The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

mom sues daughter: 

So mom had four kids and gave them all away? We're not talking "Mother of the Year" here. As much as the daughter frightened me (and of course, she's a "home health aid") I agree that mom, who squirted out one kid after the other, dumped them and never paid anything for them probably did owe the daughter something and her suing for 980$ after raking in 60K was kind of nasty. Daughter needed help to buy a truck, can't pay her rent and her bank account was shut down. Nice job, Momma. JM was disgusted at being forced to award Momma the money - so disgusted she didn't even bother with family counselling. Not sure why she considered the self-serving affidavits from the "kids" who are living on Momma's dime and have no  intention of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Guinea pig non profit scam:

There are all kinds of fancy guinea pigs and I'm not surprised that ones who don't measure up are killed, just like greyhounds who can't run fast enough. This case made me so angry. I did animal rescue for about 6 years and saw people like these - pushing animals out for "adoption" at record speeds for profit, recognition or some other messed-up agenda that did not have the animal's welfare as a priority. There is NO WAY to "adopt" out (Def used the word "sell") all those guinea pigs so swiftly and take care that they go to appropriate homes. This pet store that pays rescues for volume and shoving them out as quickly as possible needs to stop doing that. We kept our animals until appropriate homes were found for them, no matter how long it took.

These people - who both admit they're frauds - just peddled these animals for cash to anyone who wanted them and never checked out the suitablility of the homes first. The goal should be to make sure the animal will never be abandoned/abused again. No way can you do that this quickly. Hated all the litigants here. I had a guinea pig myself. He lived for eight years, his name was William and he adored strawberry jam and drinking tea from a spoon. Guinea pigs are charming, gentle and sweet pets.

[meowmommy]

The next time we'll see blonde extensions will undoubtedly be when she sues the car dealership for something related to her high quality thousand dollar truck.

59 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I agree that mom, who squirted out one kid after the other, dumped them and never paid anything for them probably did owe the daughter something

Mom had a smirk on her face when daughter was explaining about the birth-adoption relationship, when she should have been looking sad.  My DD had to give away her twin girls because she wasn't able to take care of them, and it broke her heart.  Fortunately, the adoptive mom allows DD to visit, and it's the highlight of DD's existence.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

(P is Paula Briggs, who runs Little Angels Animal Sanctuary in NY  which I plan to Google after last case)

They have lots of adorable kitties on their Facebook page.  You would not think from looking at it that this is anything but a legitimate shelter.  Not sure why she would want to go on national TV and expose her organization like this.  

The words "commission" and "animal rescue" should not be used anywhere near each other.

I hate animal breeders.  Did I mention my little sweethearts came from the county animal shelter?

[AngelaHunter]

49 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Mom had a smirk on her face when daughter was explaining about the birth-adoption relationship, when she should have been looking sad. 

She did  have a smirk. That and the fact that she was suing for the 980$ was kind of disgusting. Did she ever think how much it would have cost her to raise 4 kids, instead of farming them out to grandparents and strangers? Not normal, that momma.

51 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I hate animal breeders.  Did I mention my little sweethearts came from the county animal shelter?

Mine too. All my pets came from the street (abandoned and feral cats) and rescues (dogs).

52 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

The words "commission" and "animal rescue" should not be used anywhere near each other.

Outrageous. Anyone collecting a commission (or making a profit) on pets adopted out is not in this for the animal's welfare. Quality needs to take the place of quantity. This kind of shady, money-grubbing operation gives all rescues a bad name and this pet store is complicit in the money-grubbing. "Oh, just give them to anybody who has 25$ to spend so I can collect this big bonus."

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

They have lots of adorable kitties on their Facebook page.  You would not think from looking at it that this is anything but a legitimate shelter.  Not sure why she would want to go on national TV and expose her organization like this.

reading FB page certainly give makes me have second thoughts about my earlier 'scam'  label. Backstory I get from the FB page and a couple Google links - P started out rescuing bunnies, expanded to guinea pigs, (even a hamster adoption post on site) and now is into feral cat TNR & rescuing kittens and getting them adopted. Now I'm leaning more towards D being the self proclaimed scammer and  P as sort of an unorganized lady with some good heart.

It doesn't hurt P that a couple of the kittens on her page look at lot like my two tabby tuxedos - Princess was a rescued stray and her daughter Furby was well on her way towards becoming a feral when trapped.

Added note: reading on down their FB page, looks like they stopped their guinea pig rescue in Sept and converted to focus on cats/kitten/feral cats 

Edited November 23, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Now I'm leaning more towards D being the self proclaimed scammer and  P as sort of an unorganized lady with some good heart.

I don't understand how this works, but plaintiff getting all those guinea pigs - did she say something like 40? - on a Friday and paying the delivery guy 10$/each, dumping them on the pink-haired defs with no vet visits or checkups for them (spending no money on them and surely some of them had to be sick or injured or pregnant), and pink-hair getting rid of them all in two days (How? Virtually impossible) to give the money to plaintiff when she showed up on Mondays to collect her profit is not rescuing. 

[patty1h]

I was so put off by the toothless defendant in the dog attack case ("Muffy" vs "Apocalypse") that I had to push away the mango I was eating.  Ewwww.  I did not see one tooth, which is rare - usually there's one or two visible.   Either he lives off a soft food diet or he left his dentures at home.

[AngelaHunter]

I skipped toothless litigant dog case and did a very rapid FF.

Wow, JM is so utterly fed up and disgusted with stupid cows who will do anything to keep some worthless bum around. In the first cellphone case, plaintiff meets Hussein - don't know how - and very shortly afterwards, puts him on her phone plan. JM wants to know why he, a grown man, can't get his own phone? Well, he has no credit because he doesn't pay his bills. Then plaintiff gets him another phone, because he wanted it. She trusted him, you see, and she has a good heart. Wrong answer! It had nothing to do with her being willing to prostrate herself to keep him cuz he's such a prize. Then plaintiff starts slobbering and squirting out tears, probably for being reamed out by JM for her utterly ridiculous behavior. Oh, no - Hussein gets all his devices, phones, iPad, laptop (all of which he keeps in his car) stolen! Did he call the police? Well, no, he couldn't because he was very busy - his house caught on fire or something. All this nonsense might have been merely amusing in a very sordid way had not we learned that both have children and there allegations of child abuse, texts about beating with belts, etc. Plaintiff admits she reached back in the car to pinch her kid, and accidentally whacked def's kid instead. You don't get to cry, you hosebeast.

Unfortunately the vile plaintiff gets back some money and both of them attempt to retry the case in the hall with Doug. I think JM ran off the bench to take a shower after this debacle.

