The People's Court - General Discussion

[aemom]

On 10/22/2019 at 2:43 PM, SRTouch said:

1. 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

The sister's boyfriend decided to sell it.  MM told them that it's illegal to hold people's stuff hostage. She did the whole counseling thing because she told the boyfriend that she put the brother and sister in a terrible position and she hoped they could reconcile in the hallway.  Doug picked up on that and did the follow through. 

On 10/22/2019 at 6:03 PM, PsychoKlown said:

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.

Holy shit! Sometimes I think my family's a bit nuts, but I'm almost positive that nobody would ever pull a knife.

I think that the D in the car repair case was sweet on the P and did a lot of the work under the table at good prices. I think that this lawsuit threw him for a loop.

Edited October 27, 2019 by aemom
Forgot car case

[SRTouch]

1. dog sitter sent dog to shelter: uh oh, not sure WTH I would do if I left one of my cats with someone for a few days and they took it a shelter because I was late picking it up, but I'd be tempted to go the whole car keying/window bashing/brawling in the street route. Haven't even heard anything 'cept the preview and already hating D - in preview MM is questioning D about the drop-off and D has no proof dog actually dropped off (apparently P thinks kept/sold/gave away her dog) - has me remembering old case where dog sitter supposedly lost dog while owner in Caribbean or some such and by end of case everyone figured she had sold the dog..... in this case, P says she hired D to watch her dog for 2 days while she was out of town - she contracted walking pneumonia and was late picking up dog, Dino, and when she contacted the hired dog sitter was told dog taken to dog pound - when she contacted shelter dog not there - suing for 2 grand...... D says when dog was dropped off P didn't bring food (just bones & a slimjim), dog was mean & a biter, a stinky dirty matted mess, and non stop barker which had neighbors complaining...... could just be former hall clown's intro, but not thinking much of P's story either - I can understand getting sick and not picking up dog on time, but intro makes it sound like a couple days pass before she tells D she's in the hospital, more time passes before D tells her she's going to take dog to ASPCA, and 'a (more) few days' go by before P contacts ASPCA to check for dog - if intro even half right I'm going to end up hating P as well as D and hoping dog found a good forever home..... once testimony begins P tells us Dino is a 6yo Yorkie - P's granny had a heart attack so her trip was not planned - says D was an acquaintance from the neighborhood she often ran into as they walked their respective dogs, she figured D was a dog lover and paid her $40 to watch Dino while P hurried to granny - says plan was to pay D 20 bucks a day, so the $40 was 2 days in advance..... P provides hospital records showing she was hospitalized while out of State (in New Jersey) and shows texts that she sent from hospital when she was admitted..... oops once again litigant providing evidence which contradicts their own testimony - this time P just testified she sent text to D she had been admitted on day 2 of trip, yet MM is reading unanswered series of texts from D on day three saying come get your dog, Dino had bitten someone, cops (animal control?) have been called, management ordering me Dino has to go or I may lose my apartment.... P steps back from claim she sent text on day 2, now it's an unproven phone call where she told D she was hospitalized..... grrrrrrr, now MM reads text where P is telling D to take Dino to shelter (even tells her which shelter - apparently she thinks ASPCA is a boarding facility and will hold Dino until she gets there to pick him up since he's chipped - right, ASPCA should have scanned Dino, found the chip, put him in holding kennel and contacted owner to come get their 'lost' dog - still, she's right that Dino should have been at shelter if turned in....... not liking P at all, but now over to dog sitter, who is slightly less despicable after hearing messages where she told P Dino needed to be picked up NOW!..... ok, now we hear where preview came from and any sympathy D gained is flushed down crapper - P's story is that she wasted no time contacting ASPCA after she told D to take Dino there, but no record of Dino arriving - now we hear smug a$$ D tell us how she turned Dino in as a stray since he was a stinky matted mess..... at best that's a lie and shelter didn't bother to scan Dino and he disappeared into system and I blame defendant (course, this assumes P told truth about Dino being chipped - even if he has a chip, doesn't mean she followed through and registered/updated chip)...... oh, but wait, when MM starts giving D hard time for turning in Dino unanimously D says she didn't personally turn Dino in, it was her gf who couldn't miss work to offer testimony in case where D is being given sued for 2 grand..... ok, I'm now disgusted with both sides - and according to DVR we're only at the 7 minutes mark - zip zip - P wins, but grts 1 grand, not 2 as requested - not interested in how MM came to that amount
2. tenant suing for deposit: same old story with tenant claiming he was best tenant in all of history, while landlord has whole other story about breaking lease by moving out early, leaving owing rent, etc etc...... seems a big problem during tenancy was the heating bills - lease had landlord paying the bill, but landlord complains tenant ran up the bill..... not that interesting, but promises a couple chuckles as Jewish tenant pokes fun at how well he got along with Arab landlord (by end of case MM fed up with his continual claims if being a good tenant)..... ok, 1 year lease and tenant happy after first year so he signs new lease without reading it - ah, he was warm and toasty and happy with landlord paying for heat - landlord not so happy, as he was paying the heating bill to heat old building and unhappy with P turning up the thermostat. Big problem comes when second year of tenancy is ending and P decides to move out. Apparently, signing without reading new lease is a bad thing, as he thinks he moved out at end of lease - well, sort of, as even as P is testifying he's saying lease ended Feb 28th and he was still in process of moving out/cleaning/patching holes in walls etc on March 3rd. Oops, but turns out it was landlord who ends up tripping over technicalities with the lease - first he mistakenly wrote lease with ending date as Feb 30, and of course there is never 30 days in February - biggest problem is that the 2nd lease has ending date of March 3rd..... by golly, that means P had every right to still be there cleaning March 3rd and the rent withheld from security for March was not in fact due..... ah, not only did he mistakenly write February 30th, but now he's trying to say he forgot a zero, he meant second lease to end March 30th, so that's why he thinks he gets to collect March rent..... uh - no, whether it's March 3rd as per lease or the 30th despite written lease, landlord not getting to collect that rent...... yep, more chuckles, as now I think I understand why MM is having fun with fact each side has their own original copy of lease - I'm thinking one lease says March 3rd and other says March 30th. Tenant hanging his hat on his copy saying March 3rd and he insists he finished everything on third and was out - but landlord's son says hold on, I have video from when P came back after the third to collect lamps a a bicycle, so if lease was up on 3rd he was there past move out and owes, and if date was March 30 he still owes..... hmmmmm lease contract not exactly clear, and sometimes nod goes to layperson when professional messes up contract....... ah, now P admitting he was still there on 4th - hah! Puts kibosh on his out by the 3rd, if this was JJ we'd be hearing he owes March rent unless everything out.... this mess going back and forth so much I'm not sure what to think - P now admitting he was there after his copy of lease says it ended - MM decides the confusion caused by differing copies of lease is enough for her to order return of the deposit
3. car sale fail: p says he bought a BMW from D, and D never produced the title - wants back the $600 deposit..... not sure what D's defense is - apparently he bought car, never registered it, sold car to P because he needed money, says he explained everything to P, but P got all impatient and demanded a refund, and by golly refunds are nonrefundable  - uh, not hearing a defense there - non-refundable deposit theory only works if seller delivers on what he sold, and seller has to deliver within a reasonable time...... apparently, P even took D to DMV to try to get a clean title, but they gave up because of long lines - then we hear D finally got the title, but by then P was fed up and wanted his money back, so instead of returning the money  (even if it took selling car to someone else to get the money) seller decides he'll just write it off and donate the car..... huh, wonder why buyer went to cops and claimed he was scammed)..... course, when asked Seller can't produce any proof he donated the car..... D even claiming he offered to let buyer take procession of car for the $600 and forgive the other 2 grand of the agreed purchase price cuz he felt bad making him wait, but by that time P just wanted a refund and refused to take the car without a title - P gets his refund 

