The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

1. Too lazy to break up: these two divorced, but apparently never got around to separating finances and changing passwords on their accounts - ex wife says she received grant money for nursing school, and dirty ex hubby took the money...... my question - how is this morbidly obese woman ever going to perform patient care? - oh, and I hope that isn't their daughter that she brought to court to see mommy and daddy air dirty laundry...... suing for $474.20........ D intro says money in question was refund for overpayment HE paid towards tuition, so ex wife not entitled to it......  testimony indicates a short marriage, so P's witness would be too old to be D's daughter (we find out she has multiple kids who lived in home, but none with D - and we have another of those couples who separated, but shared a home for months before they got around to divorcing - seems P decided to quit her 19 year casino job and go back to school after the two got married - so, she was unemployed full time student and D was paying not only for her schooling and living expenses, but supporting her kids - while they were married she didn't qualify for aid, but once they split she applied and received a grant........ got to say, that makes D defense sound better........ now we get to the laziness issue - even though these two were divorced, when ex wife applied for the grant she never bothered to update her banking records with the school, so when aid was granted the money ended up being deposited in D's account..... over to D, and not sure WTH to think of this guy - from what he's saying, this wasn't a refund, but grant money to pay her current tuition - says P's lawyer contacted him, but he was SO very busy he'd have to check it out and get back to her, meanwhile, before bothering to check it out, he began paying back some of the money....... now, if it was a refund for tuition he paid, I could see him thinking he could keep it, but not it seems he had been paying her tuition on a credit card, SO when grant arrived it was deposited to the CC, dude didn't actually get money, but his outstanding balance was lowered - would probably need to borrow to pay it back......... I don't know, was this a a joint marital debt which should have been handled in the divorce? Anyway, i may need more coffee to follow this money trail........ ah well, guess it doesn't matter, D acknowledged it was her money and paid back most, but not all of it, and this case is for the final $475........ sooooo, defense has changed from it was a refund for money he paid towards her schooling, to a self-help defense where he claims she owes for damage to his house caused when she finally moved out when the divorce was final (after living separately in house together for 6 months after separating, if that makes sense)....... and, back to being too lazy to even break up - after two separated, but while they were still living together, D says P went on buying spree and racked up a bunch of debt buying stuff on his credit using his accounts cuz he hadn't his password/account info........ I'm thinking he ought to go back to the divorce court to get all that straight, but self help is/was not the answer and figure he is going to have to pay back the grant money....... over to P, MM asks if she really raided his accounts, P sort of laughs and says yes she did, but then tries to explain it away......... oh well, MM isn't going to consider any of the stuff that should have been settled in the divorce, only thing she wants to talk about is the claim that P damaged his house/stuff when she left - ok, pix show disgusting mess, stained couch and filthy carpet etc - just like happily admitting to raiding his finances, she has no qualms admitting she left a disgusting mess behind when she moved out - song and dance excuse about dude yelling/verbally abusing her daughter and how she was in big hurry to leave - if she was a rent paying tenant I'd say Landlord would get the $475 - thing is, money he kept wasn't HER money, but money from a grant to pay for her school - I still say he has to pay, then maybe go back to divorce court or file a suit against her (I know, too much work/hassle for this lazy dude to bother)........ ok, so over these two as P start yakking about dude being mommy's boy and how his mommy interfered in marriage and how he chose mommy over wife........ zip-zip - as expected, D has to finish paying back the money - $475 to P
2. parking smash up: P says he witnessed D smashing into his car parked car,  but by time he got to car in parking lot she had left - he called cops, and tracked her down, but she denied ever being there to the insurance company - insurance dropped it, so he's suing on his own for  $ 2374.33......... D denies it was her - says P reported his car was hit by a blue chevy and she doesn't drive a blue chevy - says case of mistaken identity........ hmmmmm, need to hear how P tracked her down, cuz theory isn't going to win without some proof - far as the 'blue chevy' question, that could be explained away as so many makes looking alike and about a million different colors with fancy names that you have to read the vehicle product code to find out what Nissan/Ford/ Chevy/Toyota etc call this particular shade/color...... ok, P tells  good story - says he was next to reception when D came in to ask about an appointment, giving her name and info - says when she left he saw her walk across parking lot, get in her car, and proceed to bash his parked car - ok, blue chevy has morphed into a tan Pontiac in his testimony, but that's more than likely intro clown nonsense to allow lame 'driving chevy to the levee' joke - says he immediately went out to talk to the driven, driver looked at him and sped away - hmmmmmm, MM quizzes P on color make, as if she knows more than we do, asking if he ever described the car as a 'blue' anything, making me wonder if she has police report or statement to insurance company with different description...... over to D, who is either lying or knows she's innocent and having fun being on tv knowing P doesn't have a case - sort of hesitates when asked, then denies she was even there that day - ok, think she lying, now, as she tries to introduce evidence proving she wasn't there by showing when her appointment was, which certainly would not contradict P's testimony that she was there to ask about WHEN her next appointment was - then, for someone claiming not to even have been there, she sure goes into a lot of detail about how many cars were in the parking lot - and how her daughter was in the car when she wasn't there....... guess MM is going to just let D ramble on, but her rambling isn't even making sense - zip-zip, didn't even listen long enough to hear any more about the color question...... ahhhhhh D seems to have lost her giggly smile, when I start listening again she's pouting as MM rules - P gets what he asked for..... in hallterview, sort of sounds like D is threatening P if he tries to collect
3. neighbor's toilet flooded my apartment: P claims upstairs neighbor's leaky toilet caused $1900 worth of damage...... D doesn't deny his leak caused damage, dispute arises cuz he sent contractor to look and estimate cost of repairs and received estimate for less than $500........ ok, P doesn't have to use D's guy, but will have to show she didn't get reno estimate rather than repairs...... ok, video of leak and we see sheet rock and paint will be needed......... D actually landlord and it was his tenant living in the upstairs apartment, and it took so couple days for P to get the water turned off so leak would stop dripping into her place....... hoboy, and if P is to be believed, the tenant knew about the leak for quite some time, the tile was coming off the floor, and yet he never bothered to tell his landlord........ D calls the tenant 'a bit of a knucklehead'........ ok, P should be made whole, and landlord needs to pay (though MM points out he may be able to go after tenant if tensnt ignored problem and his neglect made problem worse - but is she over reaching - WTH, not happy that D took 3 weeks to get his contractor to go look at the damage - part of the dispute is she wants new carpet on the stairs, but now I'm wondering if anything water remediation was done in those 3 weeks - what may have been a $500 repair could easily balloon into 2 grand if dehumidifiers/fans weren't brought in to dry the carpet & pad and walls (in fact, depending where they are, I be worrying about mold)...... anddddd, by time landlord FINALLY had his contractor go check, P had already gotten 3 estimates and had hired the contractor with middle estimate ($950) - added to the $950 for wall/ceiling, she wants carpet cleaning, plus, since she's very pregnant, wants D to pay to clean her upstairs because of the construction dust/debris...... her total came to $1150, which sounds reasonable to me but D thought it was excessive (for example, he objected to paying a hundred bucks to clean her stairway carpet) when pressed, he admits his big problem was that his guy would have done job for less than half........ but as we know she doesn't have to go with HIS GUY - no, D out of gas here, I think her $1150 was fair and reasonable - so why is she now asking for almost 2 grand?........ ah, when D didn't agree with her estimate she gets fed up and files an insurance claim and the insurance came up with the 2 grand....... ah, but the math still isn't working for P - she's suing for entire cost, but is actually only out her deductible ($1000)....... geez, almost what she offered to settle for before D balked and caused her to file her claim!....... ok, her story is she is holding the insurance check, and when D pays full price of repair she'll return the insurance check......... ok, so repairs haven't actually been done yet, but counting insurance company estimate there are now 4 estimates to pick from...... MM goes with P's original choice, and awards what she asked for all along, $1150 - but she cautions P that she will be committing insurance fraud if she cashes the insurance settlement check.......

