The People's Court - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

26 minutes ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

Today, we are best friends. Whenever I need something done - he's right at my house within a day with a very fair price (and sometimes doesn't charge me if the job is too small). He told me after the paint job that he considers my house as 'our house' and he will take care of the upkeep.  I, in turn, help him with marketing his business online (which I designed for him), which has brought him so many repeat customers. A win-win for all, and no courts involved. 

Karma goes both way . . . the good and the bad.

[ThePurpleArcher]

13 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Karma goes both way . . . the good and the bad.

This is so true - and we all need better karma in our lives, IMO.

 

 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

Today, we are best friends.

You are a kind soul THEPURPLEARCHER.  

In addition to a great paint job on your house - you have something even better...a true friend.   Priceless.

[ThePurpleArcher]

I just watched today's episode. 

I learned:

1.  Way too much about the mechanisms of an oven door. Way too much! Stuff not even worth repeating at a cocktail party. 

Did everyone else misunderstand Milan when she said 'You don't want to burn your shin!" (How many thought she said 'shi*' like I did, and finally had to close caption it to see what she was saying ? 

2. Once again, if someone says they don't have a cart title to hand over you during the transaction of the car sale, DON"T BUY IT! Especially when the seller looks like the defendant. 

3. People have really odd taste in the choices of their apartment colors. 

[SRTouch]

Not sure, but I think my local provider has the hiccups with the scheduling. I only watched the first few minutes Friday, but then when I saw the posts here I wordered WTH - nothing about leaf blower lady or old engine on blocks. What we saw here was some lady complaining that she bought a new stove and store wouldn't stand by the warranty when oven door fell off........ hmmmmmm, started to watch today, and I'm seeing same lady.

