The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

I saw the promo for the next case during a commercial break today with the guy with the large square Marine Corp pennant on his shirt who really pissed off Judge Milian. A news briefing on Corona Virus in a state a couple hundred miles away took over the rest of the show on my station. What did the guy do to piss of JM? Did I miss something juicy?

In the earlier case of the hit and run mirror broken off case, All of the litigants were annoying, but the female defendant took the prize with her overblown posturing and facial expressions and clearly rehearsed "recreation" of the physical contact. I immediately though of her as an aspiring community theater player. All of this drama (from both sides) was over $175 to fix a broken side view mirror.

 

ETA: Thanks patty1h, sorry I missed that guy.

Edited May 1, 2020 by DoctorK
while I was composing, my question was answered.

[patty1h]

2 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

A news briefing on Corona Virus in a state a couple hundred miles away took over the rest of the show on my station. What did the guy do to piss of JM? Did I miss something juicy?

The guy was mumbling and used the word bullshit twice, which he then denied when JM asked him.  She even asked Douglas to verify that he heard it too, and the guy shrugged it off.   Then the guy pulled out a thermos of something and took a swig.  He also brought props - he pulled out a toy soldier and a toy army jeep to bolster his ranting that the plaintiff was a scammer who was only a mechanic in the military but worked the system into receiving social security for PTSD.   

The guy was belligerent and semi-yelling and just seemed kinda wacked out and he kept trying JM's patience, particularly when he he tried to pass himself off as a practically a lawyer because he has a masters degree(?!?) and filled out forms that a real lawyer gets paid to do.  He wanted to argue with JM about this point until she shut him down.  He tried to claim that he was owed $6K for helping the plaintiff fill out the papers that he submitted that ultimately got him the SS benefits.   It all got resolved when the plaintiff showed the text messages where the defendant acknowledged that he's borrowed the money.

[AngelaHunter]

So are wig stores stocking the "Judge Milian" model now, since I'm sure that's what def in the "Another shopping cart asshole" case was wearing. All this trouble, lying, videos, protestations of innocence and scamming for a broken mirror on an old car. Plaintiff had to go the hospital for x-rays and meds after def hit him. Hospital records? Oh, well he didn't bring those today. His mirror is more important. I guess being religious doesn't preclude you from these kinds of shenannigans of trying to get a big score or weasel your way out paying what you owe. Def is only 120lbs so how could her carelessly wheeled cart hit the mirror? And of course def's hubby who wasn't even there has to stick his big horn in about why they shouldn't pay. Horrible, awful people all around.

And then we get plaintiff who is a "Wounded Warrior" suing the lunatic def ("Thank you for your service." ) wearing a huge banner hanging from his neck and shouting "Hoorah!", for 1000$. The loan was needed, you see, because def's son hooked up with some "white woman" and this white woman thought it would be a grand idea to breed with def's son who I'm sure seemed like a paragon of virtue to her. Only it wasn't such a hot idea since def's son killed the baby and is in prison now. And I'm OUT. I don't know if Levin had some really funny dead baby quip or not.

[patty1h]

39 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

The loan was needed, you see, because def's son hooked up with some "white woman" and this white woman thought it would be a grand idea to breed with def's son who I'm sure seemed like a paragon of virtue to her. Only it wasn't such a hot idea since def's son killed the baby and is in prison now. And I'm OUT. I don't know if Levin had some really funny dead baby quip or not.

I must have zoned out because I didn't absorb any of this part of the case!  Wow, it was wackier than I thought.  However, I don't know if I can believe anything that Mr. Masters Degree/Lawyer with PTSD says, after seeing him lie, shake and guzzle some mystery liquid from a thermos.

 

[AngelaHunter]

11 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Mr. Masters Degree/Lawyer with PTSD says, after seeing him lie, shake and guzzle some mystery liquid from a thermos.

Master's degree? In what? He couldn't even speak basic English from what little I heard. Whatever he was guzzling I have a feeling it might have been 40% proof. After hearing about the loving baby daddy murdering a baby, (maybe a brilliant way to avoid child support payments for those who don't have the brain power to think one minute ahead?) I think I have PTSD. Where can I get some benefits?

 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think I have PTSD. Where can I get some benefits?

 

Thank you for your service to this board AngelaHunter.  

When Beatle Bailey plaintiff said that the defendant’s son married some white woman, was with the baby then is in prison....I knew.  And for all my sarcastic snark I couldn’t muster up anything but a flash anger.  He murdered, or killed, or abused the baby to death.  On principle alone I wouldn’t give anyone money for that situation.  Let the bastard sit in prison and fight off the criminal masses who detest child abusers.  

And I’m dying if I’m lying I was only giving quick glances to the car mirror case.  Everything everyone said above but one little thing...did anyone else notice how she tried to interrupt JM so that she could apologize to Douglas for pushing him too hard.  What a moose.  Glad when that case was over.   

And if I learned one thing from court shows - when the decision is being rendered shut up. Just shut up.  No judge likes extra yammering.

And I don’t know if it’s the apple martini talking or me but what do you think of small book with the title “Things I Learned from TV Court Shows”.  Think about it, a compilation of our snark, complaints and observations.  

I’m seeing our group on the NYTimes Bestseller List.