Edited October 28, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

Skipped dog case.
 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing for deposit:

How annoying was that smirky little twerp with his rehearsed, stupid jokes? Did he think this was an audtion for a comedy club? He'd be rejected anyway. He has one of the most punchable smug faces we've seen in ages. JM told him to stop with the "I'm such a great tenant. I actually fixed the mess we  made and patched the holes I put in the wall. " He kept doing it after that, just to be an irritating, tiny, little asshole. He was deliberately being annoying to a judge! I bet he'd get along great with that other tiny little asshole, Levin. It's really a shame he had to be awarded anything.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

car sale fail:

Amazing how everything that came out of the crook def's mouth was a lie. He has to sell the car he just bought for which he paid 3500$ because of a death in the family (sure) and has no money to contribute, his momma has to pay for the DMV documents/registration or whatever, but 2K is nothing to him, just pocket change, so he first offers the car to plaintiff for 600$ and then just donates it. JM needed a shovel to get through all his dumb BS. People - if you really want to buy cars from total strangers on CL, be a little more vigilant, please! Crooks, con artists and scammers abound and we see them all the time on this show and hear the same old, "But I trusted him/her!" If you're the kind of person who trusts a stranger who is peddling an old car with no registration you better stay off CL entirely. 

[meowmommy]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

uh oh, not sure WTH I would do if I left one of my cats with someone for a few days and they took it a shelter because I was late picking it up, but I'd be tempted to go the whole car keying/window bashing/brawling in the street route.

I know what I'd do, but you'd be visiting me in prison.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Skipped dog case.

What, and missed the flames shooting out the bottom of the plaintiff's fake hair?  And the pants left over from 1975?

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

grrrrrrr, now MM reads text where P is telling D to take Dino to shelter (even tells her which shelter - apparently she thinks ASPCA is a boarding facility and will hold Dino until she gets there to pick him up since he's chipped

That pissed me off, too.  The animal shelters aren't the backup when you don't have a dog sitter or a licensed boarding facility.  They might have put the dog down.

I think MM wanted to bang both their heads together for the level of selfishness and stupidity on display.  But she also let herself be influenced by the cute dog picture. 

My cat Sasha just clambered up here and curled himself over my arm as I type this.  He does that a lot.  =^;^=

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

promises a couple chuckles as Jewish tenant pokes fun at how well he got along with Arab landlord

This guy thinks he's a standup comedian.  The Santa coal joke -- not funny.  And repeatedly imitating the landlord's accent -- also not funny.  

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

He was deliberately being annoying to a judge!

When she's rolling her eyes, not amused, it's time to stop the schtick.  And she asked him about eighteen times to stop with the I'm a great tenant.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ah, now P admitting he was still there on 4th - hah! Puts kibosh on his out by the 3rd, if this was JJ we'd be hearing he owes March rent unless everything out....

It should have been.  Usually MM's very particular that way.

Why did she say the tenant didn't have to give notice because the lease was up?  I always had to give notice when I was a renter, even when it was at the expiration of a lease.

Did you know it's hard to type with a 12 pound cat draped over your arm?  Especially when the other arm is urgently needed to tickle his tummy?

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

He has to sell the car he just bought for which he paid 3500$ because of a death in the family (sure) and has no money to contribute, his momma has to pay for the DMV documents/registration or whatever, but 2K is nothing to him, just pocket change, so he first offers the car to plaintiff for 600$ and then just donates it.

This must have been a gold-plated car, that the plaintiff needed this particular car so badly that he would pay a deposit on a car with no title and wait months to receive the car.  Like there aren't any BMW dealers or used car salesmen out there.

Shocking that there's a long line at the DMV.  Just shocking.

The seller needs the money so desperately for a funeral, but then he just donates it out of the goodness of his heart.  It does my cynical soul good to see such kindness in the world.

MM needs to lay off the Botox/fillers a wee bit.  She's looking a little waxy.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

It does my cynical soul good to see such kindness in the world.

Yes, and he was willing to sell it to plaintiff for 600$, just because "I'm a nice guy." Yes, I would surely be willing to lose 2K to a total stranger. I have a big heart, especially when it comes to getting some poor, deserving person a desperately-needed BMW. Oddly, he wasn't magnanimous enough to give back the money after he "donated" the car. Sure he donated it. Well, he has no proof, but take his word for it. This is one person who even I wouldn't believe even if his tongue came notarized.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

The Santa coal joke -- not funny. 

I wonder how long it took the little dipshit to think that up.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

  I always had to give notice when I was a renter, even when it was at the expiration of a lease.

It's been a great many years since I rented, but as I recall I had to inform the landlord I was leaving at the end of the lease or it would automatically be renewed.

[SRTouch]

1. car crash: pretty simple case with defendant making left turn in front of oncoming traffic.... poor defendant is a 'have not' litigant - no defense, no evidence, no license, and no insurance. What she has plenty of is half baked, contradictory excuses of why she shouldn't get liable for.... well anything. Guess part of her preparation for the case was a background check on other driver. Seems P was a drinker back in the day, had a couple DUIs along with other tickets, so D thought it'd be a good idea to bring along an empty Hennessy bottle and a friend to say he saw P toss the empty bottle as he drove away - yeah, no evidence to show P was drinking, just an empty bottle she could have picked up anywhere and testimony that she and a couple invisible witnesses heard him slurring words at scene. MM not impressed - I was kind of impressed that airhead thought it a good idea to argue with MM about whether or not she wrote about the long ago DUIs in her answer to the complaint when the Judge is holding her sworn statement. When asked P is upfront about the DUIs, gets as far as telling us one was in '94 before MM cuts him off since she really doesn't care what he was doing about time young defendant was being born - oh, he does get out that he's 8 years sober and a little insulted D brought it up.... no surprise when P wins - also no real surprise to hear he was asking for 3 times KBB value of his 18 yo car.... MM awards value of car
2. boy band breakup: bunch of guys get together and form a band - 2 litigants have been friends for 12 years - since school - P came to court with...... not sure how to describe that hair, but definitely good for a laugh.... ah, but D has him beat when he comes out with SHORT necktie - not talking couple inches short here, this tie needed to double in length before it would be long enough - then when I got past the tie I begin to notice the piercings..... anyway, P has litany of reason why he turned to booze and drugs, but end result was he was booted from band - this case came about when he tried to retrieve some of the band equipment he says he paid for.... D claims finders keepers, says after a couple months whatever equipment P left at his place was abandoned, and by law he could keep it.... nah, says MM, that may work for a business or landlord, but not here where P left property with his good friend and band mate...... P gets part of what he asked for
3. Carr's car deal: Mr. Carr, the P, bought a car from son of long time friend - problem arose when turned out son jumped title and P had to pay off tax lien to straighten out title. Wants friend's son to pay the bill - son doesn't want to pay - $400 odd tax bill keeps growing as late fees and penalties get tacked on - and they end up here..... sonny trying to play the "I'm just a kid, first time I've ever sold a car, didn't know about this tax thing, etc etc".... well, MM says she understands the whole dumb 23yo not knowing any better, but legally he's been an adult for 5 years and time to put on big boy pants and act like an adult (ok, that may have been my interpretation of what she said)..... Soooooo, tax bill easy, P had to pay off D's tax bill before he could register car, so D has to pay that back..... but now P starts looking silly as he tries to bump up the award.... dude bought car as is, but wants money for new tire and insurance? Nope, not happening - he gets the tax money, not the extra nonsense

[Florinaldo]

36 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

poor defendant is a 'have not' litigant - no defense, no evidence, no license, and no insurance.

You forgot "no brains".

Either for thinking the stories she kept coming up with, twisting, reworking, shifting, etc. would come across as believable in any way. Or because she actually does believe them.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car crash:

My god. Those dull-eyed, inbred-looking mutants were just atrocious. They were bad enough on their own, but did I really hear that dimwit say, "Our kids"? I didn't have the heart to rewind and check. They are the poster children for "Idiocracy."