1. oven lady: p not only bought new stove with the manufacturers 1yr warranty, but paid for an additional year of extended (parts and labor) warranty - says there was no end to problems with it - within first year oven door handle fell off a couple times, then after manufacturer warranty ran out the whole door falls off - she wants refund of $575....... D doesn't deny problems with stove - his defense is that he sent out repairman after each complaint,  repairs were made, and that stove lady is just super picky and after another new stove....... interesting case in that both sides agree the stove was defection and that D made repairs - question is were the repairs sufficient to meet his obligation under the warranty...... long story short - his repair guy used one-size-fits-all aftermarket bracket to repair door, and it was a lousy fit - seems the universal fit bracket not only stuck out so it didn't fit flush like original, but thing was made of metal and gets hot enough to burn if you brush against it...... didn't like D (and not just because he came without repairman with first hand knowledge - then in hallterview he tells Doug that he would have fixed stove right if she had only complained loud enough - huh?)....... didn't particularly like stove lady, but agree that she didn't get what she paid for, so am fine with decision to refund her money or make store replace first stove (even though she did get use of stove for a couple years)
2. shady car dealership: p says she bought a car, and wants dealer to return about a grand of her hard earned money.......... ok, not sure WTH P intro is about - listening to D intro it sounds like this was questionable deal ftom get-go - his intro says he sold car with understanding that he did NOT have title - says he gave her a temp registration, and promised title as soon as he got it - further says when temp registration was about to run out he contacted buyer, explained problem, and offered to unwind deal and return her money - says P refused to return car, and until she does he isn't returning any money........ ok, total purchase price for this 15yo Volkswagen was actually $2800 and change - P paid in full and took care home with temp plates (well, yeah, even with new car you drive home either paper plates) question is, can dealer sell a car without title in hopes that he'll get the title before temp registration runs out - and did P KNOW when she bought car about wonky title........ ok, she paid for car outright with her debit card, so we'll have to listen to learn why she's suing for only a grand - ah, maybe since she refused to return car she LIKES the car and the deal and wants dealer live up to deal - but has extra expenses because he hasn't produced promised title....... ah, and despite D saying he contacted P as temp registration was about to expire, P tells us she was the one who went back and asked for title day before temp tags were to run out -true that,  it seems she threw a fit and called cops when he couldn't produce title...... oh my, and her story is that when she asked for at least another 30-day temp registration he told her to just leave the expired temp tags on, and if she was stopped he'd pay any fines (yeah, - DUMB!) - as P says, if she got stopped car likely to have been impounded, and Judge Marilyn not at all happy to hear dealer told her to go ahead and break the law and hope not to get caught. ........  course D denies the whole head-in-the-sand story - he says he would have issued a new temporary tag, but he couldn't until next day when old one actually expired, so she was a day early........ ok, haven't liked D since since he first waddled into courtroom - I was ready to discount P as whiney used car buyer just after money back, but actually finding her story credible - D not so much, not only did dude sell the car without having title in hand, but if anyone should have had to jump through hoops next day to get her a new temporary title it was the Joker who has been holding 3 grand for past month - so, new temp tag can't be issued until old one expires, meet her at her house next day before she is going to use car and hand her the new tags, not ask her to illegally drive to your lot (never mind she should never have had to come to lot asking about temp tags in first place) - not believing much of anything going this guy says........ ok, back to P, she's still credible, and I'm still believing her - oh, and like I thought, she's happy with car and wants deal to stand - her problem, and reason she's suing, is that she parked car and got a rental to use instead of driving illegally - question becomes, if D really offered to undo deal - return her money and returns car - can she force him to stick to contract, and if she can, does he have to pay her expenses while she was waiting for title.......... oh, and seems when she showed up a day early looking for the title or new temp tags, she got so frustrated she called cops....... oh, I didn't even think of this - another reason she was so against his solution of unwinding deal is she had already paid the insurance (imagine that, a litigant who buys insurance?)........ oh me oh my, seems while cops were there, they come to understanding that she would keep and park car until he got the title, and that he would pay for the rental - now he argues he didn't agree to pay for rental, but would offer 'compensation' - guess that is supposed to mean some partial payment (also guessing cops told him he couldn't go with his original plan of back-to-back 30 say temp tags?)........ ok, time running out, and MM getting loud as she gets frustrated with pudgy Michelin man........ gotta laugh as he just ignores MM and starts to dig through his papers looking for proof none of this was his fault - nah, he says he has proof FedEx lost the title...... uh oh, when he finally produces his proof that FedEx lost the title, MM does that pesky judgey thing and READS the evidence and sees that even had FedEx delivered it when he say they should have, the temp tags would gave already been expired for days........ ok, we may have switcheroo coming - now that D is talking, he's on something of a roll - says he was willing to pay for rental - but the rental was $223 and then P started piling on and adding the rental company insurance ($160), ah, and as long as she was filing she tacked on pain and suffering........ ok, no question I'm on board with the rental - also on board with the insurance - but the pain and suffering - nah - although she does make a case for getting something for wasted time chasing after guy to do his job - ok, MM says no to pain and suffering - she agrees with P about how annoying it was to waste time with D,  but says that doesn'the mean she gets any money for it......... then, after decision is announced the PudgeMan interrupts and asks if he can ask a question - says the State of New Jersey told him to take back car and return money, so why can't he do that - MM answers, cuz that's not the law (besides, only evidence State of New Jersey told him anything is his flapping gums, and if true he should have stayed in NJ instead of agreeing to binding arbitration on court tv)....... oh my, Pudgy was not happy with that answer, and he races out of courtroom - heck, he flew by Doug before cameras caught a glimpse of him......... hmmmmmm I really wonder he may not have chosen court tv because NJ might frown on his practice of selling cars without that pesky title in hand and his business/dealership license might be in jeopardy
3. landlord suing ex-tenant over bold paint color choices: oh my, I ran into this a few times when I did apartment maintenence - not just color, but also tenants who decide to use enamel, or even just high gloss, where complex used flat latex - yeah, you can convert back, but it takes extra steps (and forget spot painting)........ P not after lotto money here, just asking $428 - which sounds reasonable unless he already collected big money from deposit........ D was long time tenant who says after 13 years P would have to spring for full paint job anyway, since why should she be billed - she has countersuit for a couple hundred that she says P wrongfully withheld from deposit......... hmmmmm  pictures show various colors - red, couple diffrrent greens, yellow 1 guessing enamel and apparently gloss - as maintenance guy I'd shudder as I'm guessing multiple coats and primer, but then 8f she was there 13 years without landlord painting, and he admits she was a good tenant and never late with rent - yeah, I'm with MM, kind of surprised P is suing for $500........ ah ha, so 13 years ago when D moved in there was a move-in special with only $100 deposit - so landlord kept the deposit and added extra $500 for repainting, and tenant is asking for the deposit back........ ok, tenant probably out of luck, pictures don't look bad (actually pretty good, but there is SOME damage - up to MM to determine if it's normal wear and tear or excessive) - as for landlord, I don't doubt he spent $600 getting it ready for new tenant, but question his decision to sue a good tenant of 13 years....... Wellllllll as I thought, his painters had a time covering up her choices - in fact the $527 he's suing for is strictly the prep and 2 primer coats, not the actual finish coat or any other damages....... that actually explains what I questioned, when I saw the pix, I was thinking $500 was low for what I would have charged had I been the painter......... ok, a prepared tenant, this lady came prepared with copy of her State's (California) guidelines for what to expect to be charged for painting after 13 years occupancy....... not sure I'm buying that unless it specifies cost for multiple coats, as P is ranking of at least 3 coats plus the extra prep work if, as I'm guessing, that is in fact gloss enamel - though I still wouldn't sue after 13 years of good tenancy........... okkkkkkk,  not really a switcheroo because this is a slow steady switch from 'why is landlord suing after 13 years' to getting more and more annoyed with tenant - first her copy of state guidelines is just excuse for why she shouldn'the have to pay, then she freely admits she knows how much extra work she caused painters, then when MM  asks why she didn't return apartment to colors that were there when she moved in she admits she never asked permission to paint but has an excuse for that, too - she says she a legitimate reason to ignore the no-paint without permission clause which is standard landlord/tenant contract clause - seems landlord made exception to no-pet clause and let her keep her pet; she asked if she could change the showerhead, no problem; later she asked for bf to be added to lease, again no problem - not sure why she thinks any of that would mean she gets to ignore rest of contract (in fact what it shows is that she knew to ask, and didn't bother when it came time to paint because he would have said no). ........... more she talks less I'm willing to argue against landlord, I say he won his case, now does her countersuit make sense...... uh, not really - she already lost the $100 deposit, but she also wants money for an electric bill for time after she moved out - uh, but as MM points out, it's not on him to turn off her electricity (I'm assuming from what is said that her bill ends when new tenant gets it put in their name) - zero on counterclaim........ had to laugh at landlord's hallterview "was going to just eat it and not sue, but she had such an attitude when we did walk-through, acting like she owned the place......." yeah, by end of case that's how I was feeling 