 

[Taeolas]

I think the current eps were filmed in late Feb/early March, though Levin's segments were probably done in April.

Though I may be mixing up with Judge Mathis.

I think Mathis and TPC are the only court shows with new eps at the moment (sweeps is just starting) but I could've sworn some show recently had a case where the plaintifs said something about the event happening in February 2020, with some expected results in March 2020. So while COVID was ramping up, it hadn't quite shut everything down yet.... but it is just about to happen. 

That should make this sweeps period extra interesting.

 

And yes, TPC does feel like they are stretching out their eps to fill in the time and make the best of the eps they have in the can. 

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

 He murdered, or killed, or abused the baby to death.

The worst part is that this is not an unusual occurrance. I read about it far too often.

 

16 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Let the bastard sit in prison and fight off the criminal masses who detest child abusers.  

We can only hope he gets what's coming to him there. What really angers me is that you know in most of these cases, the incubator (so-called "mother") does nothing about the abuse because keeping her prized man around is more important than protecting her own helpless infant.

16 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

..did anyone else notice how she tried to interrupt JM so that she could apologize to Douglas for pushing him too hard

Yes, I noticed. Hated her and the way she scuttled from the board back to the podium. Hated her smarmy hubby. Hated the plaintiff. So glad I'm not a judge who has to sit, listen and give serious consideration to all the lying and bullshit going on.

Edited May 2, 2020 by AngelaHunter
because usual and unusual don't mean the same thing.

[howiveaddict]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

So are wig stores stocking the "Judge Milian" model now, since I'm sure that's what def in the "Another shopping cart asshole" case was wearing. 

I think she was wearing the wig because she is an Orthodox Jew. Many orthodox Jewish women wear wigs in public.   Both men were wearing yarmulkes.  

[Florinaldo]

6 hours ago, patty1h said:

The guy was mumbling and used the word bullshit twice, which he then denied when JM asked him.  She even asked Douglas to verify that he heard it too, and the guy shrugged it off. 

That guy could be the poster boy for a possible campaign to change the cliché salution to vets and make it "thanks for your service, as long as you are not a complete and deliberate asshole".

JM was very tolerant of him, letting him wear his ugly Marine pageant sash (obviously intended as a challenge and provocation), putting on a show-and-tell with his props, shouting his testimony even when not trying to talk over her and others, etc.

She may have fallen victim to the Pavlovian deference towards military vets often displayed in the US, or else she decided to let him hang himself by fully displaying how much of a dick he is.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

I think she was wearing the wig because she is an Orthodox Jew.

Yes, I know but I just found it amusing how it looked almost exactly like JM's hair, as though you might go to a wig store and say "I'll take the "Judge Milian", please" the way there used to be wigs styled like the hair of celebrities, or maybe such things still exist.

[howiveaddict]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yes, I know but I just found it amusing how it looked almost exactly like JM's hair, as though you might go to a wig store and say "I'll take the "Judge Milian", please" the way there used to be wigs styled like the hair of celebrities, or maybe such things still exist.

Back in the day, it was Eva Gabor wigs.  My mom and grandma wore them for the heck of it.

[Maverick]

 Yesterday's rerun included a case about a guy who sold some gold, didn't cash the check, lost it and then requested a replacement check.   Sketchy pawn shop owner said they don't issue replacement checks due to fraud, but in court says that they do but their "policy" (a supposed sign supposedly by the register) is to charge $100 fee.    Judge obviously orders sketchy pawn shop owner to pay the guy, without deduction for his stop payment fee since he was too sketchy to offer the replacement check before getting to court.   Both Judge MM and Harvey made a point that the Plaintiff won because sketchy pawn shop owner shouldn't get something for nothing.   They're right but neither mentioned the legal concept that prevents that from happening.   Escheatment laws say just because someone doesn't cash a check it isn't a windfall for the issuer.   They have to attempt to reissue the check and failing to find the payee, after a period that varies by state they have to remit the money to the state.      

[aemom]

On 4/29/2020 at 4:31 PM, SRTouch said:

3rd case - auto shop case over 25yo hoopty: p takes old hoopty in for alignment and inspection, but tells shop to do bare minimum to get it to pass - shop does exactly that, doing bare minimum so it'll pass inspection that day - hoopty owner parks thing for three months - tries to start it, won't start, so takes it somewhere else - new mechanic finds 3 dry rotted tires, busted brake line, bad suspension, and tell owner not worth fixing - of course owner decides first shop ought to refund the $700 he paid them to get it to barely pass inspection........ ok, if 1st shop was any good, they would have pointed out just how marginal everything was, but they did exactly what guy wanted and did bare minimum to pass inspection....... also defendant shop owner came to court prepared to show that most of what 2nd shop found wrong weren't items required to be inspected by law....... 1) brake line, even though rotten, doesn't fail inspection unless it's actually leaking - so says it would have passed even if rotted as long as it wasn't leaking; 2) tires allowed to be dry rotted until there are cracks over 1 inch long - says only 1 tire had cracks over an inch long, so he replaced that 1 tire; 3) and state doesn't require suspension to be inspected, so yeah, van had bad ball joints, but ball joints aren't part of safety inspection

About the only thing I can do these days during lockdown is go for a walk which I do every single day unless it's pouring rain.  As we walk, my husband (the car guy) is checking out all the cars in the driveways pointing out the ones who haven't been driven for a while and warns that their brakes are going to rust.  He reminds me every week when I go out to do the groceries to be sure to slam on the brakes really hard at some point to keep the brakes decent.  My car is only 4 1/2 years old and if I don't drive it regularly, things will rust/dry out/etc.  If you leave a 25 year old car sitting in a driveway for 3 MONTHS, you can bet your ass that there will be all those problems that happened to it and you need only look in a mirror to figure out why.