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

boy band breakup:

And then we move to "The Island of Dr. Moreau" with this gang. So: Did anyone here know people get high popping blood pressure medication? Really?And did anyone think large def looked hot or edgy with a ring in his nose like a truffle-sniffing pig? I can't even remember what the little tiny one said.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

but legally he's been an adult for 5 years and time to put on big boy pants

But he's a young thing and cannot leave his mother! He doesn't know anything about anything except elaborate hairdos and maybe FB! 23 is the new 13. How times have changed.

[AngelaHunter]

OMG, I forgot about the "Valyrian" tax. Sounds unfair to me and no amount of correction by JM could change it.

[DoctorK]

8 hours ago, SRTouch said:

P came to court with...... not sure how to describe that hair, but definitely good for a laugh.

I was struck by how much he reminded me of Harpo Marx when the plaintiff stood, not talking, with his mouth 

partway open and a totally blank look. For the youngsters, Harpo is in the middle.

Edited October 30, 2019 by DoctorK
Edited for clarity. Primetimer editing sucks.

[Guest]

I missed today’s cases because I was in court..but I have a funny story.

I needed to testify today about a client whose parents are divorcing.  

Anyway, I was ushered into a waiting room so that I wouldn’t be able to hear the proceedings.  The bailiff came in with some papers for me to sign and as he left he said  “it shouldn’t be too much longer.  iIf you needed anything just holler my name is Doug.

So, in my best JMM voice I said “Thank you Douglas” and he smiled. 

I don’t think he got what I meant but it made me chuckle and considering it was a rainy Tuesday and I was sitting in a room with windows eight feet above the floor...I’ll take any bit of joy I can get 

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I was struck by how much he reminded me of Harpo Marx when the plaintiff stood, not talking, with his mount part way open and a totally blank look. For the youngsters, Harpo is in the middle.

Defendant was channeling Oliver Hardy, if Oliver Hardy had multiple hideous piercings.

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

if Oliver Hardy had multiple hideous piercings.

And ridiculous ear plugs, which waggled around as he spoke.

14 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I’ll take any bit of joy I can get 

That would have given us all joy!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

That would have given us all joy!

And my inner-geek emerged because I could not wait to get home and let you all know.  

The added bonus was that it gave me something fun to think about on the drive home 

[AngelaHunter]

^^^ At this point in time we better take our pleasures where we find them. I remember I couldn't wait til I came back from shopping to come here and tell how the cashier asked me if I had a points card and I told her I did, but not with me TODAY. I was so hoping she would say, "If I don't see it, it doesn't exist", and we could argue yes it does and no it doesn't until she had her Byrd throw me out. Alas, I was disappointed.

At least your fantasy played out well!

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

^^^ At this point in time we better take our pleasures where we find them. I remember I couldn't wait til I came back from shopping to come here and tell how the cashier asked me if I had a points card and I told her I did, but not with me TODAY. I was so hoping she would say, "If I don't see it, it doesn't exist", and we could argue yes it does and no it doesn't until she had her Byrd throw me out. Alas, I was disappointed.

At least your fantasy played out well!

Okay, let me offer some "interesting" scenarios for this....

1. As you're exiting via the faux Byrd you could shout to the onlookers...It is what it is!!

2. You could reach over and (provided the cashier was wearing weaves) rip a hunk of hair out of her head causing scalp damage.  In this instance I suggest picking up said hair and disposing of it so the cashier doesn't collect ripped hair and trot it to court in a plastic shopping bag for proof.

3. Take this out to the parking lot...wait for cashier to come out and take a shopping cart and hurl it into her car.  When she complains tell her you're "busy" and can't wait around for the ceremonial exchange of information.

4. Tell the cashier that "it's not your fault" your points card is not with you TODAY.  You had surgery, your dog had surgery, your baby-daddy left you, is leaving you, won't leave you...simply put...IT'S NOT MY FAULT. 

5. And finally, offer her a few bucks to overlook the fact that you don't have your points card.  All the while mentioning that there's no need to get anyone else involved.  It will be much simpler this way.

It's painfully obvious that I'm watching waaaay too many of these court shows.  But then again...It is what it is.

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

1. As you're exiting via the faux Byrd you could shout to the onlookers...It is what it is!!

And "Don't trust anyone!" and maybe even try, "She's just jealous of me!"

[DoctorK]

Did anyone else see the roommate plaintiff in the shocking pink color coordinated get-up? She grated on my nerves from the beginning. The grossly oversized pink glasses were odd, they sat on her face cock-eyed but I watched the reflections on them (especially in the hallterview) and it looks like they were planar not prescription lenses, just a tacky look so cool item. When I saw some of her “art” work that was so valuable but on printer paper and taped to the walls and were already sold but she was holding onto them for a couple of more months so she could get them framed, well, they looked like crappy  amateur looking sketches of copyrighted comics including Garfield. Actually, it looked to me like she scanned black and white comic strips, enlarged them, and then colored them in with markers. It also was sort of obnoxious to cover walls in common areas with her art whether anyone else wanted to see it or not, and putting them up with tape is a bad idea. Sorry, but she just completely rubbed me the wrong way. Not that I liked the defendant, she was wound too tight and probably a jerk, but I was glad to see the plaintiff’s absurdly and unbelievably large damage claims were shot down.

I may miss the rest of the cases, looks like I will be having a tornado warning a little later on and the weather people are breaking in on the show a lot.

[patty1h]

The plaintiff with the yellow service dog and pink glasses was exhausting.  She babbled at warp speed and tried to make her simple tenant case into this huge miscarriage of justice.  She was withholding rent (I forget why) and turned that fact around so it's a scenario where the evil lease holder is making life miserable for the meek tenant living in a house of horrors where she's fearing for her life, being threatened by knives and her precious art is being destroyed. 

This plaintiff came off as a looney bird trying to get $10K for some damaged cartoon art, an old printer and some missed classes.  Did you see that picture she did of melting Bart Simpson?  Not !crazy! at all.  On top of that, Ms. Artsy Fartsy needs a slap for dyeing the doggo yellow and putting that GD denim outfit on it.

Edited October 30, 2019 by patty1h

[AdeleDazeem]

Wow. Between the hair and the seriously over-filled and -pulled plastic surgery face, MM looks like a mannequin.

[SRTouch]

Short on sleep this morning since it was 2:30 before I got to bed before getting up at 7 to take kitten in for spay surgery. Turned this mess on, watched a few minutes of wackadoddle #1 who decided to stop paying rent after she finds out wackadoddle #2 is collecting rent from 4 other housemates in house where lease says no subletting. Wacky #1 all dressed up in artsy fartsy outfit  which includes as an accessory a 'service dog' which she drags around dressed in overalls and dyed green - literally dressed in blue and white overalls and dyed freaking yellowish-green, and when MM asks if dog is a service dog she drags it out from behind her by a leash/harness - don't think she ever said a word to dog, just dragged it wherever she wanted it to go..... that did it for me, I zipped ahead before MM even discussed what wacko squatter is suing for....... not even going to rant about the 'service dog' except to say service animals are supposed to be certified as being trained to provide a service - wacky may need an emotional support dog, but from little we saw of this dog it isn't even trained to walk on a leash as it wandered all over hall during hallterview ignoring its mistress.....

Wellll, I may revisit today's cases later, but vet just called and my kitten is out of surgery and ready to be picked up - I'm heading out, going to bring her home, fuss over her a little and make sure she's recovering, then going to take a nap

Edited October 30, 2019 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

@SRTouch, sending virtual catnip treats for your kitty's recovery.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Did anyone else see the roommate plaintiff in the shocking pink color coordinated get-up?