1 hour ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

Did everyone else misunderstand Milan when she said 'You don't want to burn your shin!" (How many thought she said 'shi*' like I did, and finally had to close caption it to see what she was saying ? 

yep, rewound and turned on CC - and still think she said 💩💩

Edited May 18, 2020 by SRTouch

[aemom]

I was thinking about Leaf Lady again, because I was thinking about another recent case where two women had hired a young guy to build a deck or patio.  He had also underbid the job, but instead of "too bad, so sad for you," JM basically raked the women over the coals.

I'm trying to figure out why such a difference in her attitude between these two cases?  Maybe I'm forgetting some of the details.

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/17/2020 at 5:46 PM, aemom said:

I continue to be shocked that someone who appears to be as vain as Levin is would continue to film himself at home in such poor quality. 

Yes, I know. The pics I posted of him here aren't lousy and fuzzy because of my camera, but because he's obviously using some old, cheap equipment. Not only that, but I didn't enlongate his head either. This is the equipment he chooses to use. Probably got it for a song on CL, after the seller assured him it's top of the line, only used twice. He looks a wreck anyway. You'd think he'd want some camera that would be a little more flattering. 😅

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

oven lady:

Probably it "just needed a screw" or maybe a wire.  Aside from P's exaggerations and her grasping for money for "pain and suffering" for a faulty appliance, she was right and the D seemed way out there and somewhat vague. He doesn't think it's fair he should have to honour his own warranty (for which plaintiff paid) by replacing a faulty part with the same part. He just orders some generic junk from some obscure website and calls it all good. As mentioned, he says he would have fixed it properly if Plaintiff (paraphrasing) had screamed loudly enough or pitched a fit in his place of business. Anyone watching who plans to buy something there should take note of that.

1 hour ago, aemom said:

I was thinking about Leaf Lady again, because I was thinking about another recent case where two women had hired a young guy to build a deck or patio.  He had also underbid the job, but instead of "too bad, so sad for you," JM basically raked the women over the coals.

Was that the woman who hired the 19-year-old frail-looking boy to do a min. 5 -8,000$ professional landscaping/contracting job for 1,000$, bossed him around and then gave him the boot?

Edited May 18, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think that's the right deck case.   He was the litigant that came to court bruised, and dazed?   He fell on his way to court, and had a seizure.      

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

Did everyone else misunderstand Milan when she said 'You don't want to burn your shin!" (How many thought she said 'shi*' like I did, and finally had to close caption it to see what she was saying ? 

I don’t think she meant to say that but I think she did.  I could be wrong but I don’t think so. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by PsychoKlown

[aemom]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Was that the woman who hired the 19-year-old frail-looking boy to do a min. 5 -8,000$ professional landscaping/contracting job for 1,000$, bossed him around and then gave him the boot?

That's the one!

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I don’t think she meant to say that but I think she did.  I could be wrong but I don’t think so. 

After reading here about this, I listened really carefully and watched her lips.  She DID say "shin" but it didn't sound like it!  LOL.

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/17/2020 at 9:23 PM, ThePurpleArcher said:

oday, we are best friends. Whenever I need something done - he's right at my house within a day with a very fair price (and sometimes doesn't charge me if the job is too small).

I know what you mean. I have an awesome handyman who has done many jobs for me and only ever charged 10$/hr. I always give him more though. The best was one day when it pouring out, my garage door broke and I couldn't close it. I called him and he came right away. He needed a special screw (yeah, it really did just need a screw!) so he went to the hardware to buy it, fixed the door and presented me  with a bill for 7.50$. I gave him 30$. Treat people like human beings and it will come back to you.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 He was the litigant that came to court bruised, and dazed?   He fell on his way to court, and had a seizure.      

Yes. He had such a massive bump on his head I was really hoping he went to the hospital afterwards. JM was so incensed at the way plaintiff treated the boy and took advantage of him she didn't care if it was his fault for underpricing the job.

[Florinaldo]

17 hours ago, SRTouch said:

oven lady:

Customers like the plaintiff make me glad I am not in retail. She buys cheap but expects the product to last twice as long as new appliances. JM did not really explore the possibility that the door was damaged due to mishandling. I also thought that the husband tinkering with it would have voided the warranty.

My contribution to the great TPC audio controversy of the year; what JM said sounded to me like a jumble of words, close to "shkrins", with some consonants barely vocalised.

17 hours ago, SRTouch said:

landlord suing ex-tenant over bold paint color choices:

I have to disagree with JM's statement that because she had been a good tenant for 13 years, the landlord should have forgiven the extra expense needed to hide her striking color choices for paint. By that same logic, a thief could argue "but your honor I have not stolen anything in the first 30 years of my life, so you should let this one slide".

I also think that defendant knew very well that painting the whole apartment was in a different order of magnitude than the other things landlord had waived, so she very deliberately did not raise it with him.

  

On 5/15/2020 at 4:07 PM, aemom said:

I truly don't believe that child molesters can be reformed because there is something chemically-in-the-head-not-right with them,

As I said, I think they can control their inclinations, with treatment; much like drug addicts or alcoholics can learn to stay away from those substances, althought the desire never goes away. It's not the equivalent of changing one's basic sexual orientation or attraction, but of managing the reprehensible impulses.