Then two more stupid cows (and I mean no insult to actual cows who behave much better). Plaintiff says her ex-girlfriend owes her for rent and some other nonsense, after she moved in def and her kids - def is gay but has two babies, aged 1 and 2. I guess she found some sperm donor and figured that since she has off-and-on, minimum wage jobs and seems to be basically homeless that was a really good time to start squatting and squirting out poor little babies. Plaintiff met her on FB and decided to invite her and her kids to come live with her after knowing her for three days. She - all together now - has a BIG HEART. Wrong answer again. Don't any of these morons watch this show before coming here and feeding their BS to JM? Plaintiff wants money because she says that def's 2-year-old, when left alone, removed his diaper and flung poop all over the place, wrecking the carpet that plaintiff had already wrecked by burning it with an iron. It was all so deplorable and squicky and disgusted me so much that any cretin can have as many babies as they want I didn't even finish this. 🤢

[meowmommy]

A veritable cascade of stupid.  When will these airheads get it into that vast available space between their ears that if Sprint, who can afford a bad customer or two, doesn't think someone's credit is good enough to do business with them, that maybe you shouldn't, either?

And then, oh, Sprint kept shutting off the phone, mean them.  Why?  Oh, because your BF told you not to pay the bill.  How rude of Sprint.  The phone got shut off for four days, so instead of paying the damn phone bill, you go buy another phone and go on your father's plan, and take your BF with you (stupid father).  And then give the phone and iPad to your BF.  And you still owe on the unpaid Sprint bill on top of the new phone, now with late fees and collection charges.

And then crocodile tears.  And pain and suffering because your relationship with Sprint is damaged.  That's a new one on alienation of affection, methinks.  Do these morons ever watch TPC?

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

I was so put off by the toothless defendant in the dog attack case ("Muffy" vs "Apocalypse") that I had to push away the mango I was eating.

I guess he has his dog do all his biting for him.

Does the plaintiff need a reminder of when he was born?  Is that why his sweatshirt says 1994?

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I skipped toothless litigant dog case and did a very rapid FF.

I watched the first part but both of the male litigants spoke so sloooooowly that I had to FF, too.  I couldn't take it.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Plaintiff met her on FB and decided to invite her and her kids to come live with her after knowing her for three days. She - all together now - has a BIG HEART.

And then another pair who got all dolled up for court/national TV.  Jeans?  Really?  WTH was on defendant's head, other than greasy black roots on top and striped extensions?

How do you meet on FB?  Isn't it pretty much limited to people you already know?  And someone I'd just met who unloaded a horrible, detailed sob story would pretty make me run screaming for the exit, but no, our good hearted plaintiff brings her into her home.  And her kids.  Who are left alone enough to throw their diaper across the room.  Perhaps she should learn date first, move in second?

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

How do you meet on FB?  Isn't it pretty much limited to people you already know? 

I have no idea. Is there some section for people with really big hearts to seach for marginal, dim-witted losers to move into their homes? Bonus if there's a couple of babies with them. You can have sex without so much trouble. 

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

And then another pair who got all dolled up for court/national TV. 

The results were disappointing and not nearly as alluring as they thought they were. At least we know that transient, semi-unemployed SSMO2 didn't spend much on that hideous extension.

Edited November 27, 2019 by AngelaHunter
Because wine makes me forget how to spell

[SRTouch]

Ok, hectic week and I have 5 unwatched days of TPC on the DVR. Instead of beginning viewing Monday I decided to start with today's and do a short recap - almost regretted my decision when I heard first case intro mention 'dog,' but turned out case really about a dog training and not some injury or attack..... only 2 cases today

1. bad dog trainer: case more about P hiring a 'professional' who failed to do a job than about a dog..... P had a puppy, and mutual friend who knew D was a dog trainer, so they got together and P ended up giving D over $1100 to train the pup. If you listen to D he's a world class trainer, trains service dogs, police dogs, etc etc - lots of claims with little evidence of his amazing proficiency..... really doesn't mean much to case, but P manages to bring up questions about D's guns, sex life, beer drinking, and suspended driver's license (6 speeding tickets according to D).... Trainer does have a point when he says no matter how well the puppy was progressing while under trainer's care, it's pointless if owner doesn't do her part when pup is at home..... Heck, I remember watching Cesar have problems training dogs when owners didn't follow through - really telling to me is that even now P talks about dog not being housebroken...... Thing is, he has nothing showing he did any training. Heck, as MM points out, when P picks up the dog after it had been with the trainer for 4 full days, D didn't even offer show his client the dog obeying simple obedience commands. Also, I was not happy to hear our professional trainer was quick to resort to a shock collar after telling P he wouldn't be using one. (According to p only command dog obeyed was 'sit.') Along with his failings as a trainer, apparently he knows nothing about professional boundaries. Seeing as how they had a mutual friend, he decided it'd be cool to add his new client to his friends list on FB and started sending her questionable posts about his guns, booze, and off color memes. Course, now p says she was offended, but at time she was responding with smiley faces and haha emojis. In the end, dog owner lectured on need to do her part in the training, and trainer told his 'contract' is way to loosey-goosey and he needs to learn to treat clients professionally. Owner gets half her money back. Barely touched on, D's $2500 defamation countersuit tossed as he has no evidence of anything except P stating her opinion.
2. Ex roomie breakup: platonic flatmate situation falls apart when D moves in a bf and expects P to continue to pay half the rent/expenses - P says D locked him out and kept his stuff - wants 5 grand...... D argues her bf paid a third of the expenses during short period he lived there while looking for new place - says P left on his own and that she made numerous attempts to get him to come get his crapola, but he refused..... countersuit for $931 worth of rent/expenses owed when P moved out...... no mention by D about a lockout during intro, but preview has MM yelling about D illegally locking P out...... wow, when P starts out he's way more organized than expected in these type cases - he gives us dollar amounts of various utilities before and after the bf moved in, and MM verifies with D that P was footing 50% of the bills (she argues bf contributed, but turns out bf paid half her 50% not a third of the total)..... turns out, though, that P unilaterally changed rental agreement and only paid a third last month before the lockout.... when bills come in after a month of bf being there, P adds everything up, and instead of paying his rent he sends text to D (who is actually his landlord as she's subleasing room to P) explaining why he thinks he should be paying 1/3 not 1/2 of bills - D responds to his text by giving him a 3 days notice - when he comes home from work 4 days later he finds his key no longer works - and all his clothes and some of his furniture is in hallway.... time for commercial, then MM tries to teach yet another landlord that landlords have rules they have to follow...... pretty straight forward so far, P has dates and figures backed up by texts - unless there's major switcheroo coming P will win, only question is will he get the asked for 5 grand...... oh, and D has the bf here, and when MM starts asking him questions it turns out bf was paying more then 50% of the rent..... sounds to me like bf was paying 50% of total bills, P paying 50% and D not paying anything (turns out part of reason she couldn't meet and return P's stuff was a vacation in the Bahamas) - and forget bf just being there temporarily, dude has job out of town, but this is where he lives when in town..... yep, and so much for D intro about her trying to arrange time for P to pick up his stuff, turns out texts show just the opposite - it was P setting up times and D ignoring him - after text exchange where it appears a time has been set up he shows up with a U-HAUL, helpers and a police escort she's a no-show and doesn't get back in touch until that night.... oh, and all the time this is coming out in court, with MM telling her she has some nerve, defendant is smiling and treating it as a joke - man, I want MM to just give P everything he asked for denied if he can only prove his stuff was only worth a couple hundred..... one hiccup in the case is that D sent text saying she had already disposed of P's property, but miraculously, once she gets served stuff reappears and now is available to be returned...... 😐 sounds like MM is trimming stuff off P's claim (ok, yeah even at best he would have had trouble getting 5 grand)...... forget everybody suing for 5 grand, in the end both sides get a fraction of their claim, with P coming out with under $300 and chance to get back his stuff - which I wouldn't trust D to actually give back after she has already claimed in a text to have disposed of.