Edited April 8, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Too lazy to break up: 

SRTouch outlined it all very nicely, so I have only to say that I believed plaintiff in that she didn't deliberately damage the home. She (and they) just lived like pigs with stains, trash and messes galore. I guess they think that's normal. She "didn't clean up after herself." I can see why. It might take a bulldozer to do that. It's always a nice touch when litigants want their kids - it seems daughter was hiding in her room, armed with a knife against def -  here to witness the recitation of their bad behavior and financial squabbles. It was kind of funny when Momma's boy claimed he was so super busy he had no time to take care of his business. I bet he had time to check out FB and all that crap. I wish JM had asked him what he was doing 24/7 that he not a minute to review his bank and CC statements. Or maybe Mommy forgot to do it for him.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

parking smash up: 

I'm sure defendant will be an impeccable role model to those kids. "Listen. You mess up someone's stuff just get your ass out of there as fast as you can and deny everything." She becomes more belligerent and nasty as the case  goes on,  talking over JM and informing her, "You need to hear ME." Best is in the hall where Doug wants to know her reaction to being ordered to pay for the P's car she crashed into: "I"m not paying for anything, baby boy. You crazy." She then repeated it. What a horrid heffalump.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

neighbor's toilet flooded my apartment: 

Mr. Weinstein is kind of an asshole. P totally has the right to choose who she wants to fix up the place, which is soaked in toilet water. Why doesn't he go after his other tenant who had the leak and did nothing about it and who he seems to realize is a problem?

This reminds me of what I've been going through lately. My deck collapsed last month and the insurance company sent their contractors to assess the damage. I didn't like them, so got my own contractor. The Ins. agent emails me, giving me a hard time and saying he "doesn't understand" why I want a particular company and not theirs to rebuild the deck. That's my prerogative, just as it was plaintiff's prerogative to pick someone with whom she feels comfortable. Pay up, Weinstein!

Edited April 8, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[bettername2come]

Am I crazy or did the Mr. Weinstein look like Bobby Moynihan from SNL dressed like an old man? 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Best is in the hall where Doug wants to know her reaction to being ordered to pay for the P's car she crashed into: "I"m not paying for anything, baby boy. You crazy." She then repeated it. What a horrid heffalump.

She went from sounding reasonable to messed up very quickly. especially when talking to Doug and her "I hear you, do you hear me?" to MM.

[aemom]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

SRTouch outlined it all very nicely, so I have only to say that I believed plaintiff in that she didn't deliberately damage the home. She (and they) just lived like pigs with stains, trash and messes galore. I guess they think that's normal. She "didn't clean up after herself." I can see why. It might take a bulldozer to do that.

Gosh, that place was disgusting.  I've seen many similar photos on this show and I just can't wrap my head around living in that kind of filth.  My house might be a bit messy at times, and never eat-off-the-floor clean, but there is never, ever filth and garbage all over the place.  *Shivers*

 

19 hours ago, bettername2come said:

She went from sounding reasonable to messed up very quickly. especially when talking to Doug and her "I hear you, do you hear me?" to MM.

She's the type of person who seems very easygoing and whatnot until she realizes that she's backed into a corner and things will not go her way - and then watch it - because the claws come out!  The P had all his ducks in a row and I loved that.  She was such an utter bitch to Doug - I wanted to smack her upside the head.

 

The lady with the water damage was totally reasonable with her requests, and she also had her ducks in a row.  I'm glad that JM found in her favor.  D seemed like a cheapskate and should be more concerned about alienating a reasonable person living in the building as opposed to the low-IQ that is renting his place and causing damage.

[AZChristian]

22 minutes ago, aemom said:

She's the type of person who seems very easygoing and whatnot until she realizes that she's backed into a corner and things will not go her way - and then watch it - because the claws come out!  The P had all his ducks in a row and I loved that.  She was such an utter bitch to Doug - I wanted to smack her upside the head.

Her behavior was identical to that of the latest participant on My 600-Pound Life.  Sweet little sarcastic baby voice until she realized she was not fooling anyone with her act.  Then the claws came out.