The quintessential touchy-feely California, "it's like, like, like," dumbest generation nutcase. Service dog? I wish just once JM would ask for proof of certification that it IS a service dog, and not just called that because kooks like this want to take their pets evrywhere with them. I guess plaintiff is afraid that something someone says or does might "trigger" her, or even hurt her feelings. Can't have that. Five kooks living in a "trash pit" when def was not permitted to rent rooms to anyone. Bunch of ninnies. I really want to take that dog away from her, take the stupid outfit off of it and give it a good home.

In the case of the 15-year old Jeep: I knew I wasn't going to like it the minute I heard the plaintiff say to JM, "How ya doin'?" I had to mute the sound and just read the CC, both because her voice was like nails on a chalkboard and I could barely understand anything she said. Car dealer was very shady and please do not take a drink every time he said "vehicle." No way did he junk the junk. He fixed for a couple hundred bucks and resold it.  I was really surprised at JM just smiling at plaintiff's foul-mouthed rant.

I found the perfect thing for idiotic, triggered loonies like Pink Glasses, the great artist, in the first case. Hugs whenever you really feel the need for one!

Edited October 30, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

The plaintiff with the yellow service dog and pink glasses was exhausting.  She babbled at warp speed and tried to make her simple tenant case into this huge miscarriage of justice.  She was withholding rent (I forget why) and turned that fact around so it's a scenario where the evil lease holder is making life miserable for the meek tenant living in a house of horrors where she's fearing for her life, being threatened by knives and her precious art is being destroyed. 

This plaintiff came off as a looney bird trying to get $10K for some damaged cartoon art, an old printer and some missed classes.  Did you see that picture she did of melting Bart Simpson?  Not !crazy! at all.  On top of that, Ms. Artsy Fartsy needs a slap for dyeing the doggo yellow and putting that GD denim outfit on it.

My first thought was that the limit on the court shows is five grand, so I don't even know how she got that far.

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I'm heading out, going to bring her home, fuss over her a little and make sure she's recovering, then going to take a nap

Hugs for your little furball.  It's always a rough day for them.

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

The plaintiff with the yellow service dog and pink glasses was exhausting.

I've seen some oversized glasses in my day, but I don't believe I've ever before seen rims that went lower than the nose!

What do you want to bet she has a drawer full of the same glasses in every color so she can coordinate with her cutesy-poo daily outfits?

Why did she think the audio showing how much she pissed off the defendant would help her.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

not even going to rant about the 'service dog' except to say service animals are supposed to be certified as being trained to provide a service

Don't certified service animals normally wear a special vest with the service animal designation on it?  So that everybody knows the dog is certified and that it is working?

57 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

My first thought was that the limit on the court shows is five grand, so I don't even know how she got that far.

My understanding is that it depends on the jurisdiction of the original small claims court where the case was filed.  In California, where these noodleheads are from, I believe it's $10K.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I found the perfect thing for idiotic, triggered loonies like Pink Glasses, the great artist, in the first case. Hugs whenever you really feel the need for one!

I want one.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I had to mute the sound and just read the CC, both because her voice was like nails on a chalkboard and I could barely understand anything she said.

Got through the first case without CC, but had to put it on as soon as mumblemouth started mumbling.

"I parked it right away, but it got stolen."  Well, yeah, unless you were carjacked, it's hard for bad guys to make off with a vehicle that's not parked.

3 hours ago, AdeleDazeem said:

Wow. Between the hair and the seriously over-filled and -pulled plastic surgery face, MM looks like a mannequin.

That's what I alluded to the other day when I said she needs to step away from the Botox and the fillers.  Glad I'm not the only one noticing.  MM is younger than I am, but I wish she and other women in public life would (or would be allowed to) accept aging gracefully.  I believe she'd be aging quite well if she'd leave well enough alone.

[AZChristian]

What a shame.  MM is a beautiful woman, already looking younger than her years.  Why did she have to do that to her face?

[AdeleDazeem]

47 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

That's what I alluded to the other day when I said she needs to step away from the Botox and the fillers.  Glad I'm not the only one noticing.  MM is younger than I am, but I wish she and other women in public life would (or would be allowed to) accept aging gracefully.  I believe she'd be aging quite well if she'd leave well enough alone.

That's far more than botox and fillers. And the new hair is supposed to redirect/distract you from the plastic surgery. 

Squirrel!

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

What a shame.  MM is a beautiful woman, already looking younger than her years.  Why did she have to do that to her face?

What’s going on with JM’s face?  

I missed today’s episode too. What did she do?  Trout pout?  Pillow face?  Cheek implants?

I am hoping I can see it tomorrow.  This time of year can get a bit hectic at work. 

Is it really that bad?  

[Bazinga]

18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

What’s going on with JM’s face?  

I missed today’s episode too. What did she do?  Trout pout?  Pillow face?  Cheek implants?

Is it really that bad?

See for yourself...

A short clip from today's show from YouTube

Edited October 31, 2019 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Is it really that bad?

She got bangs cut. I don't think it's really flattering. Most of the surgery/fillers/whatever she and JJ get are usually topnotch, I must say, especially if you compare it to the often grotesque Hollywood Horror show. Women in the media are under a lot of pressure to stay young looking.

[patty1h]

Maybe it's my lying eyes but I'm not seeing any difference in JM's face in the last month/this new season.  I made sure to really look today after seeing the comments from yesterday, but I'm not picking up on any facial work or tightening, etc.  I noticed the new hairdo and maybe the hair color is a little brighter but otherwise she looks the same to me as she did last season and the one before that.  

Re:  today's case with the missing expensive eyeglasses and the plaintiff who is nickel and dime-ing for frames that he didn't even pay for...  What a grifter he was.  Everybody wants to get $$ for nothing.  Was it me or did the defendant look strange - all of his features seemed to be sucked toward the middle of a big face.  

[Bazinga]

7 hours ago, patty1h said:

What a grifter

Hated him!!!  Hated everything about him.  From the way he walked into the courtroom to the way he spoke to the judge.  So self righteous, smug, arrogant without an iota of validity to any of his claims.  He decides that the eye glasses place stole his glasses, even though a third party admits to receiving the glasses.  Somehow wants the Dr. to pay for his glasses, though the insurer is the one who lost the glasses and has already taken responsibility for the loss and he had signed a waiver of liability of the doctor in the first place.  He has even already been offered compensation for the glasses, but not to the original value of the now old frame he bought on the street and still not satisfied.  No, he wants full value for glasses he suddenly didn't pay for though he was originally talking about buying in an "open air market" (probably fakes) and has a handwritten receipt for purchasing.  Plus he was tacking on $4,500 in pain and suffering for the "sentimental" glasses frames.  Even though he lost and a judge/lawyer is advising him to take the settlement, of course, he is not finished, as he is suing the insurer. He also expects someone else to pay for his lawyer that he decided to hire to write a legally baseless demand letter.  He should sue the lawyer since the letter didn't work to get the defendant to pay him a bonanza or anything at all.  He shouldn't have to pay for that!  If he won here, would he still sue the insurer and double dip?  Of course, as he was wronged!!!  Awful man; hated the way he spoke, with an attitude with no substance behind his arguments.  I would also be annoyed that the Dr. was trying to make himself look good on TV by offering plaintiff similar Versace frames he doesn't deserve, but I know he wont accept the offer anyway, because he is convinced he is right and has been ripped off. 

I don't know why the homeowner in the second case recovered anything.  Did she prove the contractor did anything wrong that he should not have gotten paid in full?  She went cheap, the work didn't hold and contractor repaired without charging, repeatedly.  Only after it was done the way the contractor said it should be done in the first place, did the work take.  How was this the contractor's fault so he had to give money back?  Plaintiff also wanted to be compensated for time she lost from work.  First, it was outdoor work, why did she need to be there?  To "supervise"?  Second, the make good work was due to her going cheap in the first place.  She should not have gotten a dime back.