On 5/17/2020 at 5:46 PM, aemom said:

I continue to be shocked that someone who appears to be as vain as Levin is would continue to film himself at home in such poor quality. 

It's become part of the aesthetics of broadcasting from home, to underscore the makeshift aspect of it and add "realism". If it looked too slick, people could accuse him of having a whole team of technicians helping him, violating the social distancing rules.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Guest]

10 hours ago, AZChristian said:

After reading here about this, I listened really carefully and watched her lips.  She DID say "shin" but it didn't sound like it!  LOL.

I'm wrong again. 

I was thinking last night that if in fact she did say what I thought she said the editors would have removed it or silenced it.

Thanks for checking.

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

46 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I'm wrong again. 

I was thinking last night that if in fact she did say what I thought she said the editors would have removed it or silenced it.

Yes, because we can hear about kids beaten so badly they need to go to a hospital, and hear child pornography and murdered babies and bondage dungeons, but heaven forbid we should hear a bad word like S**T! I don't think I could bear it. 

[ThePurpleArcher]

12 hours ago, AZChristian said:

After reading here about this, I listened really carefully and watched her lips.  She DID say "shin" but it didn't sound like it!  LOL.

I think she said 'shit' but the CC people put in 'shin'. 

[AZChristian]

23 minutes ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

I think she said 'shit' but the CC people put in 'shin'. 

I have to respectfully disagree.  I was watching her lips as well as turning up the volume.  It's possible that they re-recorded over her original comment, but what I saw and heard was "shin."

JM will tear litigants apart if they "disrespect her courtroom."  She doesn't tolerate bad language or even racial or cultural epithets.  

But if this is the biggest thing people have to argue about in the middle of a pandemic, it's all good!

ETA:  I follow People's Court on Facebook, and there is discussion there about this, too.  Folks seem close to equally divided as to whether she said "shit" or "shin," but most people agree that she was THINKING "shit."  LOL.

Edited May 19, 2020 by AZChristian
Added thought.

[SRTouch]

12 hours ago, AZChristian said:

But if this is the biggest thing people have to argue about in the middle of a pandemic, it's all good!

ETA:  I follow People's Court on Facebook, and there is discussion there about this, too.  Folks seem close to equally divided as to whether she said "shit" or "shin," but most people agree that she was THINKING "shit."  LOL.

Shin! 

No Shit!!

NO SHIN!!!

NO SHIT!!!!!!

SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!!

I'LL GET MY CREW AND COME BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!

HA HA, I DONE ALREADY SLASHED YOUR HOOPTY'S TIRES 

Edited May 20, 2020 by SRTouch

[Taeolas]

Before reading the thread here, while watching the episode, I realized what her train of thought was heading towards, and listened carefully; and I heard Shin as well when it happened. But it was very close and could've gone the other way. 

This was very close to a "Cheap comes out Expensive" case; but she did have the warranties still active. Technically her husband trying to rescrew the handle on may have been a warranty killer, but once you sort've realize how it fit together, such an action seems within the normal owner maintenance attempts. (She should've done other things along the way like taping/keeping the door pieces up off the floor even after it fell apart; but that's beside the point). 

[NYGirl]

I'm now having trouble staying awake during Peoples Court.  These cases are so boring for sweeps month!!

Sorry to whine... you guys understand me.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Shin! 

No Shit!!

NO SHIN!!!

NO SHIT!!!!!!

 

All this discussion of shin vs sh*t.   

No skirting it folks....we are the Algonquin Round Table.

Be proud.