[NYGirl]

Ok everybody admit it.... Today's episode made quarantining so satisfying!!  I had a cigarette afterward and I don't even smoke!!   The sex tape??  I'm still confused.  He seemed a little sneaky to me.

The sub-letting-renter!!  What a piece of crap.  How come he's not in jail?   He sub-let that house to 5 different families WTF???  He looked like such a weasel.

I for one would not allow my face seen on TV if I did anything like that... wow

[aemom]

April 9, 2020 Episode:

Only two cases today, but man they were humdingers!

Case 1:  A young woman is suing the D for posting a sex tape on PornHub without her permission.  The two of them were part of some Facebook group and she had made arrangements to meet to sell him Ecstasy.  They were both high and engaged in a one-night stand and she consented to his request to film the act.  He sent her a copy of the video the next day.  This happened in December 2017. 

In February 2018, she finds out that he has posted the video via someone who sees the video and recognizes her and it turns out he gets paid for every view.  He denies that it's him.  That he never had sex with her, made this tape, or anything else.  Why?  Because he's MARRIED!  Well, if you were trying to keep this on the down-low dude, you have epically failed because now you're on national television.  He's also as dumb as a box of hammers because the photo that he used for his PornHub account profile, is the same photo used for his Facebook profile, except that it just zooms in on his eyes.

I pity poor JM who had to watch the video and she awards the Plaintiff $5K.  She does tell the P prior to ruling that she is an idiot for getting high, having a one-night stand, and consenting to being filmed (I'm paraphrasing), but agrees that posting something like this without permission is not ok.  I hope once his wife gets wind of this, that she takes him to the cleaners via her divorce lawyer.  But maybe not.  This show is filled with women who put up with unbelievable bullshit from men because they are afraid to be alone.

Case 2:  A woman sublets an apartment from the defendant (aka Epic Thieving Weasel) to begin in October 2019, and she gives him a $2,500 deposit.  She then finds out that the sister-in-law of a friend has also left a deposit for the SAME apartment right around the time that ETW lets her know that the apartment will not be available after all because the tenants are not moving out.  It turns out that the landlord (who is there to testify for the P), states that ETW has not paid rent since June and is in the process of being evicted.  Not only that, but his lease ends in February 2020, and he was giving a one-year lease to the P starting in October 2019.  You cannot sub-lease an apartment that you don't have a lease for!  But it gets better!  It turns out that there were still THREE OTHER families that he had also taken deposits from!

So he takes deposits from five families for an apartment that he cannot sublet because he is in the process of being evicted.  JM is so unbelievably pissed that she awards the P her $2,500 and amends her case to include punitive damages and awards an additional $2,500 to the P for a total of $5K.  There is applause in the courtroom the likes of which I have never heard before.

This is when the show is at it's best.  When horrible people try to take advantage of others, and the plaintiffs have all their ducks in a row to nail them to the wall and publicly humiliate and shame them for their actions.  Awesome!

Edited April 9, 2020 by aemom
Typo

[AngelaHunter]

56 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

The sex tape??

Okay, here's my story and I'm willing to repeat it all on national TV for all my friends, family and co-workers to hear if I can get a few dollars out of it:

So, I hook up with... some character on FB, (he explains to JM how popular he is) but only because he agreed to sell drugs with me! It's not my fault I trusted him.

However, we ended  up taking all the Ecstasy instead of selling it. I was all messed up so we had some filthy, low-down sex which he filmed. That's not my fault either, is it? Yes, I know I'm a grown woman who should should have an iota of common sense, but all those drugs - well, not my fault, as I said. 

AIDS? STDs? Who knows? Who cares? Lots of Exx, remember? For sure it wasn't my fault I took that risk.

He posted the vid on Pornhub. No, I didn't contact the authorities. I couldn't because I had warrants outstanding, so - not my fault I had to steer clear of cops, right?

Then I sent a copy of my 15 minutes of fame video to some other bimbo who had spread for the def, because she claimed he was her baby daddy and we needed to compare notes. I had to do that instead of letting this video die a natural death but it's definitely not my fault.

JM had to look at a video showing the "BBW" plaintiff sucking d's unit (just hearing about it made me pause my dinner as queasiness arose). Even though def is a total scumbag POS I was very disappointed that JM thought poor, innocent plaintiff had been damaged to the tune of 5K. Yeah, this poor adult woman who chooses to sell/do drugs, has warrants, hooks up anonymously for a wild night of drugs/sex and allows herself to be filmed during it - all not her fault!

Levin jonesing about this: You outdid yourself, Harve. This is the most sordid shit you've trawled from the abyss in ages. Congrats.

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

The sub-letting-renter!!

At least when I saw these litigants walking in I was confident that the worst I might hear is mangled grammar and no blowjobs.

Well, we got the ignorant grammar, but freaky, creepy little def is a true scammer and thief who really should be in jail. JM is so outraged she gives P an additional 2500$ in punitive damages. D's ridiculous, goofy sidekick is not much help. The landlord might want to start getting a clue about what is going on in his rental units and to whom he is renting.

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, aemom said:

I hope once his wife gets wind of this, that she takes him to the cleaners via her divorce lawyer.  But maybe not.  This show is filled with women who put up with unbelievable bullshit from men because they are afraid to be alone.

From what we've seen on this show, I just bet she knew about it and had no complaints as long as some money resulted.

[aemom]

5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

From what we've seen on this show, I just bet she knew about it and had no complaints as long as some money resulted.

That would just be so incredibly sad...

[AngelaHunter]

16 minutes ago, aemom said:

That would just be so incredibly sad...

I remember another def. on this show who was being sued for scamming money from some desperate woman. His wife knew all about it and was fine with it.  I don't think bottom-feeding scumbags are too worried about marital vows and morality.

[Guest]

Well, my first People’s Court in a few weeks and boy was it a doozy.

Let me throw one quick question out there for the legal minds on this board....how did the PornHub case not qualify for Doctrine of Clean Hands?

This whole brewhaha started because this creature was selling drugs.  Doesn’t that make the rest that follows dirty hands residue and sundry?