Edited November 30, 2019 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

Two case day, but I zipped through second roomie kerfuffle

1. landscape design fail: P paid big bucks for landscape design, says designer did nada, wants full refund - 3 grand...... designer argues he did plans, submitted multiple (11 total) design drawings, when he scheduled a construction start date he says P notifies him to forget it, he's hiring someone else...... sounds like big time landscape job, including install your irrigation system and a pond - right off bat, no way P gets full refund if D can prove the he did work........ D not only wants to keep 3 grand retainer, but wants additional 5 grand he says represents lost wages when P pulled plug on project........ yep, big time landscape project, MM tells us total bill would have been $60,000 - lots of money and really not much room in the yard (which started out as a concrete slab)....... ok, P not looking for full refund of retainer - retainer was $4,500 and he's asking for 3 grand back..... they had a written contract for the retainer, but that was just for the design planning, with a subsequent contract to be signed if P decides to go ahead after approving plans - D just said they never signed that subsequent contract, so no sure where he got idea P owes 5 grand for not going ahead with construction...... oops, P seems to be trying to pull wool over da'judge's eyes - both sides agree designer submitted 3 color, full-sized concept drawings, and when MM asks to see the drawings P hands up drawings on 8x11 paper while designer shows us big full sized copies of designs - MM not happy to learn P was given full sized drawings, which he left at home and brought these reduced sized drawings to court - oh, and the originals, which P left at home, were color coded...... P not looking good here, he left the actual plans at home, and now is complaining about lack of detail in the preliminary sketches (which MM dismisses, saying she wouldn't expect detailed measurements and material listing with the first draft) - and P complaining about designer not keeping in touch after drawings have been approved, but sounds like there was a 6 months period after he approved the plans before P wanted construction to begin (plan was rented and tenant moving out in 6 months).... so designer puts the plans on back burner until a couple weeks before tenant due to leave, then sends P additional detailed drawings..... ah, wonder if P didn't have second thoughts about the big bucks it was going to take and decide to go with cheaper design..... ok, turns out they got into it over what wood the fence was going to be made out of - not talking treated pine here, designer wanted to use mahogany while P wanted to go with epay. (Epay, aka ipe, wood is an imported hardwood - very dense and hard to work with, but lasts for decades - very good outdoor project wood choice if you disregard how much of the rainforests has to be cut to harvest the lumber) both sides are not arguing about how well their choice would work as a fencing material, they're arguing about where the lumber comes from and how harvesting the trees impact the world's forests - me, I'm thinking why not composite - lasts forever, can have just about any texture/color imaginable - nah, guess it wouldn't fit in this $60,000 backyard garden....... anyway, designer tries to argue environmental impact on the rainforests, climate warming, etc etc, but MM reigns him in and sounds like she's about over both these fools...... she starts in on defendant's claim for lost wages on a project he doesn't have a contract for - uh no to 5 grand in wages for job D wasn't hired to do....... now over to case in chief - we know D did work, what part of the design work, MM asks P, does he feel was not done - P says none of the design was completed.... we know that isn't true, but so far I haven't heard of completed design for anything except the fence so P would be entitled to a partial refund....... I was leaning towards D's side, but his position that he deserves to keep the money for a design that was never completed is not going to fly...... measly mouth designer trying to spin his failure (well, no plan was never 'technically' complete) to deliver a completed design, but MM cuts him off and awards P a grand (not the asked for 3 grand)...... course both sides come out thinking they were ripped off....... 
2. ex-roomie fight: p says it got too point where she couldn't take D's controlling ways - says when she moved out D wouldn't let her take all her stuff, wants $1700+...... wheelchair bound D argues P was verbally and physically abusive, stole stuff and left owing for utilities - countersuing for $2100+ (actually, turns out it was a walker, and part of counterclaim is from when P allegedly tossed walker down stairs/steps)....... watching sour puss P storm into courtroom would be enough for me to veto idea of renting a room to her in my house, and hearing D talk in preview is like chalkboard screech - nope, wouldn't want to rent a room with her........ actually, don't really even want to listen to these two, so I just hold down the FF button and zip through to decision..... just as well, I need to head out to the lab for results from last week's tests for doctor's appointment tomorrow  (which BTW will prompt tomorrow's recap)....... anyway, MM P awards $481 

[patty1h]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

ex-roomie fight: p says it got too point where she couldn't take D's controlling ways - says when she moved out D wouldn't let her take all her stuff, wants $1700+.

This was a case of multiple bad decisions... don't take in a homeless woman when the only relationship you had with her was seeing her at the bus stop, especially a woman who decided  to sleep in a tent instead of a homeless shelter.  Don't let homeless chick become your rent-free care giver.  Don't expect her to be responsible especially after the incident where she's so involved in video games that she craps herself on your floor instead of going to the bathroom.  Don't become the care giver of a woman who can't get utilities in her own name and wants you to sign up for them.  Don't become the care giver of a woman who says she only has a 3rd grade education.   That is just the tip of the dysfunctional-ness of this group. Add to this stolen jewelry, restraining orders, soiled mattresses, damaged furniture, maggots on a toilet, broken walkers, a missing nebulizer - so much drama!

The wheelchair woman said something about a boyfriend... do you think that old dude sitting next to her was the boyfriend?   Ewwww.

Edited December 2, 2019 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

landscape design fail:

I loved this. I always enjoy contract cases. It was enchanting listening to litigants who earn their own living,  committed no acts of vandalism or violence, who haven't been repeatedly incarcerated and who could actually speak their own language beyond a kindergarten level. Yes, plaintiff is a nit-picky, irritating dweeb, but for that kind of money he has the right to be. However, he really let me down with his dreary, stupid, "Yes, I have the evidence that would win this case for me, but it's AT HOME. Why would you expect me to bring it?" This excuse is so insulting to JM, as though he thinks she'll take his word for it, instead of thinking that he didn't bring it because he knew it would hurt him and JM is too stupid to realize that. It didn't matter in the end because designer with 33 years experience never got a signed contract for the work or submitted a complete plan. Interesting case and a nice change from the usual sordid dreck.