Edited May 4, 2020 by aemom
Typo

[CrazyInAlabama]

In today's car case (a 2001 Mitsubishi) with the check engine light, the plaintiff has the most bizarre haircut.   It looks like he has a stuffed animal glued to his forehead.     He also brought nothing to court to prove anything.    Plus, he brought Mommy to court.     What a fool. Who would think a 20 year old car would have issues?   

Edited May 4, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In today's car case (a 2001 Mitsubishi) with the check engine light, the plaintiff has the most bizarre haircut.   It looks like he has a stuffed animal glued to his forehead.     He also brought nothing to court to prove anything.    Plus, he brought Mommy to court.     What a fool. Who would think a 20 year old car would have issues?   

Darn it.  We often have covid updates that totally wipe out PC on Mondays.  I wanna see the guy with the stuffed animal glued to his forehead.  

 

[AngelaHunter]

38 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I wanna see the guy with the stuffed animal glued to his forehead.  

I'll take a pic for you.  I'm getting a really bizarre visual here and can't wait to see him.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The man (actually 22 year old man-baby) has a big pouf of hair on his forehead.   It looks like a teddy bear is glued on his forehead and crown.    

The idiot fence people plaintiffs who have said the fence is not theirs, and all belongs to the defendants, are so wrong.    Then when the defendants give notice to the plaintiffs that they taking the fence down to replace it, all on the defendant's property, and at the defendant's expense, the plaintiffs sue.      I always feel sorry for those who move to a house, and the neighbors make no sense about things like this fence situation, and are suing the defendant for garbage like this.   Actually, since the fence is all on the defendant's property, they have no obligation to put up another fence, and if plaintiffs need to keep their dogs in the yard, they should do their own fence.    Good luck ever selling the defendant's property too, because I'm sure someone will tell prospective buyers about the fence feud.    I'm wondering if this whole situation will have to be disclosed to buyers too.  

Apparently, the plaintiffs also argued about who parked on the public street.   Why does Judge M. keep trying to get neighbors who have been harassed from day one to make nice with the plaintiffs?    I hate to break it to Judge M, and the defendants, but plaintiff husband will never stop being hostile.  The plaintiff husband was actually smirking at Doug in the hall-terview, when the defendant wife shook his hand.   

Edited May 4, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In today's car case (a 2001 Mitsubishi) with the check engine light, the plaintiff has the most bizarre haircut.   It looks like he has a stuffed animal glued to his forehead.     He also brought nothing to court to prove anything.    Plus, he brought Mommy to court.     What a fool. Who would think a 20 year old car would have issues?   

In my 20+ years of counseling individuals I cannot tell you how many times I had to address the absolute despair of clients who have lost a parent (usually the mother) and have no idea how to function in the world.

So many contestants on TPC are accompanied by a doting mother or grandmother who has to literally bring the man/child into court and answer for them because the parent has done nothing else but from day one.

Teddy (bear head) was no exception.  It's his car.  His case.  His experience.  Why mom had to sit in the courtroom rifling through papers makes no sense.  Let him stand on his own two feet.  She is doing him no favors.  What if she was to die tomorrow?  Would he be able to function without her in his world to shadow him and make sure a bus doesn't hit him when he crosses the street.

I am not psychic but I'm telling you I can see a future Teddy sitting in a counselor's office sobbing because he's left alone in the world and has no idea how to get through a day without mom leading the way.  

There is a residual consequence to helicopter parenting.  The problem is that the parent isn't usually around to see the damage they created.  

 

 

 

[Broderbits]

First plaintiff today should have sued the person who gave him that "beaver tail fell on my head" hair style.

First case defendant kind of reminded me of Carmen Ghia from the original "The Producers" movie:

 

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The man (actually 22 year old man-baby) has a big pouf of hair on his forehead. 

It looked like a beaver pelt that he spent an excessive amount of time today - probably assisted by Mommy - getting styled just right.

It's kind of scary when you think it took only a couple of generations for a 22-year-old (who used to be consided a grown man who had to stand on his own two feet) to devolve into a tiny little Momma's boy. Welcome to the New Age.  I just bet she's a SSM and this is her only pampered chick. Baby Boy buys a total POS 18-year-old Mitsubishi. Does he want reliable transportation to get to job/school or whatever? No, he does not. He goes and spends money on modifying the exhaust system because like a 12-year-old he wants a flashy car that goes VROOOOOM VROOOOM so all the neighbours will think he's a really cool dude, what with his hairdo and all. Mommy not only speaks for him and backs him up on this , but is willing to throw another 1100$ down the toilet for Baby Boy's new toy.

The next case (how come only 2 cases now? We always got three unless one was particulary complicated) is about 450$ stolen from some fly-by-night fugazi company where employees put the day's take in some unlocked drawer. So boring I wandered off.