[SRTouch]

oh my, watched 1st case and it was normal length, but 2nd was long  - quite of interesting (not) and LONG........ nother 2 case day

1. cashed bf's bad check: pretty simple case, D, bf, doesn't have a bank account, so he asks ex-gf to cash check he got selling get junker fridge - so she deposits check in her account and gives lover boy the cash...... surprise! bogus check, but bf says not his problem, he was scammed! - scenario we see a lot, where someone refuses to accept responsibility for their own acts and passes it along to someone foolish enough to do them a favor - listening to intro, question is - WTH kind of junk fridge was this that she's suing for $1558.85? Actually, I'm guessing a lot of the total is bank fees and maybe late charges that resulted when all her normal monthly bill payments came back marked insufficient funds because  bank charged her account for bf's (actually EX-bf, now) bogus check - and wouldn't be surprised to hear that magic phrase "pain and suffering"....... like I said, simple slam dunk case if intro even close to correct - but we know THAT is never a given........ course, since there probably isn't much of a legal question, MM has to dig for stuff that may be interesting - like why does this 50 yo man NOT have a bank account? - then we get to hear why it may not be smart to accept a check when you sell something online (letgo this time, not CL)........ ah, remember questioning the $1550 damage claim - turns out he was asking $700 for the used fridge (which may NOT have been a junker, as he describes a pretty fancy Samsung fridge)....... huh? Dude is in NJ and buyer in Las Vegas? Yeah, no red flags there......... one of the oldest scams around - buyer agrees to buy fridge for $700, but sends money order for $1550 so that Seller has money to ship fridge to Nevada, then of course seller supposed to send back the difference before bank figures out money order is bogus............. ok, not sure how MM is going to drag this out, as all the above happens before first commercial break - anyway, I'm getting tired of watching dude dance back and forth so pick up remote skip ahead to end of second commercial break........ is it just me, but are we getting more commercials lately? There have always been a lot of commercials on these shows, but I swear it seems late we clock as many minutes of commercial/previews/& Harvey as we do on the cases........ P gets her money....... hmmmmmmm not worth rewinding, but in hallterview D is talking about P getting her $700 back, and Doug corrects him and reminds him that P was awarded $1550........
2. Bad used car deal:  P bought warranty with her new hoopty (eventually we hear it's a 2008 ford), and is suing because when it broke down repairs weren't covered - asking $3839.35 for repair cost plus pain and suffering....... big surprise! Even brand new cars with bumper to bumper warranties are not 100% covered - you actually have to read the warranty to see what's covered - especially before buying an extended warranty...... according to D's intro, when when told the warranty did not covered repair she had temper tantrum and trashed his business - actually destroyed his office before storming out........ ok, seems P is regular customer - this is 3rd hoopty she's bought from D's dealership - well, seemed simple enough, but seems D provided customer with pretty sloppy contract that MM is going to have to try to figure out - contract has two different warranties marked, but since both seem to agree on what was meant, I guess sloppy paperwork isn't a major hurdle......... don't you just hate it when MM asks simple question and litigant begins with "let me explain......"  this time, MM asked D which extended warranty she purchased, and D goes into used car salesman mode - dude, if you have multiple warranty covering different things, your contract should spell out each and the judge can read what should be covered for herself......... after his 'explanation' I'm no longer sure what they agreed upon - if I have this right, she had a level 3 (more stuff covered) for 90 days, then it automatically switched to a level 1 (less covered, but lasts a year)....... anyway, his explanation is unclear, so I'm thinking it needed to be spelled out in the contract (which we already heard is sloppy)........ MM having same problem is am with snakeskin seller and gets a little frustrated with his long winded explanations when she asks a question - really, if was was sitting across a desk from this guy buying a car, I'd walk away......... if I have this right, her contract only specifies a 90 day warranty - dude says he MEANT to give her the 1 year extended warranty, but doesn't have a signed contract for that 1 year coverage......... but, all this really may just be time filler, because we have yet to hear if whatever work she had done would have been covered by EITHER warranty........ ok, FINALLY, MM is asking for what the different levels cover - seems ford broke down around 4 months after purchase, so it came under the 1 yr warranty with not much covered - but her paperwork says level 3 (which should be 90days) but with 1yr/12months hand written in......... to me, sloppy contract written by D would mean he's liable if repairs would have been covered by the #3 in the first 90 days, but heck, snake oil dude had given me a headache and I'm only half listening by this point......... ah ha, may not even get to that, cuz for 20 minutes we'very been going on assumption D altered the contract and wrote 1year, and now MM shows him the contract and he says he didn't do that (and, not very convincingly, I might add)........ ah, MM isn't sure, but explains that when there's a tie in a contract case any discrepancy goes against the drafter - still haven't heard what repair she had done and whether either warranty would have covered it, but we're  FINALLY getting there...... sooooooo estimate to fix car is $1900, but instead P has spent $1300 on rental cars since she doesn't have the $1900........ been so long, do we know what she paid for this hoopty  - ahhhhhh she paid $7500..... we also finally learn that the repair WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED under the higher level warranty she says she thought she had........ ah ha, and D also admits he screwed up, he promised her the 3 month higher warranty and never paid for it - his answer is, his mistake shouldn't count since that would have expired before car broke down - MM's answer is that part of P's reason for buying car was his promise of higher warranty, which he promised but never delivered........ soooooo sloppy contract goes against dealer, didn't deliver what he promised, and I don't like snake oil saleman........ I vote against D for the $1900 repair estimate, forget any pain and suffering, and need to be convinced about $1300 in car rental......... OK, MM saw the car rental, and agrees P paid what she claims 1 p awarded $3300, and MM suggest D upgrade the warranty to the higher level for rent of the year to avoid being sued a second time......... another case which might have been interesting for 20 minutes with editing - but took FOREVER to end today