Maybe I should have listened to Levin and his Clown Posse outside. I'm sure they had all kinds of insightful and educated comments about design.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ex-roomie fight:

And then we're back to Looney Town and the Freak Show. I had a stroke some eight years ago and I'm trying to imagine meeting someone at the grocery store who tells me she's homeless and living in a tent and me immediately inviting her to live in my home. Is she a mental patient, a drug addict, a convicted felon? Who knows? Just come live with me. Def was weird beyond belief and spoke like a cartoon, but even she paled in comparison to the plaintiff freely admitting that sure, she shat on the floor. She was busy and couldn't get to the bathroom. What's the big deal?  WTF??? Everything else - her saying her own complaint was false, that she was suppposed to live there and "do nothing" even though from the huge kindness of her heart she agreed to do something, like take def. to the supermarket and just leave her there, all paled in comparison to the shitting incident. She "barely parked her butt" on the sofa arm and it broke? That butt could break a 2x4. Wherever she is now, at least we know she's never gone hungry.

I bet Levin was creaming his panties over this case.

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

The wheelchair woman said something about a boyfriend... do you think that old dude sitting next to her was the boyfriend?   Ewwww.

He very well could be. The pickin's are probably slim for this defendant. The 1 1/2" blue fake nails were not a plus.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"It started to go bad around Christmastime, but even though it was terrible I stayed until July."

..........

FFS.

[JD5166]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I loved this. I always enjoy contract cases. It was enchanting listening to litigants who earn their own living,  committed no acts of vandalism or violence, who haven't been repeatedly incarcerated and who could actually speak their own language beyond a kindergarten level. Yes, plaintiff is a nit-picky, irritating dweeb, but for that kind of money he has the right to be. However, he really let me down with his dreary, stupid, "Yes, I have the evidence that would win this case for me, but it's AT HOME. Why would you expect me to bring it?" This excuse is so insulting to JM, as though he thinks she'll take his word for it, instead of thinking that he didn't bring it because he knew it would hurt him and JM is too stupid to realize that. It didn't matter in the end because designer with 33 years experience never got a signed contract for the work or submitted a complete plan. Interesting case and a nice change from the usual sordid dreck.

Maybe I should have listened to Levin and his Clown Posse outside. I'm sure they had all kinds of insightful and educated comments about design.

And then we're back to Looney Town and the Freak Show. I had a stroke some eight years ago and I'm trying to imagine meeting someone at the grocery store who tells me she's homeless and living in a tent and me immediately inviting her to live in my home. Is she a mental patient, a drug addict, a convicted felon? Who knows? Just come live with me. Def was weird beyond belief and spoke like a cartoon, but even she paled in comparison to the plaintiff freely admitting that sure, she shat on the floor. She was busy and couldn't get to the bathroom. What's the big deal?  WTF??? Everything else - her saying her own complaint was false, that she was suppposed to live there and "do nothing" even though from the huge kindness of her heart she agreed to do something, like take def. to the supermarket and just leave her there, all paled in comparison to the shitting incident. She "barely parked her butt" on the sofa arm and it broke? That butt could break a 2x4. Wherever she is now, at least we know she's never gone hungry.

I bet Levin was creaming his panties over this case.

He very well could be. The pickin's are probably slim for this defendant. The 1 1/2" blue fake nails were not a plus.

She needed someone to put the utilities and cable in their name! Very scary, they were obviously both trash....but this is how ID stories end up happening! 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, JD5166 said:

She needed someone to put the utilities and cable in their name! Very scary, they were obviously both trash....but this is how ID stories end up happening! 

For sure. People invite total strangers in dire situations - tent-dwellers, ex-convicts, complete strangers from CL, some guy they met at the gas station - to live with them and then get outraged when all is not peace and harmony. It never enters their minds that it could end in assault, robbery or murder. I wouldn't let some stranger come in to use my phone, never mind move into one of my bedrooms. Honestly, I don't know how half the litigants here have managed to stay alive as long as they have. I'd rather bunk at the zoo than live with either of these two nutcases.

[patty1h]

I just got a flash of who wheelchair girl reminded me of... an adult Honey Boo Boo, if HBB really hits the skids.

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, patty1h said:

I just got a flash of who wheelchair girl reminded me of... an adult Honey Boo Boo, if HBB really hits the skids.

She absolutely does resemble her!

[Florinaldo]

23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

landscape design fail:

Plaintiff certainly has grand and pretentious designs for his puny concrete backyard. But hey; no one tells me what to with my disposable income, so he can absolutely do what he wishes for with his.

However, I thought that he breached the contract and prevented the defendant from completing the design work, and so should not have been awarded a penny.

23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ex-roomie fight:

When I saw the mountainous plaintiff charging in the courtroom, with various bulges jiggling all over, I was expecting her to be the major villain in the case. But as soon a the defendant opened her mouth, it was a toss-up. That young harridan who uses her wheelchair as a pretext to be angry at the whole world and replies to the most basic question with a full charge of hostility was quite something to behold. Imagine her in 30 or 40 years, how her character will certainly become even more mellifluous with age...

This was another case where you wonder if the litigants fully pondered beforehand whether it was really worth exposing on national TV the sordid and disgusting details of their daily lives, in exchange for a free trip and getting a chance at a portion of the award kitty.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The ex-roomie fight was amazing, because I really expected it to air on ID channel after one killed the other.   

I saw the ridiculous re-run of the 13 years having a prom, (actually the defendant's 2 13 year olds, and her 18 year old on the same day), and plaintiff's 13 year old getting told he's not going to prom, but supposedly the school only told the mother the day of the prom.   Either the mother lied about the fact the school never told her anything, or there was nothing academic involved in the son's ban from the prom.    My guess is the son did something vile, and was banned from school events, and the mother thought she could ignore that.     I wonder how much all of the proms cost the mothers?    And anyone who has a limo for a 13 year old's prom is ludicrous.  

Judge M certainly swallowed the plaintiff's bizarre story blaming the school for everything, without proof, and her criticism of the school was wrong.    There was no proof except what the mother said, and I was glad that the plaintiff received nothing.    There is no way a limo company would refund the same day of the event anyway.  

Edited December 3, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

46 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

This was another case where you wonder if the litigants fully pondered beforehand whether it was really worth exposing on national TV the sordid and disgusting details of their daily lives, in exchange for a free trip and getting a chance at a portion of the award kitty.

I really believe they don't see it all as sordid and disgusting. I think to them and those around them this is just how they live their lives. It's normal. Getting arrested, going to jail, doing drugs, getting into fistfights in public, crapping on the floor(!!) - all just, "Well, yeah." 

[VartanFan]

Today’s case if the goldendoodle breeder who wouldn’t give back the deposit. I swear the D has just recently been on either this show or JJ. Somebody help me out here!

[Bramble]

2 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Today’s case if the goldendoodle breeder who wouldn’t give back the deposit. I swear the D has just recently been on either this show or JJ. Somebody help me out here!

I think she was also the defendant in the recent dog boarding case (from this show) where the dog got a horrific gash in its paw. 

Yep, just went back to check the Nov 28th show. Same defendant, Kelli Jo. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Bramble

[Broderbits]

18 hours ago, Bramble said:

I think she was also the defendant in the recent dog boarding case (from this show) where the dog got a horrific gash in its paw. 