This is for AZChristian. Super-pallid BB with his skinned beaver 'do.

As a bonus, here's Levin in his lair. I guess the Crayola people aren't available to fix his face for him lately.

 

[AZChristian]

29 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

It looked like a beaver pelt that he spent an excessive amount of time today - probably assisted by Mommy - getting styled just right.

It's kind of scary when you think it took only a couple of generations for a 22-year-old (who used to be consided a grown man who had to stand on his own two feet) to devolve into a tiny little Momma's boy. Welcome to the New Age.  I just bet she's a SSM and this is her only pampered chick. Baby Boy buys a total POS 18-year-old Mitsubishi. Does he want reliable transportation to get to job/school or whatever? No, he does not. He goes and spends money on modifying the exhaust system because like a 12-year-old he wants a flashy car that goes VROOOOOM VROOOOM so all the neighbours will think he's a really cool dude, what with his hairdo and all. Mommy not only speaks for him and backs him up on this , but is willing to throw another 1100$ down the toilet for Baby Boy's new toy.

The next case (how come only 2 cases now? We always got three unless one was particulary complicated) is about 450$ stolen from some fly-by-night fugazi company where employees put the day's take in some unlocked drawer. So boring I wandered off.

This is for AZChristian. Super-pallid BB with his skinned beaver 'do.

As a bonus, here's Levin in his lair. I guess the Crayola people aren't available to fix his face for him lately.

 

What's really funny is that the woman over his right shoulder has a "what in the hell is THAT" look on her face.  LOL.

Thanks so much for the picture @AngelaHunter.  It's coming on here in about 15 minutes - unless the governor is on instead.

I think we're only getting two cases per day so they can stretch out what they already have in the can.  If they have (for example) 36 cases filmed, that can either be 18 days or 12 days - depending on whether they put on 2 or 3 per day.  Is May still "sweeps" month when they put on all new stuff to entice advertisers?

I will now go into my meditation corner to see if I can forgive you for the close-up of Levin.  

ETA:  It's 3:05, and here's the governor.  Sigh.

Edited May 4, 2020 by AZChristian

[AngelaHunter]

14 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I think we're only getting two cases per day so they can stretch out what they already have in the can. 

Yeah, they must less-edited than usual. They're really dragging out cases - like "as is" old junker cars - that should be 15 minutes tops.

15 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I will now go into my meditation corner to see if I can forgive you for the close-up of Levin.  

Sowwy. I just thought I'd share.

[Maverick]

Levin looks like that old Jay Leno Tonight Show gag Mr. Brain in that pic. 

 In the fence case rerun, as so often happens I didn't have a lot of sympathy for either party.  The plaintiff had a lot gall, but who doesn't rely on a survey and instead goes off the fact "the ugly side was facing us"?   I mean really?  And I agree with MM, even if that had any bearing whatsoever, why would you think why would you think the post and beam side would face the owner?  If the other side of the fence was your yard too, sure but if it's a diving line the owner is just as likely to want the "smooth" side facing them. 

[NYGirl]

These half hour cases are killing me.  Not one was interesting enough to keep my interest.  Another product of Covid19.  

[SRTouch]

10 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Darn it.  We often have covid updates that totally wipe out PC on Mondays.  I wanna see the guy with the stuffed animal glued to his forehead.  

 

Not sure what it was here, but I lost signal on the satellite after the first 10 minutes and it didn't come back until the last few minutes of the last case.......

[Florinaldo]

10 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The man (actually 22 year old man-baby) has a big pouf of hair on his forehead.

It looked as if he hacked his toupée off that most rare and elusive species, the rarely seen bushy-tailed beaver. A truly odious depradation inflicted on such elegant animals.  😉

And a slight correction: he is a "child-baby". Nothing mature about him.

In the alleged theft at work case, it was clear from the start that she was suing the wrong party, since the action of docking her pay is the employer's responsibility; if it stems from an abuse of power or a mistake by the frontline manager, it's the employer who can take action against him or discipline him.

But I understand why she went on the show and was so happy even though she lost: she gets half of the award kitty, i.e. 5 times the lost pay. As a bonus, she got to display her big-ass fugly earrings she must be soooo proud of.

Another instance of watering down a case by extending it well beyond the limit of human ability to maintain interest.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Pepper the Cat]

Those were some honking big earrings in the second case. They must hurt to wear.

 

[SRTouch]