I nearly dropped my pb & j when she started in on the sex tape, one night stand and drugs.  Holy cats!!  And this lumpy bag of woman told Mr. Marble-Mouth that he could tape them doing dirty things.  

I am Zooming with my clients since we can’t go into the office.  I don’t like to be photographed or videographed.  In my work situation I have no choice so I aim the camera on just my face with windows in back to the woods on the screen.  And this bag of laundry not only gives permission for videotaping but also shows JMM the result.

And Mr. Marble-Mouth is married.  BoyHowdy she must be a catch.  And the bag of laundry knew he was married!!!  

And on a side note - I’m trying to calm clients about the virus.  Every one of them is fearful that they’re going to get it.  They’re reading too many horror stories and are imagining the worst.  Then we have this filthy, drug addled “couple” with no regards to diseases and without a care in the world.

Why she got five grand is beyond me.  JMM rewarded irresponsible behavior.  

Still wondering about the Doctrine of Clean Hands.

And stay safe everyone.  No FB hookups. LOL

[ThePurpleArcher]

On 4/8/2020 at 3:12 PM, SRTouch said:

1. ahhhhhh D seems to have lost her giggly smile, when I start listening again she's pouting as MM rules - P gets what he asked for..... in hallterview, sort of sounds like D is threatening P if he tries to collect.

Am I mistaken -  doesn't the show pay for the damages, not the losing litigant ? Why is she threatening not to pay up ? The show does it for her, from what I recall. 

[aemom]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Why she got five grand is beyond me.  JMM rewarded irresponsible behavior.  

Still wondering about the Doctrine of Clean Hands.

Assuming that the Doctrine of Clean Hands doesn't apply here: The P was an idiot having a one-stand stand with this guy and letting him film it, however, it is illegal to post a sex tape on the internet without someone's permission - that's why he had to pay her.

Her behavior was less than stellar, but the D was so smug about the whole thing, that I was glad that JM threw the book at him.  The P seemed rather repentant of her questionable behavior but you could tell that he would do it all over again in a heartbeat if he could get away with it.

55 minutes ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

Am I mistaken -  doesn't the show pay for the damages, not the losing litigant ? Why is she threatening not to pay up ? The show does it for her, from what I recall. 

I think the show assumes that most viewers don't read the fine print of the show credits and know this.  The D was such a dimwit that SHE might not even know this.

Edited April 9, 2020 by aemom
Typo

[AZChristian]

50 minutes ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

Am I mistaken -  doesn't the show pay for the damages, not the losing litigant ? Why is she threatening not to pay up ? The show does it for her, from what I recall. 

I just double-checked.  According to my extensive research (5 seconds on Google):

• A fund is set aside that is the size of the dollar amount of the suit.
• Each litigant is provided with free round-trip transportation to the studio and a hotel and food.
• Each litigant is paid a small appearance fee (thought to be around $250).
• Once the judge makes her decision, the amount of the award is taken from the original fund and awarded to the appropriate litigant.
• Any additional money in the original fund is divided 50/50 between litigants.

So if someone comes in and asks for $5,000 and the case is settled in their favor for $5,000, the winning party gets $5,000 plus transportation/hotel/food and $250.  The losing party gets transportation/hotel/food and $250.

In that same case, if the production team puts $5,000 in the fund (let's say that was what the plaintiff requested), but the judge only awards them $2,000, the plaintiff would end up with $3,750.  That's the award of $2,000, $250 appearance fee, and $1,500 (half of the unawarded amount in the fund).  The defendant would get $1,750 - half of the unawarded amount plus appearance fee.  Both parties would get transportation, etc.

I think Little Miss Obnoxious Defendant yesterday (who couldn't verbalize a complete thought if she tried) was TRYING to brag, "I'm not paying her" because People's Court was paying her.  The plaintiff would definitely get their award, no matter what LMOD said to Doug.

[Florinaldo]

In the sex tape case, the defendant was as atrocious a liar as yesterday's giggling and smirking defendant in the parking fender bender case; these people have no shame and don't really care anyway since the show pays for the award, so they put on a "what, me worry?" attitude (until it becomes clear they are going to lose most if not all of their share of the award kitty) and make no real effort to appear believable.

The Clean Hands doctrine would apply in case of the plaintiff having broken the law, lied or perjured herself; not for simple stupidity or carelessness.

I wonder if anyone will file a fraud complaint against the multiple sub-letter. The best part was that defendants hid the real landlord in the audience so the defendant would not spot him when he entered the courtroom and they then waited for the right moment to reveal his presence. A Perry Mason twist on MM!

 

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Why she got five grand is beyond me.  JMM rewarded irresponsible behavior.  

And JM seemed outraged over the dastardly def's treatment of this poor hothouse flower. Def wanted to deal illegal drugs. She wanted to take drugs and get all messed up. She was perfectly agreeable to have this down and dirty one night stand and agreed to let him video it. Who wouldn't? She commits crimes and has warrants (probably for possession or dealing of drugs).

She's so horribly distraught over this video, yet comes here and tells the world gory details about her sordid doings with the def, right down to the oral sex and made sure to tell JM she might not recognize her in the video. I guess she looks different with her mouth full. Ugh. Yes, he is a slimy, worthless piece of shit, but he didn't kidnap her or rape her or force the drugs on her. I could understand JM being so offended and willing to award her all that money had she been a particularly dumb eighteen-yearold and tricked into this. But she's mature and did all those things willingly, all on her own - couldn't wait to do them. I know what he did was illegal but he couldn't done it had she not been a really willing participant. I just think there should be some penalty for her illegal/disgusting/irresponsible actions.

[Carolina Girl]

Is there anyone out there that believes that the piece of shit that took all that deposit money from FIVE different people actually gave it back.

And I wanted to bitch slap that so-called "witness" for the defendant.  "Oh, I'm just learning about this for the first time."  Bullshit pal.  And then being butthurt because Judge Milian was in no way interested in those supposedly threatening text messages from the defrauded plaintiff.  Take a seat, asshole and stop backing the wrong horse.  