Yep, just went back to check the Nov 28th show. Same defendant, Kelli Jo.

What kind of idiot business owner would want to be sued on national tv twice?!

[SRTouch]

Ok, little personal backstory before recap..... I was at work last night around 1130 when I received call that neighbor heard water running/dripping under my trailer - long story short, need new water heater and am currently waiting for the plumber.... I only mention this because I may end this recap at any time as he was to show up "in 3-4" hours when I called 3 hours ago

1. hooptie purchase gone wrong: one of those hooptie-without-title cases - P wants $2500 since she can't register the car...... defendant's intro doesn't even mention the title issue - she's hung up on fact that, when D got upset over the sale her crazy bf came over and cause $3 grand worth of damages to her mama's veeHICkle - interesting, though D claims $3,300 in damage intro doesn't mention a countersuit..... well, at least this isn't a CL deal gone awry - nope, P was buying hooptie from cross the street neighbor - oh, but when things blew up calls were called and P was arrested according to D (so must not have just been bf getting out of control)..... right away MM establishes P really reaching going for $2500 - seems purchase price was $1150, but she didn't have the cash so took out a loan, which with interest came to $1700..... huh, must be some interest rate - maybe we're talking high interest plus late charges...... anyway, P's theory for why D should pay P's loan off is that D refused to return her money when it turned out car couldn't be registered..... ok, wasted time while MM grills D on the title - she jumped title, says she has temporary registration while waiting for emission certification - pretty simple, car sale isn't valid because of the jumped title - D relying on her temporary registration, but I imagine P is right when she says emission certification had to be completed withing 10 days - so I'm guessing since P didn't get it smogged within 10 days after she bought hooptie, there are a bunch of hoops that need to be jumped by original seller plus D before P can get a clean title....... and did they say where these folks come from (later there's some yakity yak about original seller being in Missouri, but not sure where these folks live) - pretty sure California makes seller do any needed emissions work, so that would mean original seller would pay for needed work when D bought it, and then D pays for any additional after she registered it - no wait, she never registered it so it goes back to original seller - no - wait again - if P is right about a 10 day grace period and D had it for months, is it too late to stick it with original seller..... this case is interesting just because of all these twists and turns - and we haven't even gotten to P's bf ramming D's momma's car or the arrests...... more time wasted over title with momma claiming DMV told her P could get title without following the law - right, MM says, prove that - course she can't (poor Douglas gets a workout running her "proof" back and forth before MM moves on to bf's bumper car tantrum).... hokay! D talks of idiot actually caught on camera as he did his bumper car thing...... ah, nah, no videos of the smashup, but when it happened (at 5am) momma woke up and came out to see idiot trying to get his car out of her backseat - more useless back and forth as they argue whether or not P was in car with bf (or maybe fiance, or even her hubby, these folks are as confused about that as everything else).... to make the story even more hilarious, bf/fiance/hubby was driving his own car - which D says had no plate, was not registered nor insured..... ok - more back and forth about whatever they're blabbering on about - we see the video, but really it's so shaking and not sure what we're supposed to see - visually not worth much, but the sound certainly doesn't paint P or bf in very favorable light (well, according to D bf split after crash and left P passed out drunk/high in passenger seat - not sure I heard P's explanation of what she was doing outside trying to fight when cops arrive) and a neighbor is shown separating the litigants as they want to fight each other (not smart on P's part - I think momma could whip her AND her son/witness without D daughter's help)....... when cops arrive P arrested for trying to fight D momma, bf/hubby in the wind, though D say there's a warrant out...... ok, 'bout over these fools - since hooptie sale never legit, I say that gets rewound, not too sure about the extra for the loan, and still haven't heard how the $1700 for hooptie made the leap to $2500 claim - maybe reason there's no counterclaim due to pending criminal cases and fact hubby was driving and not P...... ok, MM puts on her counselor hat and I zip ahead..... decision time - seems the extra money is to garage the car (can't park it on street as it's unregistered - though apparently hubby has place to park his unregistered/insured car) - nope, when asked P can't show a penny spent on storing car - same with the loan sharky loan - not up to D to pay off loan - and of course no claim would be complete without litigant asking for pain and suffering - nope, not happening - ah, but it is up to D to return the $1150 purchase price for car with jumped title...... $1150 goes to  P and D gets return of hooptie.... D not happy with having to return money, not sure if she was lapping off to MM or trash talking to P, but MM tells her to "stop talking".... she apparently took MM's order to heart, as Doug has to really work to get a hallterview out of her
2. patio unlevel: p paid for backyard patio, but thing is so out of level it's a mess - wants $1140...... D says homeowner was satisfied when job completed, even hired him for additional job..... uh oh, may not go well for P - she's suing over job D did to extend her existing patio, but when asked if her picture is the original patio or the extension she isn't sure (could be question of her eyesight as she's wearing coke bottle lens in a frame) - another pic shows why she's upset - the add-on section turns into a wading pool when it rains.... ok, seems this was patio made with pavers - not something I've done, but his description of the installation matches what I would expect after years of watching This Old House - ah, but then he explains he didn't actually followed the normal installation - seems customer asked him to switch the levels of materials around, which resulted in foundation of sand and rock settling - ok, dude, if you didn't follow installation procedures and it failed, shame on you,  you're the professional and you're following directions from amateur DYI'er..... if I'm understanding this right, he was supposed to put down landscaping fabric then put a bed of rocks on top for the foundation - instead, P wanted the fabric on top 9f the rocks to keep weeds from sprouting - when he did it her way, the rocks settled into the earth/sand below...... if she insisted on fabric on top of rocks, why didn't he counter with suggestion of fabric both above and below rocks - wouldn't add much to cost, and way cheaper than digging it up and redoing job..... uh oh, back to P and she doesn't help her case much - she doesn't argue she suggested putting Fabric on top of rocks, but says she didn't insist he do it that way after he told her it wasn't a good idea - says she didn't know he did until he came up with it as the reason it was so out of whack...... ok, clock ticking and expect ruling after break..... not sure how much, but I think D owes at least partial refund - properly installed that patio should be good for years and years, instead it needs to be replaced in 1 year, and I don't buy D's "she's the customer, so she's the boss".....  for those who avoid shorty and the peanut gallery on the street, slow your roll and look at the Reuben (pup probably the smartest in the crowd).... ok, not thinking much of defendant's work, but not MM ready to ask about why the heck would homeowner hire D to come back 11 months later for a different job........ yep, after 11 months she brings him back to lay more pavers (this time a walkway to the terrible patio) and then a week after he finished the walkway he gets served with lawsuit for patio - yep and when D passes up his phone for MM to read their texts she catches P in big lie about not even knowing about fabric being out of sequence...... MM does not appreciate the lies and dismisses case (I would have been happier had she slapped D a little, even if it was only $100 - to me he admits he knows how to install pavers,  and I think he should have stuck to his guns..... oh, and MM thinks reason the pool forms is that the fabric restricts the water from draining - nah, I may be wrong (but I think it has more to do with the gravel sinking into the sand when there is no fabric) - when I Google it, it says the fabric allows water through - but some has an up and down side, so that you can slow drainage by putting the upside down and downside up..... case dismissed
3. dog napper: convoluted family case where P suing 11 yo son's half sister for stealing dog - says she wants the dog back, and if not the dog the $1800 she claims dog is worth....... 44yo D claims she saw the dog was being neglected, so when brother brought dog over she refused to return it...... ok, 2 of my cats came to me after being neglected, and I essentially stole them by refusing to return them when their owners tried to reclaim them........ seems 44yo's dad also dad to P's 11yo. Seems big sis had taken Pops to an appointment and he had a heart attack enroute - sis calls 911, is talked through CPR, but dad doesn'the make it..... to make it worse, 11yo in car and witnesses dad passing away - dang, poor kid - and instead of family banding together, here they are on national tv airing laundry...... seems dog was family pet,  given to pops back in '15, pops lived with P, so has been in her home with her 3 kids for 3 years...... ok, the week pops died the 11yo goes to visit with his 44yo sis, and on way out door asks if he can take the family dog along...... this is tough one, and not necessarily one I would decide following the law (one thing I like about JJ is she sometimes tosses legality to the wind and settles these cases on what would be best for the animal) - to me, it'll come down to whether D can prove the dog was neglected..... nope, not hearing much in way of proof - says dogs smelled bad, and she could feel his ribs, she gives it a bath, waits a week to bathe it again - sorry, must have missed a wellness check at the vet - IIRC this is a senior dog, so there could be medical reasons for everything D is claiming - her answer to MM is that the aunt who gave dog to pops years and years ago told her (D) to keep the dog - her once good relationship with 11yo has ended, mom (P) has severed communications (not to mention 2 other kids who have lost pops (even though not biological, my understanding is he lived with them) and now the family dog has been stolen...... D looks to be losing big time, so now she just remembered how 11yo told her he was being abused in the home..... huh!?! So surely his big sis immediately was reporting that to child services - nah, no report and not even worth mentioning in her answer to the complaint...... soooooo no vet report, no call to child services, nada but her word on the dog neglect and child abuse...... ok, MM going to do a text dive to see if sis ever mentioned neglect/abuse - nah, what I'm hearing is D offering to return the dog if P gives her pops stuff left in P's house when he died (worth noting, MM was giving P hard time for offering printed copies and not having the actual texts, so these texts are being read from D's phone).... turns out the dog is just a pawn in the game D is playing - Pops is in line for some money from grandma's estate, died without a will, and family vultures are circling for a cut of the action - D says she's been appointed executor of dad's estate, they're going through probate, and she wants any of daddy's papers he left in a safe at P's house - oh, and MM shuts that line down when she points out that the probate court decides who will be the executor, and D admits she has not, in fact been appointed executor of anything - oh, from what MM just said pops has a total of 12 kids (all three of P's kids) and had a different wife when he died (but living in P's house?)..... anyway, not sure why D figures she's entitled to things anymore than any of the other 11 offspring........ oh shoot, back to wishing JJ was hearing this as she would probably go ahead and order dog back home to her 9f 3-4 years - instead MM is treating dog as pops' property, and is going leave him in limbo til probate is settled