1. tow guy suing car owner: tow guy had a slam dunk case - then he gets greedy and goes for the gold - too bad, too, as he looked and sounded way above the normal knuckle dragging tow guys we often see. Car owner is momma who let 23yo daughter (with suspended license) use her car - supposedly only to go to and from work, but daughter totals car after night of partying and wrecks at least 2, maybe be more, other cars - we don't really hear much about the accident since it doesn't matter to case. Momma is registered owner, so is on the hook for tow charges and impound fees..... also had to bail out daughter who had outstanding warrant for not attending court ordered drug and alcohol classes - oh, and not explored, but sounds like momma had taken out a title loan on ancient (now worthless) hoopty.... soooooo let's see, bail money, lost her car, has to pay more in tow and impound fees than hoopty is worth, probably owes on a title loan, liable to get sued for damage to other cars (may have actually had liability insurance but would that cover her unlicensed daughter) -- oh well, sounds like she was already in process of declaring bankruptcy - but in hallterview she tells Doug that's no reason to be mad at daughter...... No question tow guy deserves the impound and tow fee - problem is he wants 90 days storage when law says he could have junked car after 30 days. Tow guy asked for almost 4 grand, is awarded $1200 and change
2. honesty bites Cleaner in pocket book: unusual thing here, I believe both litigants..... P drops his clothes off at cleaners, then several says later realizes he left fancy gold jewelry in pocket - this is where cleaner lady gets in trouble  - customer has no proof jewelry was in pocket, but not only does cleaner lady admit to finding it on floor, she provides video of customer dropping it as he goes through pockets - then, she tells story of finding it on floor next day, keeping it for 3-4 days, then giving it to another customer - because she feels sorry for other guy losing his mother, not because she thinks it belonged to this other guy - MM tells us in their jurisdiction the law required her to turn it in to police, who would have kept it for 30 days........ I'm wondering if a posted sign saying cleaner not responsible for items left in pocket would have got around the 30 day requirement. Anyway, cleaner lady ordered to pay $1900 for 3 pieces of jewelry....... ok, MM is the judge, so I'm not going to try to argue law - however, she took P's word on what was lost and awarded full replacement cost according to what P pulled off Internet of 'equivalent' items - D admitted to finding 2 items - not 3 - and we really have no item of value - I would not have given what he asked
3. fence case with twist: rather than normal neighbor feud, this is a carpet cleaner dude who backs cleaner van into homeowner's 20yo rail fence and breaks a post - at first homeowner willing to work with carpet cleaning company, but after 8 months D writes her a $100 check and washes his hands of matter - lady wants a fence, and $100 ain't doing it for her - she never cashes check, goes online and finds her dream fence, and sues for $2500 even though only one 12x12 post was damaged....... $2500 isn't happening, but neither is $100 - MM awards $300

Edited May 5, 2020 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

honesty bites Cleaner in pocket book: unusual thing here, I believe both litigants..... P drops his clothes off at cleaners, then several says later realizes he left fancy gold jewelry in pocket -

As the plaintiff started this story, I felt my eyes start to roll that this was going to be a scam, like the people who say they had expensive items in a car that got towed, their items went missing, and want the tow company to pay.  It was a shock to hear that the guy was genuine and not a grifter trying to get a fast buck from a business.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tow guy suing car owner:

The population is devolving yet more. Here we have a 23-year-old woman, the entitled Cachet (Moms should be required to own a dictionary and use it before naming their spawn), a dull-eyed nitwit who thinks it's cute that she got her license suspended - she can't remember why *giggle* - but it seems for a speeding ticket and drunk driving - "Hee hee!" - crashed into other cars. She thinks it was "only one" car she hit after a night of partying and she appears to be very light in the grey matter department. But oops - heehee - she had a warrant outstanding too! How adorbs is that? Momma claims not to know her darling Cachet was out tooling around at all hours with no license.

Momma also thinks she should get to pick and choose where the cops haul her 21-year old dinosaur car. Cachet doesn't give a shit about any of this. She also didn't bother going to her drunk driving course because she couldn't afford it and Momma is declaring bankruptcy and all that. Everyone should understand her situation! To me the best part is that Momma had a title loan on this truly ancient vehicle. How much could one borrow against a '99 Taurus? Now I see where Cachet got her sense of obligation and responsibility. Mom thinks if she ignores registered letters and demands for payment from the tow yard it will all just magically go away. Tow guy is totally in the right, except when he says he keeps old wrecked heaps for ages as some sort of public service because he cares so much. He could have sent the elderly, smashed up Taurus to the crusher 30 days after he got it, but didn't, so his keeping it for an eternity is his problem. He gets 1000$ which is probably 3 times what the clunker was worth even before Cachet crashed it. In the hall, Cachet still doesn't give a rat's ass and Momma informs Doug she's not annoyed with her baby at all. Kids will be kids, even when they are grown women.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

honesty bites Cleaner in pocket book:

At first I though plaintiff was like the litigants we see who happened to leave a 50" flat screen, tablets, cell phones and 20 custom-made leather jackets in their car when the bad thing happened, but no. Def, in a voice that suggests a 4-pack a day habit says, why yes, she found all the jewelry on the floor, tossed it on her counter and left it there. No, of course she never though to put it somewhere hidden from the public. Some guy comes in and whines how he lost his mommy and blah blah, so she just gives him all the jewelry. She knows what it's like to lose your mother and jewelry is the best remedy. Yeah, most of us do know how that feels but that doesn't usually entail us handing over someone else's property to some slick scammer. She asked scammer to bring the stuff back and he said he would, but you'll never guess - he didn't! Honestly, how could someone live this long and stay so dumb? I was a little skeptical of JM giving P 1899$ with no receipts of what he paid, but oh, well - maybe it taught cleaner lady a lesson. Or not.