What these two plaintiffs have in common is that everything negative in their life is someone's fault, not theirs, and deserves compensation.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Bazinga

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Maybe it's my lying eyes but I'm not seeing any difference in JM's face in the last month/this new season.

I am not seeing much difference, but maybe I am not familiar with the details of cosmetic surgery. I immediately noticed the new hair style and I like it, to me it is a little younger look but not too much for her age. Even more than usual, YMMV on this topic.

[SRTouch]

Doing much better today - rested and the clowder once again complete. Lucy recovered fine after spay - though miffed that I'm doing my best to keep her from much jumping and racing through trailer.  All good, though as she and the other two who occasionally make an escape attempt are locked away due to possible Trick or Treaters. On to today's cases....

• eyeglass debacle: fun case - no legal drama but P good for a show.... kind of guy you cross the street to avoid because he's not shy about telling you how things should work and nothing can change his opinion on anything....  P needed new eyeglass prescription, and left his expensive frames with D to install new lens in the old frames (been there done that - though I usually have sunglass lenses installed in the old frames) - says after 45 days D informed him he can't find P's frames - wants $4995 (huh! Almost 5 grand, thought at first I was seeing an extra 9 and thought $495 was some expensive frames, but no, double checked and guy really is asking 5 grand for missing frames) ...... D doesn't dispute frames were lost - his defense is 2-fold - 1) he sent frames out to have lenses installed he didn't lose them, and 2) he had customer sign a waiver/disclaimer which says D isn't liable if frames are lost...... ok, just from intro and without hearing any testimony, not liking D's defense at all, but also not liking P's money grab attempt..... I took a moment to Google versace glass frames, which is what P claims were - yeah, priced out of my range, site had 3 upwards of 270 bucks - is P expecting premium replacement value for his 2yo/used frames or is he tacking on ridiculous punitive/pain&suffering damages to reach 5 grand - and truthfully, way this guy dressed for tv I question he actually spent big bucks for frames..... over to D - admits receiving frames and sending them off, but claims he's not at fault since frames lost in transit or at facility which was to install the lens - we've seen this defense before, and as I recall P's contract is with D where D assumes responsibility (abailment ?), so P would go after D and then D could turn around and sue Ups/FedEx or whoever lost his customers frames - have to wait and see if his signed disclaimer lets him off the hook.... oh my, P's money grab looking even worse as we learn he's already received settlement from the insurance company he was getting his new specs from - and P is the side who hands Douglas the settlement letter.... P is one of those people who, once their mind is made up nothing is going to shake their opinion - letter he presented says lab acknowledged receipt of frames, then lost/misplaced them - next he tells MM the insurance company would only replace the frames and not the lenses..... huh, did he already pay for the lenses - seems reasonable for insurance company to replace the lost frames and not the lenses if he had not yet paid for the lenses..... MM asks for proof of what P is saying - and of course he has none with him - says he was advised by an attorney that the disclaimer D has is not 'legal tender' - which is worth a chuckle from MM and she tells him legal tender is money and if his lawyer did say that he/she needs to go back to law school..... D quick to provide his signed disclaimer, MM queries him on his version of how things are sent out and tracked...... yep, as we already learned, D sent off the frames, tracking shows they arrived in lab, lab acknowledges receipt and admits they lost his frames - D not negligent in anyway and disclaimer fine and dandy to let him off hook.... MM asks P for receipt of what he paid for these very expensive  $500 versace frames and P passes up hand written receipt from Walmart style receipt book - says that's receipt he got when he bought the frames at an open air market..... ok, wondered about this guy spending those big bucks for frames, wondering even more whether these were knockoffs/fake/counterfeit...... D asked and tells MM when insurance was doing their investigation the receipt received scrutiny as it has no business license or phone #, and I gather that legit Versace dealers are listed and this receipt is not from a recognized dealer..... now P switches gears and he no longer paid for the frames, they were a gift - yep, he paid nothing for the frames - aw, part of his (outrageous) claim must be because of great sentimental value....... ok, apparently D and the insurance company willing to accept that actual Versace frames were lost, tried but were unable to find exact replacement, and P refused to accept a similar Versace frame..... P denies ever being offered replacement, but letter MM is holding (the one P provided) says the offer was made...... ok, guess letter actually offered 75% of what P claims was spent on frames - even with the suspect receipt....... and P thinks they were ripping him off and didn't cash the settlement check because it wasn't for full replacement value for the 2yo frames..... as said earlier, nothing is going to convince of anything - MM getting worked up, P stubbornly has mind set and trying to argue over MM as she's trying to get through to him - oh, and as she is talking he adds he's not only suing defendant (the only guy with a signed legal disclaimer, he has other ongoing suits..... yep, MM just explained his claim - $500 for the glasses, rest is $4500 for pain and suffering..... ok, getting time for next goofball...... case dismissed..... oh, and when D gets out to Doug turns out he kept looking for exact model of frames and has completed new glasses with same exact model frame - has them in hand and offers to give them to P - Doug asks and D says current value of the no longer made Versace model is around $90
• homeowner complains of shoddy work: p had D replace front stoop, couple weeks after job was done it started falling apart - D already been back to make repairs, but additional problems keep cropping up - after couple months of stoop falling apart and D making shoddy repairs D wants add-on all $1100 - nope, she figures his stone/concrete job should last years - not months - and she not only isn'the willing to give him more money, but wants a refund so she can hire someone else - wants $2620 - what she paid plus lost wages..... D claims P insisted on cheap materials and he did best he could with the cheap stuff - not his fault it was crappy job and falling apart.... yep, real craftsman here - really takes pride in his work (my grandpa was a carpenter, and I remember riding around with him and him pointing out houses he had worked on or buildings he helped built years earlier)..... only thing he said that meast anything to me was that he did job two years ago - ok, maybe homeowner's insistence on cheap materials has some merit, but he spoils that by countersuing for an additional $1500 for additional work for going back to make the repairs and lost wages..... oops, and as we go to commercial we see a pic of the stoop looking like a first time DIY disaster as D tries to explain concrete work to MM, who, as we know, knows a thing or three about construction..... when testimony starts we learn P hired this guy offline to replace 3/4" stones on her stoop which had been there 30 odd years. Instead, D wanted to completely redo the stoop and replace the 3/4" stone with single 2" bluestone stone per step.... uh, anyone else thinking his option would mean complete replace versus a repair - I mean, wouldn't  the difference from 3/4 to 2" thick stone throw number or height of steps off...... dude probably right that his option would be classier, but also not what P was looking for - I would have gone back to Google and continue used search if D was as condescending while giving the estimate as he seems so for today...... ok, now P at monitor pointing out the shoddy work - tiles coming up and mortar falling out - like I said, looks like a poor DIY project, not a professional job...... over to D to ask about the mortar/concrete, which is where the clip of him talking down to MM came from..... MM quickly/correctly points out to dude that problem shown in pix has nothing to do with thickness/size of tile versus his single bluestone tread, but everything to do with either the type of mortar or his application (noting that application also partly dependant on weather) - even with MM demonstrating she's not a complete novice, D continues with what I'm conceiving as condescending attitude of "I'm the pro (unsaid, but I'm also hearing "man") so I know best (better than some woman judge) I've been in this business this since '75 and, believe me, I know what I'm doing"...... sorry, this guy getting more annoying longer he talks..... when he tries dodging responsibility for frames job and blaming homeowner for insisting on cheap materials even though like 'cheap' material lasted just fine for 3 decades and he just did the job cuz he felt sorry for her and her limited budget, yada yada - I was done with him and zip ahead - ok, sounds like every couple months dude came back to reinstall tiles, only for it to fall apart shortly thereafter - last attempt lasted 9 months before tiles once again coming up - really no argument from P that D was warning her all along that her choice of materials wasn't going to last and MM sort of agreeing with him and telling P her Spanish saying about cheap becoming expensive (I'm not buying it this time and I'm pretty duress I could show you some 3/4" tile on steps here in town that were originally installed over 50 years ago - granted SW Oklahoma may not have as many freeze/thaw cycles as many parts of the country, but we have enough - we're actually under a freeze warning right now).... zip ahead a bit and we learn woman eventually gave up on D and hired someone else - paid new guy $1600 and he replaced the steps with..... wait for it...... the single bluestone D recommended - difference is that new guy did it for a grand less than D - who told us how he did the job on the cheap because he wanted to help the lady with the limited budget.... yeah, right..... well, wait, guess second guy only did the steps and ending up keeping the rest of D's work on the stoop - but then D original estimate was over $2500..... so, with the $1600 P paid second guy she spent a total if $3100 and is hoping to get a big chunk of money here and end up with the new stoop costing her $600...... naw, thinking she got lousy job from  D - but that's what she paid for despite D warning her it wouldn't last - expect neither side to be happy when judge rules as both sides share blame for debacle...... ok, zipped ahead to decision....... D getting obnoxious as MM questions his $1600 countersuit - his wife has to mediate as he starts yelling - wife better, at least calmer, but doesn't really explain away his problems - wife explains that second guy just did the surface and hubby did all the veneer...... somehow she thinks MM doesn't know what veneer is..... no lady, we know hubby did the veneer, but job he wants more in the countersuit than he asked for when he did the  complete job - he's not going to get credit/paid for his additional trips back to fix steps he installed (multiple times) just because he told customer it wouldn't work before work began..... yep, P gets back $500 from her $2600 claim, and D gets nada - as predicted, neither side thrilled with decision, though both accept the ruling
• Sloppy car window tint job: P ok with tint job at first, but later notices door panel damage - wants $1500..... D says damage may have been pre-existing or damage caused by her kids, but denies he did it - says way he cuts tinting means no way did he cut her door panel..... getting late and battery giving out, so skipped to end...... ah, from decision this may have been best of the day..... MM awards everything P asked for and scoffs at D for making comment about how he thought woman P was "bossy" when she came to his house - seems house doubles as place of business