Ok, plumber finally called and on way - only 4 hours late

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

What kind of idiot business owner would want to be sued on national tv twice?!

Did I understand that there have now been 3 dogs that this doggy day care has messed up - the earlier case about a cut paw, this case where she collected a deposit but refused to give P a puppy from later litter, then I believe a third case where dog was attacked and ultimately died, but defendant lied to owner about cause....... my word, you have to wonder why she agreed to appear

[AngelaHunter]

27 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

hooptie purchase gone wrong:

We're back to dull-witted savages. I swear I could write this script in my sleep. Nitwit and dopey son decide to buy ancient beater from the neighbour for 1100$, and give a 600$ deposit. Surprise, they can't register the thing since the title is messed up. Buyer goes into mad-tantrum mode, and her boyfriend/husband/fiance smashes his car into seller's car just to get even, because he has no self-control. He doesn't care if he dies - for 600$!!-  but it seems he does care if he gets arrested because he runs off into the sunset. The video of the screaming and cursing on the street was disgusting. Such lowlifes.  Plaintiff wants money for - what else? - "pain and suffering". What a hosebeast. JM actually wasted time trying to school sonnyboy on the way civilized people behave as he stares at her with glazed eyes. Yeah, good luck with that. Momma has taught him to react to disgreements with violence and vandalism. It wasn't her fault, though, since she was passed out in the front seat when boyfriend/husband goes on a rampage.

The nasty, pop-eyed patio scammer was marginally better, other than the fact that she is a liar trying to scam a free patio. OH, she didn't hire him again the next year to put down more patio stones, except she did. "He did a great job with the garden beds.' But she couldn't have known that then, since he messed up the patio. Okay, her text to the patio guy? "This is a total canard." Where I live, "canard" is French for "duck." So just what the hell was she trying to say? Usually I can figure out what the litigants mean, even when they use mangled English, but in this case I'm lost. I was glad JM blasted her and threw her out with nothing. And Mr. Page? I need some work of that type done and I would hire you!

I get what JM says and that he should have refused to do the janky job plaintiff wanted, but people have bills to pay. He could have written a contract saying he was doing this job as per the client's wish and could not guarantee it, I suppose.

Skipped dog case.

[Bramble]

24 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Did I understand that there have now been 3 dogs that this doggy day care has messed up - the earlier case about a cut paw, this case where she collected a deposit but refused to give P a puppy from later litter, then I believe a third case where dog was attacked and ultimately died, but defendant lied to owner about cause....... my word, you have to wonder why she agreed to appear

If you google her, there's apparently been other incidents as well.  (As referenced by the Plaintiff in the puppy case who found a facebook page targeted at the Defendent)

Its interesting, she came off a lot better in her first appearance, but no incidents with other dogs were brought up then.  It just seemed like the husky had an unfortunate accident at the doggie day care, and Kelli Jo was really upset about it, and missed having the dog around (he was a regular before the cut).  But there was just a communication problem, and she never knew about the Plaintiff's attempts to contact her by phone and email to talk about the vet bills.  And in the end there was a pretty ironclad contract releasing the doggie day care from any liability.

Its only when you add the context from the second case and the other incidents with dogs in her care that you realize she's probably a total piece of work and liar.  She should have stopped while she was ahead.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, her text to the patio guy? "This is a total canard." Where I live, "canard" is French for "duck." So just what the hell was she trying to say? Usually I can figure out what the litigants mean, even when they use mangled English, but in this case I'm lost.

'Canard' also means an unfounded rumor or story. I didn't catch what she was saying was a rumor, but it's a word with a dual meaning.

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

'Canard' also means an unfounded rumor or story.