I took a jacket, etc, to the cleaner and realized the next day I had left a gold, bejeweled leopard brooch on  the lapel of one jacket because I'm an idiot. I freaked because it was a present from my husband and I raced to the cleaner. The woman there asked me on what article of clothing it had been, and to describe the item. I did and thankfully I got it back. It was not left lying on the counter, but under it out of sight.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

fence case with twist:

😄 One post on your 20-year-old cedar fence gets broken, so you should be entitled to an entire new, fancy solar fence for 2500$ because it's what you want? Gall or stupidity or greed, or all of the above? Not sure, but that was pretty funny.

[DoctorK]

23 hours ago, Maverick said:

why would you think why would you think the post and beam side would face the owner? 

I think if the fence is exposed to the public, this is the way a lot of people do it so the street view is nice. Where I live just about all of the privacy fences are back yard only and local requirement is that fences have to be set 6 inches back from the property line. As a result in most cases with privacy fences, both owners put in their own fence and with a one foot dead zone between adjacent fences. So we all have the nice sides of our fences facing towards us and the ugly sides only face each other and there are never any disputes as to who owns a fence or who is responsible for maintenance or replacement. Any fences that face the street usually put the nice side towards the street even though I don't think there is any requirement,

Edited May 5, 2020 by DoctorK
clarification

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Cachet doesn't give a shit about any of this. She also didn't bother going to her drunk driving course because she couldn't afford it and Momma is declaring bankruptcy and all that.

Momma had no money for insurance or paying fines, but she sure managed to scrape up enough to bail Cachet out after one night.

But Momma didn't seem to realize that she could save a lot of money by just leaving Cachet's cachet in jail.

[Florinaldo]

8 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Tow guy asked for almost 4 grand, is awarded $1200 and change

His high claim may have been, in part, retaliatory due to exasperation at the defendants' inaction and their refusing the certified letter he sent.

I can't say that I blame him: the mother seems to be an habitual liar who thinks that shirking one's responsibilites is a normal way of life, a lesson her no-good daughter has apparently well learned. The latter did not talk much, probably because she was still under the shock of having stuck her fingers in an electrical outlet just before the hearing, judging from her hair.

Daughter's behaviour is so consistent with mother's world view that in the hallterview, mommy found no reason to be mad at her darling offspring and was very approving of her actions

8 hours ago, SRTouch said:

honesty bites Cleaner in pocket book: 

Plaintiff was lucky that the cleaner's testimony and evidence cooked her goose; she was rather lackadaisical in her procedures for handling lost and found in her store. JM was much too generous in her award though, trusting the careless guy with no real proof as to the value of the items.

8 hours ago, SRTouch said:

fence case with twist:

The usual greedy homeowner who wants an exorbitant amount of compensation well beyond the cost of the limited damage inflicted and even of the fence as a whole. I would have let the 100 $ stand, to teach her a lesson for being so rapacious.

[SRTouch]

Yet another two case day - and not exactly riveting cases at that..... as other have pondered, these feel like left overs just biding time til sweeps - problem with that is they may lose regular viewers with these duds - these cases could have been edited down and shown on a 4-case day

1. two old biddies suing each other:  these two have been friends for 20 odd years - biddy #1 was evicted when her 22yo son, who was living with her, was arrested for dealing out of her apartment (she either had the son late, or has led a rough life) - biddy #2 lets her good friend sleep on couch in her smallish apartment "for awhile" rent free - awhile turns into almost a year (if I have this right, #1 was there 3 months, left to sleep on someone else's couch for a while, than came back for another 8 months - never paid rent but helped with utilities and expenses) - finally, #1 finds someone else to move in with, but leaves behind a shopping cart filled with boxes and a garbage bag of papers, clothes, etc - at this point, the two are still friendly, with #1 coming to visit and socialize, but #2 isn't happy with shopping cart taking up room in small apartment - finally, after asking #1 to take several times, #2 gets insistent and #1 goes off - this is where I got the "biddy" from, as they have nasty text war, calling each other biddy and saying "everybody hates you, you were a terrible mother, your son hates you, wish you were dead" etc etc in the midst of this exchange, #1 tells #2 she no longer wants the cart full of stuff and just throw it out - so, #2 throws it out...... and that's what the case is about - #1 is suing saying she had a couple grand worth of stuff in the cart, and #2 now wants to retroactively sue for rent........ no surprise, nobody gets a penny........ I didn't rewind to check, but pretty sure MM read texts that sunk biddy #1's case off her own phone
2. suing for car damage: p says when he went to visit a friend who lives on D's property, the gate swung closed and scratched his car - he wants a couple grand....... D says when P first approached him his repair estimate was $225 - then all of a sudden P wants 10 times that - says P has no proof gate caused damage, and he says this is just a money grab...... well, turns out P has plausible story about gate causing damage - his problem is he's suing the property owner/manager when the person who actually left gate unsecured and able to swing and hit his car was a tenant - seems gate was supposed to be secured by a chain and padlock, but instead of securing gate a tenant's visitor left it open and swinging in the wind - P told he may have case against the tenant and visitor, but not owner/manager - case dismissed (full disclosure - did my own editing of case #2 and watched maybe 10 minutes of it

Edited May 6, 2020 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

two old biddies suing each other:  these two have been friends for 20 odd years

I was really annoyed with the plaintiff, the user who got mad when her friend asked her to remove a cartful of items taking up space in her apartment and blew it up into a nasty text war. I think plaintiff found a new sucker and the new place she hopped into wasn't going to allow her to bring her hoard of crap into it and she planned to let the defendant be her free storage unit.  Instead of being a friend, she turned into a shrew when given an ultimatum.  I know this kind of person, the type who blows up and makes their poor coping skills your problem and suddenly you're the bad guy.   

