prisons would be empty. I agree. But where this dimwit separates himself from the herd is by showing up to refute the plaintiffs accusation that his kind gesture of rescuing a distressed cat was misinterpreted as a theft attempt. I think most criminals (knowing they were caught on tape) would have told TPC to pound sand...they’re not showing up. And as for the video in the bedroom maybe she placed the camera there because her valuables were hidden in the drawers while the handyman was “working” in the house. That’s the reason I choose to believe. Edited October 27, 2019 by PsychoKlown Grammar Link to comment
meowmommy October 27, 2019 Share October 27, 2019 18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: And as for the video in the bedroom maybe she placed the camera there because her valuables were hidden in the drawers while the handyman was “working” in the house. That’s the reason I choose to believe. The one and only time I set up a video feed (using the Presence app and my old iPhones), it was to monitor my cats while I was away. It's conceivable that the plaintiff wanted to make sure her cat who was locked up in her bedroom was ok. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter October 27, 2019 Share October 27, 2019 12 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: I think most criminals (knowing they were caught on tape) would have told TPC to pound sand...they’re not showing up. But the thing is, we see lots and lots of criminals (mostly petty but not always, e.g. drug dealers and the hit-and-run morons) agreeing to appear on court shows. My belief is that they are so dumb, as this one was, they think they're really smart and can outwit a judge with their silly BS. To commit all manner of crimes you would have to think you're too smart to ever get caught. This idiot was pretty funny. He did that 180 like a cockroach hit with a blast of insect repellant. 12 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: And as for the video in the bedroom maybe she placed the camera there because her valuables were hidden in the drawers while the handyman was “working” in the house. That’s the reason I choose to believe. Sounds good to me. 3 Link to comment
AZChristian October 27, 2019 Share October 27, 2019 (edited) About "cockaroach" . . . the Spanish (native tongue for JM) is "cucaracha." Maybe that's why she uses the extra syllable. Same with why she may say "chiminee"; she may be used to the term "chimenea." Edited October 27, 2019 by AZChristian Tidying up. 2 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.