Another meaning is in aircraft design where there are small winglets in front of the main wing, apparently from canard being something that looks wrong or misleading, as applied to aircraft looking like the plane is flying backwards with the "tail control surfaces" in front of the wing.

https://www.pinterest.com/reynaldorodrigu/canard-airplanes/

[Florinaldo]

In French "canard" can also refer to, amongst other things, a fake news item or a false rumour. but that usage is more frequent in France than in Canada.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

'Canard' also means an unfounded rumor or story. I didn't catch what she was saying was a rumor, but it's a word with a dual meaning.

Wow. Interesting. I never heard that word being used by someone who is English-speaking. Pretty fancy for a lying petty scammer.

[Bazinga]

On 10/31/2019 at 4:03 PM, Bazinga said:

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.

I am quoting my comment about a similar case to the patio contractor from about a month ago. 

Recall the case of the contractor who redid the steps of the nurse who, because she couldn't afford more, insisted the defendant use thinner paving stones that didn't hold for long.  This was the case where JM had to have the defendant's wife step in and explain, as he was so "hotheaded" and it was so difficult to understand, what he had done that the plaintiff's follow-up contractor was taking credit for.  Thing is he wasn't hard to understand, hotheaded or belligerent, JM was being sexist in having to have the stereotypical calm wife step in to smooth things over for her hotheaded husband.  If the sexes were reversed, this would not fly.  Oh, we are talking finance or mechanical stuff, your husband should take over and explain for you, as you are a female and couldn't possibly explain the situation.  After all, it is "cute" and played for laughs to be sexist against men.  But, getting off topic. The verdict in that case was the contractor had to return $500.  As I explained above, that made no sense.  JM decided the problem was the thin stones not defendant's bad workmanship (if it were his bad workmanship, he should have had to pay back more than a token amount of $500; so definitely wasn't his work that was found to be at fault).  Defendant told plaintiff not to use thin stones, just like this defendant told the insisting plaintiff her desired method was wrong, but went along with it.   The only differences that I can see between the two cases are that in today's case, it is a bit more blatant that plaintiff knew the defendant's work was not at fault, due to plaintiff using him further and the plaintiff tried to deny she wanted the material put down in the wrong order but was tripped up by her text messages.  In the earlier case, JM was clear in deciding it was the thin stones that were the problem and that the defendant had warned plaintiff they would not work and, in that case, we had clear proof that thicker stones solved the problem, as the work had been done that way by another and held, which is not even true in this case.  We really don't have proof beyond defendant's say so that his preferred method would have prevented the problem.  Plaintiff was trying to blame the water pooling on the ground not being made level.  Why are we so sure the defendant here is right?  In the prior case, the plaintiff also tried to shift blame to the contractor for the choice, until she finally admitted she didn't have the money to do it his way.  Same lie but not called a lie in the earlier case.  JM reacting to the plaintiff as being a liar and not harping on the prior plaintiff as having lied, though she did and only came clean when it was proven that she had wanted the thin stones due to money being short.  The situations are in fact exactly the same, in my opinion.  The defendant in the earlier case had told the plaintiff the correct materials she would need for the job, he did nothing wrong in his installation, he went back repeatedly to try to correct, the job was only right when done the way the defendant said it should be done in the first place and he still had to give her back $500, to basically make plaintiff even with what he wanted to charge in the first place, though money that would have went to the defendant was now in some other contractor's pocket.  At that time, the thought of other posters was that he is the expert and should not have done the job.  How can that explanation work with the verdict in this case?  I didn't like that decision then and this inconsistent follow-up makes that decision seem even worse to me.  I hate, what I consider to be, arbitrary decisions. That these two factually similar cases do not result in the same verdict, bothers me.  Like the near in time dog bite cases, where one set of plaintiffs bizarrely didn't recover vet bills because their dog happened to die while the dog owners whose dog didn't die, recovered.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Bazinga

[SRTouch]

15 hours ago, Bramble said:

If you google her, there's apparently been other incidents as well.  (As referenced by the Plaintiff in the puppy case who found a facebook page targeted at the Defendent)

I shouldn't be all that amazed that people still leave their dogs in her care despite her having appearances on national tv and of both regular and social media articles/posts. I mean some of these people treat their dogs like their children - the children they dump into day care without bothering to read reviews or check for licenses and/or background 

[AngelaHunter]

In yesterday's patio stone case, I think what tipped it was finding out plaintiff hired him again, nearly a year later, to put down more patio stones, for a walkway in this case.  She first denied it but tried to fudge it, "Okay I did call him back but it was only a few stones", and would not have mentioned it at all had the def. not brought it up.  If someone does terrible work, who calls them again to do more work of the same kind?

[Florinaldo]

Just now, AngelaHunter said:

In yesterday's patio stone case, I think what tipped it was finding out plaintiff hired him again, nearly a year later, to put down more patio stones, for a walkway in this case.

And also to install some kind of flower bed, so 3 jobs in total. She also tried to confuse the chronology by saying he did a good job on the latter, which is why she trusted him to do the patio, but JM was not fooled by this silly attempt to reverse time's arrow and causality. She revealed herself as either being a dishonest cheapskate or as suffering from a case of buyer's remorse after ordering the guy to make a faulty technical choice. She has to live with the consequences of her bad choices.

That being said, a contractor should stand his ground as much as possible and try to dissuade a client from making such a choice. If that is impossibe and they really need the job, write a disclaimer detailing your objections and send it to the customer (you may be lucky enough to have them sign or acknowledge it).

[AngelaHunter]

Skipped dog case. Stop with these cases!

Then it's the garden-variety case of the person who wants a red-carpet event for 400$ and then wants a lottery win because she didn't like it. No, nothing in writing because they call each other "Sis" and are like family. Plaintiff wants money for her "pain and suffering" - well, of course she does. If your party isn't everything you hoped and dreamed it would be, just imagine the suffering. She also calls JM "Miss Marilyn" with no correction. "M'am" was also okay today. The def, the party planner, does not provide napkins in her "package." Whatever. The grammar was just horrific. Anyway, yesterday I didn't know what "canard" meant (other than a duck) and today I don't know what plaintiff meant when she said she expected "sashays" on the backs of the chairs. Can anyone clue me in? I'm not really a knowledgeable party person.

Then we had the ridiculous, portly Captain Highliner, suing his ex-tenant, the giggling Uncle Fester, for rent he didn't pay even though his sister was helping him out. Plaintiff waits five years to do this. Sorry, Cap'n but the statute of limitations has run out for you. Another problem is that he was renting out an illegal dwelling. Did he know that? "Well... it was "iffy." No, it's not "iffy". It's either legal or it's not. Uncle Fester is counter-suing, for "harassment" in exactly the amount he's being sued for. Oh, the harassment he suffered while plaintiff kept HARASSING him for the money he owed! JM asks him to detail this horrible suffering. Well, it was just the HARASSMENT, all the time! Bugger off, you idiots.

Edited December 5, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

48 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't know what plaintiff meant when she said she expected "sashays" on the backs of the chairs.

Could it be "sachets", i.e.  some kind of bags containing for example pot-pourri or other odorant – and allegedly pleasant – material? Or perhaps they are used to hold other objects that are appreciated by people attending such glamorous events.