[aemom]

15 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I am Zooming with my clients since we can’t go into the office.  I don’t like to be photographed or videographed.  In my work situation I have no choice so I aim the camera on just my face with windows in back to the woods on the screen.

Just as an FYI, Zoom gives you the option of selecting a photo to use as your video background so you could choose whatever you like and sit wherever you please in your house. You could even take a photo of a blank wall and use that.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

 

The Clean Hands doctrine would apply in case of the plaintiff having broken the law, lied or perjured herself; not for simple stupidity or carelessness.

 

Selling ecstacy is a crime, isn’t it?  

[ThePurpleArcher]

Thanks to the members who answered my question - I knew the show paid for the winnings. (Although, I believe with all the perks, the loser still goes home with the lawsuit on his /her financial record).

On to the infamous 'sex tape':

1. Are the producers and Harvey Levin this desperate for content that they scraped the very bottom of the barrel ?  What made them even think that this case was appropriate for daytime television with younger children and families home (and what was the syndicate thinking by distributing this NOW when the whole country is in isolation and families are home???) This was a new low for this show. I can't even imagine the producers of 'Judge Judy' - or Judy herself - ever agreeing to participate in this kind of case.

2. Judge Milian did wonders for 'Porn Hub', mentioning the site as many times as she did. They can't pay for that kind of free advertising - I'm sure they saw their traffic skyrocket yesterday and this weekend.  And I'm sure she helped the get new material for their site - all the idiots who just found out their intimate sex scenes are now worth 60 cents a peek! There's a new spin on 'gig' employment. 

3. And yes - what happened to 'clean hands' ? This whole incident went down because she was going to illegally sell ecstasy to him. ILLEGALLY sell it to him.  Would it have been any different if she said "We got together to rob the gas station down the street, and after we did we came back to my place to count the money - and then we ended up having sex, and I performed oral sex on him."  ?  Of course not ! JM should have dismissed the case immediately, instead of playing 'therapist' to the plaintiff and rewarding her for bad behavior. 

[sonder]

4/9/2020 episode

 

The woman sued the man for posting their tape online. Did she win? Did the judge find the man to be a complete liar?

 

I live in los angeles and our mayor speaks daily on covid-19 in the middle of People’s Court. It takes over the broadcast so I missed 30 minutes in the middle of the show. 
 

thanks

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Selling ecstacy is a crime, isn’t it?  

Yes, but she wasn't suing about the ecstasy.  The judge would have screamed "clean hands" if the plaintiff was suing because she paid for ecstasy and didn't get it.

She was suing for the posting of the porn tape.  What happened before the tape was made is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Yes, but she wasn't suing about the ecstasy.  The judge would have screamed "clean hands" if the plaintiff was suing because she paid for ecstasy and didn't get it.

She was suing for the posting of the porn tape.  What happened before the tape was made is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

But if not for the selling of ecstasy (illegal) the sex, taping and PornHub would not have occurred.  

I just think JMM really dropped the ball on this one.  The first “act” of this sordid little tale was illegal - thusly, the rest of their actions should be dismissed because of it.

I think.  

[Taeolas]

Ultimately this is arbitration, so the clean hands is up to the judge to decide if it applies or not. 

But this feels sufficiently (but barely) distant enough to not apply. Sure they got together due to an illegal act, but setting aside how they got together (they could've linked up due to Tinder or just from meeting at a bar), everything else would have gone the same way theoretically, and the actual bad action (publishing the sex video) was distinct from the illegal act. 

Now if she had been seeking damages because the video showed them doing drugs as well as sex and she says it damaged her character, then that might trip the clean hands doctrine at that point. 

[AngelaHunter]

 

59 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

The judge would have screamed "clean hands" if the plaintiff was suing because she paid for ecstasy and didn't get it.

That's how I saw it. If she had sued def for not splitting the profit from it or not giving her a fair share, that would be unclean hands. I still think she needed to be punished for the nastiness and stupidity of her actions though.

1 minute ago, Taeolas said:

she says it damaged her character

I'm pretty sure you need a character (or morals or decency) in order to have them damaged. No worries about that for this plaintiff. She is blissfully free of any and all of those traits. 😆

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, sonder said:

Did the judge find the man to be a complete liar?

Yes, she did. A complete liar and a sleazeball. But water always finds its own level, right? That's the case with those two.

[Guest]

I kept asking about that pesky Doctrine of Clean Hands and I think you all gave good answers.  Thank you.

I didn’t like the Plaintiff or the Defendant.  Period.

I hope the last chapter of their sordid tryst ended in a trip to the clinic and a prescription for penicillin...industrial strength.

[AngelaHunter]

Today, JM seemed to be delighted with civil, decent human beings fighting over a game plaintiff invented and a contract she entered into with def to sell her games. She would either get 500$ for the rights, or if she wanted the rights back she could have them but get no money. True, def was kind of snarky in his emails to her, but nothing sordid or squicky. No mention of drugs or oral sex. I wasn't following very closely since I was preoccupied with my crab legs I got to treat myself for having the courage to venture out on a shopping foray! Anyway, def or one of his associates sent her an email saying they would pay the 500$ in either case. She wins.

Plaintiff in next case is suing for the money he paid to repair a giant, used mixer he bought from def. for 2500$. P says he knows absolutely nothing about such machines. It didn't work and def offered to take the 600$ it would cost to fix it off the price. P brings in Jose to fix it, but he doesn't so P doesn't want the mixer. D keeps the 600$, fixes it himself and then sells it for 3000$. P wants his 600$ back. Only interesting part is when D's son, the lawyer, steps up and tries to educated JM about the law. He looks like a shifty ambulance chaser who has been living under a bridge and he's completely wrong about the law concerning a case like this. Surprisingly, JM indulges him in his messed-up defense of Daddy profiting from the sale at the P's expense. Nope. I'll never hire the services of a lawyer. 600$ for plaintiff.