Edited November 1, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

Wow. The first two cases were in the "I'm greedy but dumb" category.

The "Versace" glasses plaintiff looking for the lottery:  I don't buy anything "designer" so don't know - Do people really peddle those at an "open air market" = flea market? What an outrageous attitude he had. Who knows where his glasses came from or how much they cost? We know they cost him nothing at all, and he had the unmitigated gall to accuse def's employees of being so bowled over, so filled with envy by these frames they probably stole them. JM? "Those two beautiful ladies"? Maybe you need some new dollar store glasses too.😄 BTW, I got my latest pair of glasses at Home Depot. They have some really good ones there.

It's not over for the plaintiff. He'll take this to the Supreme Court!

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

I don't know why the homeowner in the second case recovered anything.

I'm assuming she got something back because the def is the expert and if he knew the work would not last he should have refused it? It's easy to say and probably true, but maybe he needed the money, which turned out to be not such a good plan. So silly plaintiff ends up paying exactly what she would have had she given def. the go-ahead to do the job right in the first place. How ironic. Personally, I would hire the def. I liked him.

The tinted window case: It's nice that  SSMO2 can afford such fripperies as tinted windows, but how much did JM hate "Mr. Superb" who works "out" his garage. Okay plaintiff chose an under-the-table, cheapo, alley mechanic but his beef was having a mere female who dared to question him and make any demands for him to fix her car which he slashed. How dare she expect to get what she paid for? That's BOSSY! He's a MAN!! Don't disrespect the MAN.  Amazing how different he sounded on the phone and here. OTOH, I did believe him when he said she referred to her kids as "nuisances." That would be a very weird thing for him to make up out of the blue and sticky-fingered kids could be a pain when you want your seven-year-old Nissan to look particularly sharp.

Edited October 31, 2019 by AngelaHunter
Typos

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM? "Those two beautiful ladies"? Maybe you need some new dollar store glasses too.😄 BTW, I got my latest pair of glasses at Home Depot. They have some really good ones there.

Not fair.  You should have put a warning on this before I read it.  I'm gulping down a glass of merlot while reading this.  I'll spare the details...let's just say that merlot can burn the sinuses.

And yes, they were "breathtaking" weren't they?

Quote

It's not over for the plaintiff. He'll take this to the Supreme Court!

Or, more likely, throw a a brick through Dr. Dave's Eyeglass Emporium.

Quote

I'm assuming she got something back because the def is the expert and if he knew the work would not last he should have refused it? It's easy to say and probably true, but maybe he needed the money, which turned out to be not such a good plan. So silly plaintiff ends up paying exactly what she would have had she given def. the go-ahead to do the job right in the first place. How ironic. Personally, I would hire the def. I liked him.

I too liked the defendant.  I would think Mr. and Mrs. Defendant would be a hoot at parties.  My impression was that the plaintiff is such a ball-tosser he tried to make her happy and was both frustrated and exhausted.  I do not know why she got any money.  It was her choice to go cheap.  He wisely told her not too but I think he's a real marshmallow under his gruff exterior and thought maybe he could help her.

Edited October 31, 2019 by PsychoKlown
Cannot correct my grammar. It's not my fault.

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

 I'll spare the details...let's just say that merlot can burn the sinuses.

Sorry. I would hate to think I'm the cause of wine being wasted. 😯

7 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Or, more likely, throw a a brick through Dr. Dave's Eyeglass Emporium.

That could be the final chapter, since the counsel he retained doesn't know what "legal tender" means.

[Bazinga]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

since the counsel he retained doesn't know what "legal tender" means.

I tend to think it was the plaintiff who came up with "legal tender."  The attorney probably said the waiver was not legally binding because it wasn't notarized.  Not correct, but not as ridiculous as saying "legal tender."  I think that was all the know-it-all plaintiff's.

Still doesn't make sense to me for the plaintiff in case number 2 to get anything back.  It is not the judge's place to redo a deal to make it fair, though JM seems to do that here and in other cases when she thinks workers got paid more than they should have.  She basically did a you didn't deserve to get paid that much balancing to give plaintiff back some money and that is not right.  The plaintiff got paid back here because the job didn't turn out like she wanted and paying full price to JM seems "unfair."  Follow: Plaintiff had no expert to testify that the defendant was negligent.  All she had was that the stones didn't last. It seems like the judge determined that the problem was the inferior stones and not due to the defendant mixing the cement wrong.  Once that was determined, the defendant did his job in installing the stones and deserved to get paid the agreed upon fee.  If the problem was defendant's poor workmanship and not the materials, plaintiff deserved to get more back then the token $500.  If you say, well, the defendant, the professional, should have known not to use inferior materials, so he is also to blame, he did point out the issue and plaintiff insisted, so that can't be the basis for giving the plaintiff something back as nothing he did makes him partially liable for the failure.  I still say plaintiff did not deserve anything; the failure was on her once the judge decides the problem was the plaintiff chosen materials and not anything to do with how the defendant did the cement job.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

55 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Still doesn't make sense to me for the plaintiff in case number 2 to get anything back. 

Not the first time the judgement makes no sense to me. Remember two dog owners whose dogs were attacked and subsequently died? Both spent a lot of money on vet bills. One owner got all the vet bills back even though the dog died, and the other got nothing BECAUSE the dog died - same situation, diametrically opposed judgments.

57 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

I tend to think it was the plaintiff who came up with "legal tender."  The attorney probably said the waiver was not legally binding because it wasn't notarized. 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but then considering the caliber of the lawyers and law students we often see here, I wasn't so sure.

[Bazinga]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but then considering the caliber of the lawyers and law students we often see here, I wasn't so sure.

Yes, but I have an irrational dislike for this plaintiff's know-it-all, I am right even though I am absolutely wrong attitude, that I think he came up with this all on his own.