[meowmommy]

Oh, jaysus, now there's a party for people who haven't even been proposed to yet.  And aren't you just a little old for that sort of thing???  And then does she hold up her friends and relatives for an engagement party, a shower, a wedding, etc.?

There was a packet.  Oh, no, there wasn't actually a packet.  We was just there conversating.  Too bad we forgot to conversate a contract where the plaintiff's wishes were spelled out.  Oh, spelling might be a challenge.  We had a verbal agreement to stay there until 3, even though the written contract specifies 1.

15 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Could it be "sachets", i.e.  some kind of bags containing for example pot-pourri or other odorant – and allegedly pleasant – material?

Sounds indeed like sachets, but who puts them on the back of a chair??

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Sorry, Cap'n but the statute of limitations has run out for you.

A mercifully short case.  I totally hate that they go through the whole farce of presenting a case, only for MM to advise the inevitable result of the expired SOL.  The producers should never accept these cases when they know how they're going to turn out before MM lifts a finger.

[Bramble]

I’m pretty sure that the “sashay” was just a mangling of “sash”. A quick google shows that “chair sash” is a reasonable thing to describe that band around the chair, particularly if there is a bow on the back. 

[SRTouch]

11 hours ago, Bramble said:

I’m pretty sure that the “sashay” was just a mangling of “sash”. A quick google shows that “chair sash” is a reasonable thing to describe that band around the chair, particularly if there is a bow on the back. 

Ah, but they can charge an extra buck or two when they add "ay" to "sash".......  a big thing at all pre-proposal affairs

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Could it be "sachets", i.e.  some kind of bags containing for example pot-pourri or other odorant – and allegedly pleasant – material? Or perhaps they are used to hold other objects that are appreciated by people attending such glamorous events.

My CC spelled it "sashays" so I thought there was another definition apart from the one I know. I thought about sachets - which I've sometimes use in closets, etc.,  but who would want perfumed objects hanging from your chair when you're eating? Actually they might. So often I've gone to a restaurant and had to change tables because someone next to me seemed to have marinated herself in some vile scent pre-dinner. I prefer not to eat and drink their perfume.

13 hours ago, Bramble said:

I’m pretty sure that the “sashay” was just a mangling of “sash”. A quick google shows that “chair sash” is a reasonable thing to describe that band around the chair, particularly if there is a bow on the back. 

Ding ding ding! I think we have a winner!!

"There wasn't no napkins."

[patty1h]

That hair stylist/beauty influencer in the bad haircut case was snatched to within an inch of her life.  From her hair to her chin, she was fake.  This girl looked naturally pretty but she just turned the dial up to 11 with the hair, eyelashes, extreme makeup and teeth. 

Over Thanksgiving, I was talking to my 25 year old niece and she made me rage for humanity when she said she and her cousin were trying to become influencers for pushing some hair products.  I shook my head and walked away.  Stupid internet, making people into grifters and fools.

[Florinaldo]

7 minutes ago, patty1h said:

That hair stylist/beauty influencer in the bad haircut case was snatched to within an inch of her life.  From her hair to her chin, she was fake. 

Each time I see someone as heavily made-up as she was, I can't help but think they are trying to hide their true self under all that artificiality.

I do not know what is worse: that she thinks she is "so pretty", that she has a number of followers who appear to agree and are open to being "influenced" by her, or that JM did not bother to try and disillusion her (it probably would not have worked, but still...).

[meowmommy]

9 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Each time I see someone as heavily made-up as she was, I can't help but think they are trying to hide their true self under all that artificiality.

When I see a young woman heavily made-up, I see a future old woman with terrible skin because she clogged up her face with crap all those years.

[AngelaHunter]

"Michael Jackson looking ________". Well, that one was pretty accurate, if MJ had killed, preserved and glued two tarantulas on his eyes. Other than that, the nasty venom that is spewed on these "social platforms" over nothing is kind of alarming. Yeah, Ms. "Everything on Me is Fake" is a big star, but so are the Kartrashians, who seem to have set the bar for the requirements needed to win popularity and fame these days. You don't have to do or know anything. Get enough plastic surgery, someone else's hair sewed on your head, fillers, implants, etc,  and find nitwits who think all that is amazing, and you're set.

The Three Stooges boat guys were, in their own way, just as ridiculous. "We don't know nuthin'. We got no evidence, but he knew, he knew, he knew. Isn't that enough? I dunno. What? Receipts, work order, written agreement? Duh?" How do people get to be this age and in business and remain so totally clueless? All this kerfuffle over a 28-year old wrecked boat and no one gets anything.

The only interesting part of the roommate thing - other than the def who had a 2-year lease but had something to take care of and just walked out. He couldn't pay anything because he needed his money for other stuff - was JM asking def how he thought plaintiff could find someone else so easily. "What do you think? You just get someone from CL and move them in the next day?" Well, yes, of course. That's the usual procedure of the people we see here.

But def left his valuable couch there, one he had traded for a chainsaw. Shouldn't that partially cover his debt to plaintiff, who seems to be a bit of a dumdum.

[AZChristian]

21 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I do not know what is worse: that she thinks she is "so pretty", that she has a number of followers who appear to agree and are open to being "influenced" by her, or that JM did not bother to try and disillusion her (it probably would not have worked, but still...).

How perfect would this comeback have been?

Edited December 7, 2019 by AZChristian
Deleted edit . . . wrong court show. Been sick and my brain hasn't caught up yet.

[AZChristian]

Today's motorcycle payment case.  It looked like the main requirement for sitting in the first two rows behind the plaintiff was that you had to be an attractive young woman with brown hair, parted in the middle.

There was a redhead and a blond behind the defendant.

That's all I've got.

[AngelaHunter]

56 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Today's motorcycle payment case.

And they bred. I would so want to have a kid with someone who thinks the most important thing, what he really needs after the birth of a child is to get a motorcycle he can't afford and of course he lost his job. I would think it's a great idea too. You picked a real winner, lady. Another great example of "Litigant Priorities."

The rerun of the goofy over-aged boy who thinks he's cute and his mold problem: I just realized he refused to go to a doctor for all his terrible symptoms because he was afraid it might mess up his worker's compensation payments. I bet he's living with his mommy by now. It was Valentine's Day! I bet his girlfriend dumped him when she opened her eyes and realized what a big, silly baby she had.

[Bdrums1971]

Hey everyone, first post here. I have been lurking and enjoying all the "snark" from you guys for a long time. Thank you, especially SRtouch and AngelaHunter for all your in-depth analysis of these morons on the show.

About today's rerun. In the second case about the cell phone. I could swear the plaintiff said OPtober instead of OCtober several times. I don't have DVR, could one of you that has the show recorded go back and see if I am correct? If not, no biggie, just wondered if I was hearing things. I went back to the Sept. 3rd 2018 comments (when this episode first aired) and didn't see anyone mentioning it.

Anyway, thanks again to all the commenters here for your entertaining recaps of TPC shows. I may not post but every now and then, but know I am enjoying reading what you all have to say.