Then we had plaintiff, who had been living in D's illegal garage and wants her 700$ security deposit back. The a/c shuts off. It's August in FL but P doesn't contact D until a few days later to complain as she says she thought maybe D was having work done, or doing it herself. D says she was in New York, so there was nothing she could do. Well, nothing she could do if it was going to cost her a single penny. She comes home finally and sees the a/c just needed to have the "reset" button pressed. She didn't bother telling P that during the phone call. JM wants to know if the garage is legal. Yes, D says but she doesn't have the paperwork with her, naturally. Under more specific questioning, she admits the dwelling is one-family only, so she was lying about it being legal. Of course she was lying. How could a garage be a legal dwelling? P gets back her deposit and I hope she found a place to live that is not someone's garage.

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

9 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Selling ecstacy is a crime, isn’t it?

Yes, but as others have pointed out the infraction would have to be related to the basis of her cause of action for the Clean Hands doctrine to automatically kick in (like suing for recovery after an unpaid Ecstasy sale). In this case her complaint was about the sex tape being published without her knowledge or consent; it is not illegal to make one for private use (even though it often turns out to be a stupid choice), but it is a crime to broadcast it without the approval of everyone involved.

That being said, on these TV court shows the judges give themselves substantial leeway in how and when to apply some legal principles.

[Broderbits]

5 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I hope the last chapter of their sordid tryst ended in a trip to the clinic and a prescription for penicillin...industrial strength.

Amen! And let's all be thankful no poor child was conceived!

[NYCFree]

I applaud the victim in the publicized sex tape for coming forward. She knew she’d be subjected to ridicule but what the defendant did was simply not right nor legal. The cops told her “it was a civil matter” but in many jurisdictions it is now a crime. I don’t care how “sordid” her story is. She was wronged and deserved compensation.

Edited April 13, 2020 by NYCFree

[AngelaHunter]

Skipped dog stuff.

Loved the def in the sublet case. Plaintiffs live with her father and they wanted to sublet def's apartment. First she told them they could move in Dec and then changed it to Jan 1. They agreed and they gave her 1300$. Plaintiff husband texted her questions about the place. Def was so incredibly busy over Thanksgiving that she only had time to text him that she was very busy and would speak with him after the holiday. She could have used all those words to answer his questions, but whatever. She decides she doesn't like the questions so says she'd rather give them their money back. Of course, she never does. She didn't have it anymore. She is irate over all the "harassment" from plaintiff, so threatens to contact her lawyer. I love when grungy litigants who are in the "had came" or "don't know nothing" category and can't even be bothered touching up their 3" roots to appear here try to pretend they have a lawyer on retainer. Okay. JM wants to know if her lease says she's permitted to sublet. "Oh, yeah. Sure," def says. JM wants to see it. "Oh, well. I don't have that with me at the moment, but trust me. I'm allowed." Verdict is 1300$f for plaintiffs and def starts laughing like a hyena. Doug-in-the-Hall wants to know what's up with that? Oh, she's just glad this is over. She should be. She gets to keep the 1300$ she took from plaintiffs since the show will pay them.

[ThePurpleArcher]

On 4/10/2020 at 5:55 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Plaintiff in next case is suing for the money he paid to repair a giant, used mixer he bought from def. for 2500$. P says he knows absolutely nothing about such machines. It didn't work and def offered to take the 600$ it would cost to fix it off the price. P brings in Jose to fix it, but he doesn't so P doesn't want the mixer. D keeps the 600$, fixes it himself and then sells it for 3000$. P wants his 600$ back. Only interesting part is when D's son, the lawyer, steps up and tries to educated JM about the law. He looks like a shifty ambulance chaser who has been living under a bridge and he's completely wrong about the law concerning a case like this. Surprisingly, JM indulges him in his messed-up defense of Daddy profiting from the sale at the P's expense. Nope. I'll never hire the services of a lawyer. 600$ for plaintiff.

 

 

I have to say, I was in retail business for 24 years, in two different locations (and dealt with many other commercial landlords during that time, when I was looking to move from my original space). Not once - including the two spaces I did rent in those 24 years - did any landlord offer to put in any fixtures or equipment I would need, nor offer to do any renovations to the space. They handed me the keys and I was responsible for any updates / renovations / remodeling, etc. 

The tenant who was renting from the plaintiff was very lucky that he would equip the commercial space with an industrial mixer for the bakery he was opening in that space. That's unheard of in my area (RI). If someone wants to open a business -whether a hair salon, retail store, restaurant or bakery - you are on your own.

[Carolina Girl]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Of course, she never does. She didn't have it anymore.

Notice she said "I wanted to give it back to them in 'increments' like they gave it to me."  Big difference, toots.  Their payments in increments were going to lead up to them getting the apartment - they were not paying in increments AFTER they took possession.  You were out nothing nor were you inconvenienced financially.  However, you were supposed to keep that money in a separate account, which you didn't.  You probably used it for Christmas shopping and when the deal fell apart you were stuck.  

I agree the husband was a pain in the ass.  But what was the problem with answering questions?  I'm starting to think maybe there were some hickeys in her ability to sublet.  Why couldn't they meet with her "real estate agent"?  Hell, if she had one of those, why not have the agent handle all the details.  Something just doesn't sound right here.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

So they had a new case that was really interesting, and very different from the usual ones.    A woman, and her comatose (the man was standing in court, never said a word, and I don't think he even blinked) suing a private adoption agency for being denied adopting a child, because of a child abuse history.       The kicker is the plaintiff works for a school system, and worked there before and after the abuse allegation.    A few years after being hired by the school system, her 14 year old son was paddled with a sneaker on his behind, and ended up in the hospital overnight.      The plaintiff claims it was so long ago, that she didn't even think about the complaint, since it was her only complaint about abuse.  (I wonder what school system that woman works for, and what kind of background checks they do?) 

Then the defendant says the adoption denial was because of the abuse allegation, and says there was at least one more complaint in the plaintiff's past.       The plaintiff lost, and her non-replies to poor Doug in the hall were epic.      

Personally, I'm very glad that the plaintiff didn't get some poor child to raise.    Her husband was totally out of it in court, and the plaintiff woman looked very nasty.     I can't believe the plaintiff really thought she would get her fees back from the adoption agency.   