I get the sense that plaintiff is a little fragile and/or has some issues and this friend letting Little Miss Squatter move in now better think twice. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by patty1h

[SRTouch]

9 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I was really annoyed with the plaintiff, the user who got mad when her friend asked her to remove a cartful of items taking up space in her apartment and blew it up into a nasty text war. I think plaintiff found a new sucker and the new place she hopped into wasn't going to allow her to bring her hoard of crap into it and she planned to let the defendant be her free storage unit.  Instead of being a friend, she turned into a shrew when given an ultimatum.  I know this kind of person, the type who blows up and makes their poor coping skills your problem and suddenly you're the bad guy.   

The person who let little miss squatter move in now better think twice.  I get the sense that plaintiff is a little fragile and/or has some issues and doesn't 

Something about P that I failed to mention was that she turned on the tears. I was eating during this case, so was listening more than watching - but I was NOT nearly impressed with her tears and it seemed MM was. There are times when I don't care for HB's judge D, but I love it when she tells whiney litigants not to turn on the tears.

Edited May 6, 2020 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

Oooh, I'm still mad at Little Miss Squatter (LMS), who was perfectly fine with putting a dent in her saintly friend's (SF) couch for 8 months but gets her panties in a twist when asked to get her shit out.   She tears up because her stuff was tossed after she tells the SF to get rid of it.  I was really curious to hear what heirlooms were worth the $2300 she was suing for, but they never got to it.  If it was that valuable, LMS should have hustled over and gotten it.  Instead she turns it into a Mean Girl scenario where SF was always talking about people... boohoo.

Luckily LMS has a network of friends that take her in.  The current friend seeing this case should be on high alert.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Oooh, I'm still mad at Little Miss Squatter

HATED her! After Darling Son gets thrown in the slammer because he's a drug dealer at 20 years old, she becomes homeless. Maybe Sonny Boy's pushing financed the place?  She  parks her butt on D's sofa and freeloads for eight months and even when she moves on to freeload on someone else she leaves her junk in D's one-bedroom apartment because it's not convenient to take it. Friend finally asks her to come pick up her shit, which triggers a avalanche of venom and abuse from P, telling D she should kill herself and no one loves her. Looks who's talking. After all D did for her, she has the gall to sue for her very valuable junk that was left in a shopping cart. What a pig. "I know I told her by text to just get rid of it, but now I want money for it." And if she was working 50 hours a week, which she claimed, why can't she get her own place? Why does she have to be everyone's charity case at her age? I wish this case had been on Hot Bench, just to hear Judge DiM say, 'Oh my god, now she's going to cry!" JM was way too kind to her. I really felt sorry for D, who truly has been used and abused by this giant, ungrateful, vicious leech.

Gate padlock was too boring. The only interesting part was that P's friend's sister "accidently" took the chain and lock with her when she left. What kind of person steals such a thing? Who absently-mindedly stuffs a big chain and lock in her pocket or her purse? But yeah, JM figured it out pretty quickly. P wanted to clean up with 2500$ for repairs to his car hit by the gate, but then will go get it done by some backyard mechanic he knows for 250$ and pocket the surplus. He gets nothing. Not sure why D wanted his young son here to listen to his dad being grilled like a cheeseburger. Whatever. P needs to sue the landlord or the sticky-fingers who stole the lock.

 

ETA:

Quote

 There are times when I don't care for HB's judge D, but I love it when she tells whiney litigants not to turn on the tears.

Ha! I posted before reading what you wrote. Agree!!!!!

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

8 hours ago, SRTouch said:

two old biddies suing each other:

Old biddy defendant was the saner of the two. She should be happy not to have to deal anymore with that emotionally hyper-needy plaintiff; others will now have to bear that gleeful burden.

[NYGirl]

No good deed goes unpunished.

[howiveaddict]

Surprised JM didn't try to get the two women to make up and be friends again.  Crier should have been told to shut up her blubbering or get out.

[Guest]

Late to the party but need to say that Cachet's mom has to be in the top five for most vile, hateful, clueless contestants on TPC.   Scratch clueless...she knows exactly what's going on.  And has a portfolio of scams, excuses and outright lies at her fingertips.  

Reality check:  We share a planet with these nasty creatures.  They walk among us.

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

Surprised JM didn't try to get the two women to make up and be friends again.

She started to do that. When horrid plaintiff turned on the waterworks JM asked why she was crying and P bellowed, "I MISS HER!" but when the def said she missed "Everyone's Charity Case" D. not at all, JM gave up, to our relief.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Late to the party but need to say that Cachet's mom has to be in the top five for most vile, hateful, clueless contestants on TPC.

She must be pleased that she succeeded in molding Cachet in her own image. Keep at it, Mom. Pretty soon your spawn will also be able to come up with a list of excuses for her bad behavior, just like you do!

[ThePurpleArcher]

On 4/27/2020 at 3:37 PM, patty1h said:

The virus has affected the setup of the show - Harvey is not standing on the street surrounded by a group of fans who he can banter with during the commercial breaks.  Instead, he's on camera in his home(?) as he comments on the cases. 