He started his testimony by going out of his way to infer/accuse the defendant's employee of eyeing his so "attractive" and "expensive" glasses and therefore probably stealing his glasses when he already knew for certain that the insurer lost the glasses and they were not stolen by the defendant's worker.  Piece of work.  Couldn't stand him.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

Yes, but I have an irrational dislike for this plaintiff's know-it-all,

Oh, your dislike is not irrational in the least. An arrogant and dumb know-it-all looking to score big bucks, having zero proof of anything and claiming the usual "emotional distress" is unlikable in the extreme.

[patty1h]

I feel two ways about the tenant (I will call her Stanford Worker) who was suing for return of her rent.  No way was she entitled to all of the stuff she was asking for, and the landlord may have overstepped his bounds a bit, but I had a little sympathy for her feeling violated. 

I'm guessing she is very modest and the thought of a man (or even a woman) seeing her room in a state of dishevelment could be unnerving,  Realness Talk:  I put myself in her place - if the super of my building came in while I was out and my unwashed, nasty, torn up, maybe stained panties (you know this, ladies) were all laying out, I may feel a ways.  Or if I'd left... a toy out or unflushed toilet.  I have a  low threshold for embarrassment, so that would make me want to crawl in a hole knowing what he'd seen and having to face him in the future. 

I think SW took it to another level with the tears and wanting $$ for losing her job, though. but I can see her feeling 'violated' and it appears her embarrassment turned to anger.

Edited November 1, 2019 by patty1h

[SRTouch]

'Another 2 case day - neither riveting legal drama.....

• California tenant going after landlord for 10 grand: P rented a room from D and claims D invaded her privacy by snooping around her room when she wasn't there. Not sure how, but somehow some way that invasion of privacy was so stressful that she moved out, hired a lawyer, and is here seeking 10 grand - oh, wait, says peeking Tom landlord once saw her in her industrial strength bra (come to find out, as I understand it, dude entered her room and saw laundry on her bed).... she's a heft hefty plus sized woman and landlord teeny little old guy....... D has countersuit for $3775 claiming she broke no-smoking clause in lease, caused extensive smoke damage (2 grand worth), left big mess when she left (another grand) and she left owing rent from her 3 month lease (final $775)....... doesn't take long to establish a couple things when MM asks why P rented a room - first, P actually can speak intelligently, but 2, she wants to ramble through her rehearsed story which may or may not have anything to do with what Judge asked - woman really trying to impress us as she rambles on: she doesn't live in Sacramento, she 'resides' there; she mentions her job at Stanford 2-3 times before MM verifies she's talking about the University and asks what she did at the school (Health Care IT dealing with Medical Records - not sure what that means) - anyway, her old place was about 4 hours away with traffic from the new job at Sanford, so she "researched Peter's room" (translation, found short term housing on CL) - ok, they corresponded online and D probably thought he was in luck finding an actual adult who was going to be working at the University instead of some kid - D alters his usual lease and dropped usual last month rent requirement because it would be a such a short term lease...... anyway, when P is first doing her research she says she made sure this was going to be a women only house as she didn't want men in the house, and says she was told that owner's wife maintained a room, but would not be there full time..... within a couple weeks of her move in she starts getting uncomfortable because landlord visited house 'all the time' - why she even noticed he went in the garage...... she really should have skipped this portion of her story as D had every right to visit house - just not the tenants' rooms without notice - hmmmm, seems when P first moved in she was only tenant, but another tenant, lady named Sally, moved in shortly thereafter and of course D's wife had a room - anyway, when she moved in there was talk of P moving her whole family, including the elderly mother, and somehow P seems to think that possibility let her think she could treat whole house as hers even though there were other tenants and D had a lot of his stuff in the house and garage (not to mention his wife) - she complains that he sat on her couch in the living room when he came and talked to her, but if I understood her ramble living room was common area where he had every right to be..... if you're thinking I'm less than impressed with P you'd be correct..... P has said several times that landlord was there 'everyday' but MM cuts her off and asks what she means, was he literally there daily - and P changes everyday to 4 times during her tenancy...... huh? Is that 4 times in 3 months or did she leave early? - turns out 4 times in 2 months - remember we'received talking common use areas - and his wife and another tenant also live (alone least part time) in house..... seems 1st visit she's complaining about was actually move in day, landlord there to welcome her, get paperwork signed, etc - and P acts like D is pushy and out of line when he offers (and ends up giving) her a ride to her new job after she tells him she plans to call Lyft....... 2nd time is the day a couple weeks later - this time he was in house because of some touchup painting that she was happy (says so in her texts) to get done - she tries to make it sound like he was in her room, but there was a whole text conversation MM reads to us that makes it plain he was there painting other areas and asked if she's home and when would it be good to paint her room..... again, he was working in common areas and the other tenant's room (with other tenant's consent) and asking when he could access P's room to do work she obviously wanted done - I'm about done with P,  everything she has complained about has been easily explained away (though I wonder if perhaps she's been traumatized and is fearful of men - nah, I think she's just a scammer working the system looking for big bucks)....... yep, MM right there with me and is demanding answers from P, and P doesn't want to answer questions, and asks if she can't just continue to ramble - to which MM says, nope, you're suing for 10 grand and by golly I'm gonna cross examine you and expect answers - this dissolves in back talk from P and finger pointing by da'Judge - which seldom ends good for a litigant - MM wants answers NOW and P repeatedly tries to say she's going to finish her story HER way...... MM cuts P off and says she wants to talk to D for awhile, and P just keeps on yapping in background and shuffling her stack of papers..... well, this is more of good and bad - D says she paid in cash - he doesn't like cash as it forces him to write a receipt (hurrah, he writes a receipt) - ah, but the bad part is he goes to her room and calls her to complain that it's a mess and that she needs to turn off the lights and fan when she's out - huh? Did she leave door open or did he enter her rented space to 'snoop' as she has been complaining..... ah, backtracking a little further, MM finally gets to root of the problem - we find out that before she moved in, when she mentioned maybe renting whole house after the 3 month lease ends, he told her 'maybe', he'd think about it and let her know - after thinking, he decided no, he didn't want to give up house as it was sometimes needed for he and the wife to cut down on their commute - seems that was when P started getting upset, and every little thing after that just added to her dissatisfaction...... raises a couple questions about P's story - sounds like D always planned to maintain a room, not just for his wife, but both of them - D much more believable than P, though part of that may be because of her money grab for 10 grand..... back to P - she says final straw for her came on April 19th (little over a month after move in) when she received a message that P entered her room to put the receipt for her rent payment on her desk - as MM says P is making it sound like he came in and rifled through her belongings when what happened was he sent her a text saying, hey, you weren't in so I went into your room and left the receipt on the desk - yeah, technically he could have just slipped it under her door (I would have taped it on her door) but I see this as another mountain out a mole hill with P using it as an excuse to break the lease - who thinks she starting hunting get for a place as soon as he sent the letter saying he was not willing to rent her entire house, she found a place and was just ready to move on as she as she found a way to get out of lease (turns out she was canned from Stanford in May).....ah, MM reached same conclusion, asks and P argues she was definitely going to stay - then MM says let me read you your own text - more yelling back and forth between MM and P..... lady, like I said earlier, yelling and talking over judge is never a good idea..... yep, once again a litigant is done in by her own text/email, and MM reads email from April saying since P won't be able to take over whole house after lease ends she is leaving & will move out first week of May (lease ends June 14th) (another thing MM gathers from the texts/emails must be that it was never just D's wife who maintained a room, the room was was both of them so that long spiel about women only house is ignored without P arguing the point - new point, seems part of the 10 grand claim is for lost wages as P was fired in May (claims she was making $57 an hour, but couldn't find another room to rent and couldn't make the commute to keep job - hey, lady, Tom Bodett kept the light on at Motel 6..... nope, not happening for P, MM beating a dead horse trying to argue with P when it's past time to see if countersuit is justified - definitely landlord gets the rent he's asking for, but how about the mess and smoke damage (I'm tempted to give smoke damage because that issue raised before she broke lease - and I really don't like P - but dude wants 2 grand for smoke) and I'll bet P left a mess, but let's wait and see if the math supports his $3775 claim...... oops, as we go to commercial MM is yelling at landlord for padding the countersuit - ah, dude, I was 100% on your side and you got greedy (or maybe passed at the P money grab attempt) ah, seems his ad states no smoking, no drunks, no alcohol (MM says she'd never rent from him) - ok, his smoking claim is that he could smell her cigarettes, but never saw her smoking in the house - sorry, dude, as an ex-smoker I can smell the smoke on a person's clothes, sometimes still triggers me to reach for a smoke though I haven't had a cigarette in over 10 years - also no picture of a 'mess'..... ok, he gets rent, nothing else. ..... ahhhhhh, P actually squeezed out some tears as she hears she's not getting her 10 grand - well, then I see her rubbing her eyes so not even sure she worked out a tear even though eyes are watering..... D gets rent minus the security,  $775 of the $3775 requested 
• Friendship ruined by car deal: (ok, what was Carol Burnett's character's name where she was a secretary wearing tight outfits with a bit butt - I think P and her witness have the same fashion sense) Miss Mister bought old clunker from D, her bestie, then D repo'ed car when P stopped making payments..... stopped recap between intro and rough justice  - held down zip button when preview had MM doing friendship couple's counseling. Didn't watch middle, then rough justice has MM deciding both sides breached agreement, so no clear winner - MM cancels sale and decides to treat time P had car as a rental, so D keeps car but has to return part of money P paid & D has to return P's personal property left in car when she repo'ed car..... as I said, didn't watch whole thing, and have to back up some since decision sounded legally iffy - after rewinding a little it looks like there was never a meeting of the minds on the sale, which allowed MM to rewind sale and treat it as a rental or long term lease...... still not sure about the legality, but guess that's what 'rough justice' is all about - and I guess legal in sense this is binding arbitration not actual small claims court