[Florinaldo]

57 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

But what was the problem with answering questions? 

If that lady thinks having to answer questions from a prospective tenant amounts to being harassed, then she has no business being a landlord. Imagine how she will react when her tenant reports a problem with the plumbing or the AC and keeps asking until the problem is fixed. She would probably scream attempted murder and then have a  psychotic breakdown.

It most probably was the lame excuse she cooked up for not answering and keeping the money.

[ThePurpleArcher]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

I agree the husband was a pain in the ass.  But what was the problem with answering questions?  I'm starting to think maybe there were some hickeys in her ability to sublet.  Why couldn't they meet with her "real estate agent"?  Hell, if she had one of those, why not have the agent handle all the details.  Something just doesn't sound right here.  

I disagree about the husband. The agreement was changing rapidly (starting with availability), and he wanted to be on top of things; after all, he was planning a move-out for himself and his wife from his in-laws. He was being very responsible (IMO).

However, the woman who was subletting to him had a 'broker'. Why she didn't let the broker handle the questions and the details is beyond me - isn't part of their hired duties to be that 'go between' ? Something was fishy with the defendant. 

[AZChristian]

28 minutes ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

I disagree about the husband. The agreement was changing rapidly (starting with availability), and he wanted to be on top of things; after all, he was planning a move-out for himself and his wife from his in-laws. He was being very responsible (IMO).

However, the woman who was subletting to him had a 'broker'. Why she didn't let the broker handle the questions and the details is beyond me - isn't part of their hired duties to be that 'go between' ? Something was fishy with the defendant. 

When you don't bring your lease to court (evidence that the sub-let was permitted), and you try to get in hearsay evidence about what your broker said, and you won't provide the sub-letters with even the name of the broker, it's beyond fishy.  We're getting into "whale of a liar" territory.

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

I disagree about the husband. The agreement was changing rapidly (starting with availability), and he wanted to be on top of things; after all, he was planning a move-out for himself and his wife from his in-laws. He was being very responsible (IMO).

However, the woman who was subletting to him had a 'broker'. Why she didn't let the broker handle the questions and the details is beyond me - isn't part of their hired duties to be that 'go between' ? Something was fishy with the defendant. 

I was more going on his courtroom demeanor, which got under Judge Milian's skin a little.  But you're right.  I think the defendant was doing a lot more equivocating than she led the court to believe.  And I totally forgot that she failed to bring her lease to court.  That would make it very suspicious.  I'm wondering if she was planning to sub-lease, there was no explicit provision allowing her to do so and if it was discovered, she'd just say "the broker said I could".

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A woman, and her comatose (the man was standing in court, never said a word, and I don't think he even blinked) suing a private adoption agency for being denied adopting a child, because of a child abuse history.       

Just saw this. I can't imagine anyone giving a helpless child to the cold, dead-eyed woman and her Night of the Living Dead hubbyboo. I'm always amazed at the capacity of abusers to downplay the abuse, but after all they weren't the ones being hurt.

"It was just a mark." "I only hit him twice with a sneaker(!!)"  "I was so nervous". So she beats the kid so badly he has to go the hospital, but no big deal to her. In fact she hardly remembers it, and she barely glanced at the application that mentioned there would be a check done on her. Ugh.

Then we had the shopping cart idiot. JM is so sick of listening to bullshit from these careless litigants that she pitched a fit at this hag and her stupid, obnoxious husband - who wasn't even there - giving a lying song and dance about why it wasn't her fault. Shameless. Yeah, the unbearable attitude and smart-ass smirking didn't help.

[howiveaddict]

Adoption case husband reminded me of someone who was mentally challenged.  He just seemed off.  I think if I had been investigated by CPS, I would remember.  And just a paddling, with a sneaker, would not put a child in the hospital.  Must have been way worse.

[Florinaldo]

19 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I was more going on his courtroom demeanor, which got under Judge Milian's skin a little.  But you're right.  I think the defendant was doing a lot more equivocating than she led the court to believe.

He's obviously the type who aks lots of questions and likes to know the details. So am I. And sometimes answers generate more questions, which can get under some people's skin. But I think it's quite understandable to be thorough before engaging in a major transaction like a lease and an expensive rent. This prospective landlord's general demeanor amply justified asking as many relevant questions as possible.

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The kicker is the plaintiff works for a school system, and worked there before and after the abuse allegation.    A few years after being hired by the school system, her 14 year old son was paddled with a sneaker on his behind, and ended up in the hospital overnight. 

I am not really sanguine about a few soft pats on the behind for very young kids, but paddling a 14-yar old with a sneaker (or any other object)!?! And so hard you feel compelled to get him to the hospital!!!  That woman had no business being a parent, adopting or working with kids (she may be in an administrative position though). Somehow, it's no surprise her first reaction is to blame the agency for the rejection and not her past behaviour.

Shopping cart idiots like the defendant in the other case can't even manage to control such simple contraptions. Imagine them behind the wheel of a car...

Edited April 15, 2020 by Florinaldo

[ThePurpleArcher]

The adoption case - I think JM knew it was much more than what the plaintiff was saying about the abuse 14 years ago, which 'she forgot all about'. I know the defendant wanted to say more about it just from her facial expressions. Quite honestly, JM was too lenient with them and her questioning. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

but paddling a 14-yar old with a sneaker (or any other object)!?! And so hard you feel compelled to get him to the hospital!!! 

Right. No way is a 14-year-old boy hospitalized because his mom "hit him twice" with a running shoe - not unless it had cleats on it.  Whatever she did to him, it was brutal and serious enough that it scared even her. Everyone  - defs, JM and us - knows it's not the only incident of abuse and probably pretty bad abuse, maybe just not bad enough to require immediate medical attention. Disgusting. I wouldn't dream of giving a guppy, never mind a child,  to either her or the zombie by her side.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The defendant also said something about the 14 year old's abuse wasn't the only allegation against the plaintiff woman either.       Judge M didn't follow up, but I think that told her everything she needed to know about the plaintiff.    I really question if the school system that plaintiff works for knew about the abuse allegations.     