Poor Harvey - he can't stand on the street corner in West Hollywood and pay the handsome studs to stand around him and flirt with him on camera. (It was so obvious he would pick the under-30 muscle hunks in tight tees to talk to in the crowd.)

 

Now he's in his home, looking like a hang dog who wants to escape his dog house. 

[ThePurpleArcher]

Back to the Mitsubishi case on Monday. Can we talk for a minute about how sexy the defendant was - the one who had sold him the car ? WOW! Handsome guy and a sexy body - and a great personality, too. He knew the mom and son were a bit 'off' - and was trying to cooperate. My kind of sexy guy! 

Edited May 7, 2020 by ThePurpleArcher

[Rabbittron]

I don't know why but it looks to me like he's really wasted. 

[SRTouch]

Yet another long case which should have been short, as 1st case ran half the show - again, I zipped through most of these

• Car burns up before delivery: listened to intro & seems like simple case, so not sure why it takes up half an hour. - P car was in D's shop when shop burns - D freely admits he accidently started fire while working on gas tank of a different car, agrees P's '87 porche was damaged, but....... not sure what the 'but' is, except that he was physically burned and hurt financially, so guess P should have understood and given him a break? (oh, shop was uninsured) - P says he bought the '87 Porsche for $1,700, but left it with D because it needed work - problem right out the gate is that P starts listing all the stuff D was to fix and it comes to more than the car is worth - well, maybe he thought D was restoring car for that  $1700, as he says he expected all leaks fix (on an '87 anyyhing), new breaks, 4 new tires, etc etc - wants court max, but is asking to be paid for damage he can't attribute to fire - don't like either litigant and when MM gets loud trying to get ANY clear answer from P I start zipping ahead - stop when I see D talking - he might be hard of hearing as he has no volume control - MM ends case by sending litigants out to meet with staff to go over damage claim to come up with reasonable amount........ geez, today's the day and now is the time - if P isn't prepared, either dismiss outright or award damage he proved in court....... anyway, I only watched a few minutes, maybe I missed all the good parts, but doubt it
• 4 grand for leaky patio roof: guess maybe I just lack necessary patience to listen to these guys these days - when we hear how P paid 4 grand to cousin of ex gf or some such nonsense I reach for the remote....... it does not help that guy did the roofing job, and P is suing for full refund because it leaks - unless it's soooo bad it has to be torn down, best P should get is whatever a GOOD estimate to fix is - thankfully, MM doesn't waste a lot of time on this, and finishes case in record time........ ah, but case has strange twist - seems P called day after D finished about problem with roof, and D gives us song and dance about why he couldn't fix roof - seems between time he got job and time it was finished, he & p's cousin had bad split, complete with cops, lawyers, restraining orders, etc and D says his lawyer advised him not to have any contact with cousin or her family, which is why he didn't come fix problem....... well, that's a horse of different color, now P has legitimate reason not to let D fix problem - P still not going to get full refund (which I guess is what I said at beginning), so will have to figure out what a reasonable estimate would be, cuz of course P has no estimate......... this one may be kind of tricky - looking at these pix & video, I can't tell want needs to be done since we're looking from underneath - D says he just needs to run a bead of silicone caulking along seam, but we're seeing A LOT of water, and I wonder if he pitched roof properly - it does NOT look like a 4 grand installation........ rough justice - MM asks want he'd charge - D says 'bout $400 - MM says that's more than she would have guessed, but that's what she orders - $400 to P
• furniture sale gone wrong: p bought used furniture, but says when she got it home it was not as advertised, suing for $714.28....... D says it was 2yo furniture that was purchased for 2 grand - she sold it for $600 - WTH, stuff wasn't new, but still perfectly usable....... ok, problem here is P bought this stuff online based on pictures, took delivery without examining it, and then didn't like it upon closer inspection....... unless she shows ad was intentionally misleading or outright phoney, she bought it AS-IS without doing due diligence....... I figure this is another open and shut case so I zip to award...... ah ha! Case does not go as I expected and I end up rewinding to see why the switcheroo - still not the best case, but only one I actually watched (after rewinding) - well, at least watched more of, as I skipped parts where P was arguing with MM about why she didn't examine the furniture - anyway, the kicker here is that D assured P furniture was not damaged, yet she knew it had been damaged and in fact storage/movers had settled a claim for $470 because of the damage - oops, so forget earlier claim this was worth 2 grand, we're talking false advertising because P has proof D advertised no damage and pix show LOTS of damages - when D complains, P tries to renegotiate deal but P isn't having it - P gets her money back..... P asked for an extra $100 cuz she got greedy which MM doesn't give, but after hallterview I would have given it to her - not because she necessarily deserved it, but cuz D admits case went as she expected, she knew it was false advertising, but I guess just hoped P wouldn't pursue case

Edited May 7, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

My rerun this morning was the recent case of the renter who was subleasing an apartment that he had no right to rent.     He collected $2500 from either three people, or $5500, with only $500 from the third.    He should have been in criminal court, not on TPC.    The best part was when the actual landlord was called as a witness, and torpedoed the defendant's lies.     

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

 

Now he's in his home, looking like a hang dog who wants to escape his dog house. 

He looks like Droopy Dog!