Edited November 1, 2019 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

10 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Friendship ruined by car deal: (ok, what was Carol Burnett's character's name where she was a secretary wearing tight outfits with a bit butt - I think P and her witness have the same fashion sense)

The character was Mrs. Wiggins, but her boss pronounced it Hawiggins. 

You just know those two sashayed into the court in their clubbing outfits, thinking they were looking fly as hell.  My thoughts were "oh, honey, no".

[AngelaHunter]

So we thought yesterday's glasses scammer looking for a 5K lottery was bad? You ain't seen nuthin' yet. Today's scammer was looking for a 10K payout because her landlord so outrageously violated her AS A WOMAN by putting her receipt in her room and he saw her underwear. She's a woman! A woman who was violated! You know the sight of her giant underpants hanging over the shower rod drove the def into a fit of lust. My god, couldn't JM have cut her rambling, endless drivel off sooner? TEN THOUSAND dollars she wants for the suffering she endured at the  maniacal hands of this creeper sex offender. 😂

Personally I'm with JM and I would never move to a place where I'm told I can't drink(!) but she did and liked it well enough, judging from her texts ("That's awesomeness" about the painting) but somehow the awesomeness faded when she was told she couldn't move her whole damned family in. It had nothing to do with the fact that she lost her job (why?) and didn't need the room anymore. Okay, landlord shouldn't have entered her room or ogled her massive unmentionables but is that something for which a lawyer is needed? I lived in apartments and would have been affronted had my landlord entered without my knowledge and seen my undies but I wouldn't have tried to hold him up for thousands of dollars. Not only that, but she thinks she's owed back ALL the money she paid for when she did live there. I was nodding when JM told her that if this is the worst and creepiest thing that ever happened to her in her life, she's had the best life ever. The tears flow and trickle as she's informed she not only is not getting the 10K jackpot, but must pay the landlord 775$. Hee!  Her dripping tears got her nowhere. In the hall she informs Doug that she should have gone to another court since she thinks another judge would have awarded her that outrageous claim. That a man can just violate a woman is not to be borne!

Car deal: We saw something unusual here, and that's litigants fighting over a car not 15-30 years old. Okay, it was 13 years old, but still.

The plaintiff and her friend - I got so distracted by the skin tight outfits, the wigs, the jewelry, nails and the bra straps that it took me a minute to concentrate on what the case was about. I think the witness/friend was wearing what's called a "cat suit", even though she walked in like a T-Rex. Wow. Stupid dingbat def? How I hate it when you see a woman of that age calling herself "Daddy's Girl". Ugh. Yuck. Gross. I'm pretty sure Daddy must have informed her not to stay with a man who is using her for a punching bag or maybe Daddy didn't do a good job raising her. I'm surprised she finally got out after what seemed to be multiple beatings.

42 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

still not sure about the legality, but guess that's what 'rough justice' is all about

Not much choice when you have a plaintiff who says, "I gave her 100$... or maybe 150$. I dunno" and the def says, "Someone told my friend that they thought they saw someone else driving the car." Whatever. I'm sure in these kinds of nebulous arrangements a judge might be thinking, "Oh, just GTFO of here, you idiots."

[meowmommy]

I don't believe a word that came out of that woman's mouth, but let's assume she's right and she lost her job because of the terrible landlord who creeped her out so much that she walked out on the only room for rent in Palo Alto.  How about a weekly commute, babe?  Drive down from Sacramento early Monday morning, stay in a hotel and check out on Friday, and go back home on Friday night.  A lot cheaper than losing your $57/hr job!

But of course that's not what happened.  She lost her job and looked for a quick excuse to get out of her lease.  And that she tried to make it essentially a MeToo case is just repulsive.

I don't know why the car friends kept the car in the defendant's name while the plaintiff was making payments.  That's not how car dealerships do it.  Sell the car, let the buyer register it and make her own insurance arrangements, and just have a contract for the payments, and give her the title when the payments are complete.  If the buyer doesn't make the payments, sue her for the unpaid balance and go on with your life.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

MM cancels sale and decides to treat time P had car as a rental, so D keeps car but has to return part of money P paid & D has to return P's personal property left in car when she repo'ed car

I don't understand this, as the plaintiff said she wants the car back.  Seems like the way to make it whole is to have the plaintiff make up the missing payments and get the car back.

DD just walked in, saw MM, and asked, "Is it a new season?  I like her hair."

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I don't know why the car friends kept the car in the defendant's name while the plaintiff was making payments.

That's what everyone on this show does! Sell the car for payments, but keep it in your name so if the buyer smashes it up, collects tons of tickets or runs someone down and kills them (or hits a bus load of nuns as JM often says although I'm not sure why it's worse to hit nuns than anyone else but I digress) and you can be responsible for all that. Maybe some people like to live on the edge that way, never knowing when the cops will come a-knocking, but I'm sure not one of them.

30 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I don't understand this, as the plaintiff said she wants the car back.  Seems like the way to make it whole is to have the plaintiff make up the missing payments and get the car back.

I could be mistaken but I think JM said something about not wanting them to have any dealings anymore. I'm not sure why or why she couldn't suggest someone else pick up the car for the plaintiff. We've seen that many times and as far as the run-of-the-mill litigant goes they didn't seem particularly violent.

[DoctorK]

57 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

DD just walked in, saw MM, and asked, "Is it a new season?  I like her hair."

As a minority, I agree, I think it looks nice.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

A lot cheaper than losing your $57/hr job!

That really raised my BS radar, especially if as an employee it included benefits.

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, patty1h said:

The character was Mrs. Wiggins, but her boss pronounced it Hawiggins. 

Actually, she was more like Cher's "Laverne". Start at 0:42