[ThePurpleArcher]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Right. No way is a 14-year-old boy hospitalized because his mom "hit him twice" with a running shoe - not unless it had cleats on it.  Whatever she did to him, it was brutal and serious enough that it scared even her. Everyone  - defs, JM and us - knows it's not the only incident of abuse and probably pretty bad abuse, maybe just not bad enough to require immediate medical attention. Disgusting. I wouldn't dream of giving a guppy, never mind a child,  to either her or the zombie by her side.

And I am quite positive that if it was a single male standing there, and not this woman, JM would have ripped him to shreds over this - she would not have been so lenient. 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The defendant also said something about the 14 year old's abuse wasn't the only allegation against the plaintiff woman either.       Judge M didn't follow up, but I think that told her everything she needed to know about the plaintiff.    I really question if the school system that plaintiff works for knew about the abuse allegations.     

 I can only think the specifics of the abuse weren't necessary, just that they had occurred and were enough for the adoption to be denied and the fee not returned. Good for this agency for actually caring about the children and not just about numbers.

1 hour ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

And I am quite positive that if it was a single male standing there, and not this woman, JM would have ripped him to shreds over this - she would not have been so lenient. 

I don't know if sex plays into it, because she ripped apart the shopping cart idiot way worse.

Edited April 15, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[AngelaHunter]

Freak show alert. Clalm down, Levin. I'm afraid you might wet your panties as you flip out with your dumbass posse outside.

First we had high-pitched, weeping-with-no-tears drama queens uncle and nephew. Nephew def lives with his grandmomma in her house, but thinks he should call the shots in "his" house. He's 23 and acts like he's 13 - brings his little buddies home at 2 and 3a.m. making all kinds of noise, etc. Uncle puts him on his phone plan because nephew can't get his own phone and uncle promised def's late mother he would take care of the boy, even though he's a grown man - well, chronologically. Then uncle seems to be kind of a loser too and moves into the house. He sleeps on an air mattress in the living room and desecrates the shrine erected to nephew's mother by putting his pill bottles on the table. He takes "lots of medication". Uncle informs nephew right here during the case that his great grandma (I think. I"m not sure of the convoluted relationships) died and no one told def so he starts weeping, sobbing and sniffing really loudly even though I saw no tears.

JM goes into family counsellor mode. I admire her patience, especially with plaintiff uncle who tells his whole sad tale one word per minute. Uncle said he texted nephew's grandma to relay the sad news of great grannie's demise, but grandma never told nephew. Uncle thinks maybe she has "Alltimer's". Anyway, all this nonsense is over a phone. Uncle cut the phone line off when nephew didn't pay on time and gets the 296$ or whatever is left owing. Frankly, I'm more sympathetic to Grandma, who has that whiny little shitass running roughshod over her and using her - not his - house to party every night. Someone needs to look into that.

Next case is extremely icky. Unemployed, goofy sadsack plaintiff needs a place to live so moves into def's ONE-bedroom apartment for 750$/month and she sleeps in the living room. He "wasn't allowed" to use the kitchen at all (def. says he never washed his hands), not allowed to talk to the neighours or get mail there and not allowed to come out of his bedroom when he was home, although def says he spent plenty of time in her bedroom/living room. He says he was constructively evicted by all these things, yet continued to live there until someone else offered to let him flop on their couch for only 400$/month. He sneers at his new digs, saying the room was dirty and he had two cats bugging him all night. Nice way to show gratitude to the people who took this homeless doofus in.  However, the last straw was when he and def were watching "Breaking Bad" and she asked him if they could have sex. Oh, btw - def lives in a co-op and is not allowed to have sub renters, which is why she ordered plaintiff not to talk to neighbours and wouldn't allow him to get mail there, writing "Return to Sender" on any mail that arrived for him.

Plaintiff says he declined her offer of intercourse because he wanted this strictly on a landlord/tenant basis, yet we then see a video of him shirtless (it's really really gross) asking def if she wants him to take his pants off too. He says he was forced to partially disrobe because he was mentally under strain and she never let up with the invitations. I need eyebleach. He's trying to be seductive in the video.  He is SO not, although def seemed to think he was good enough for bumping uglies. JM asks def. multiple times if she propositioned P and after all kinds of verbal "poor me" meanderings - she  wanted to know just what was going on with them and all that BS -  she finally admits she did, but only because her brother died(??) Both admit the sexual invitations went on, but both were in "bad places", so that's why all this revoting sex stuff. Yes, whenever I'm under emotional stress I always want to get it on with repulsive semi-strangers who never wash their hands. I think he was afraid her quadruple D's might crush him. We see pics of the way he lived in the room and it looked like a crack den that had been tossed by the narc squad.

JM awards def for the rent she's owed for him leaving without notice. I don't get that. I thought if someone is illegally collecting rent they couldn't get any of it that may be owing. Oh, well.

[Guest]

Jaw dropping doesn’t cover today’s contestants. 
 

AngelaHunter did an outstanding job with synopsis and commentary. I was able to catch today’s episode and actually kept my eyes glued to this extravaganza.  
 

I agree with Angela on the first case...something fishy with defendant. Over the top hysterics about great-great-great-grandmom’s death.  Okay, when your nana dies it is sad but it was painfully obvious he was trying to remember acting tips for angst from his 7th grade teacher who directed him in Jesus Christ SuperStar. He failed miserably. JMM was wrought with concern....my only concern, would there be enough shelf space on the end table for a co-shrine?  The other question I have is if defendant was so close to his nana why didn’t he know she was sick or even died?

Then, case two. Good grief!

My stomach lurched when the Howard Sprague lookalike stripped off his shirt to reveal pounds of jiggly hairy dough all the while asking the landlady if he should take off his pants. Thankfully the defendant said no but watching these two that wasn’t a given. 

And for the record H. S Prague lookalike takes a daily shower and washes his hands. So he says. 

Another dandy episode courtesy of TPC.