Edited May 20, 2020 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

I'm now having trouble staying awake during Peoples Court.  These cases are so boring for sweeps month!!

Sorry to whine... you guys understand me.

Gave you open mouth green wow emoji - just pretend it's a yawn

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

cashed bf's bad check: 

I love seeing the people who fall for these ridiculous and really common scams that anyone with just a few active brain cells would recognize. We have  50-year-old man (fifty!) - woefully lacking those few brain cells -  who can't have a bank account (He doesn't trust banks) or it's because he knows all about "garnishment" as he's probably stiffed everyone and/or owes taxes and/or fines and/or child/ support. It's just hilarious.  D thought he was hitting the jackpot because someone on the other side of the country, in Las Vegas, really wanted the old fridge D was selling so badly he was willing to pay 800$ to have it shipped to him from New Jersey(!). As JM noted, it's possible they are clean out of old used fridges in Vegas, but I guess D's was something really unique. Oh, yes - it was a Samsung, a rare and sought-after commodity.  JM was scathing and reams him out magnificently, but it has no effect on this stoooopid STOOOOPID moron as he stands giggling. It nearly beggars belief, but we see why these scammers are so successful that they continue to pull the same scam over and over. There's a lot of bone-headed, dumb-as-stumps idiots out there.

But that's not enough. The Genius scams his girlfriend and gets her to cash the check, because  - no bank account, remember, something girlfriend never questioned. 😂She sees nothing untoward about all this either. Duh. He doesn't really have a job, but says he's a dog trainer. I would think a requirement for that position would be that you are more intelligent than the dogs, and that is not the case here. All in all, this was pretty entertaining and good for a laugh. STOOPID.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Bad used car deal:

These two were enough to drive anyone mad with their inability to give a straight answer to any simple question, "When did you have a problem with the car?"  was something like,  "I  was setting out to, like, buy some groceries at some store because they had, like,  a special on butter and then I was thinking..." He was worse. Did def.  "Egghead" really mention the Lemon Law in regards to sales of old used cars? Anyway, plaintiff likes buying cars from him. Her friend has a used car lot but she doesn't shop there because "He don't have no fancy cars" and she only drives fancy cars, like 12-year-old Fords. Her mom was with her and wrote an affadavit stating that she remembers every single word that was spoken that day. Def denies that Mom was ever there.

Any question directed at either of them triggered some mind-numbing monologue about everything under the sun BUT the car and warranty in question. I stopped listening to this 90-day vs. 1-year and I have no idea who was lying or who doctored the contract, but one of them did. They gave me a headache. These two really deserved each other.

[Pepper the Cat]

That second case seemed to last forever! I thought it would never end.

[AngelaHunter]

Google Photos decided to "Stylize" some of my pictures. This is the one they chose to give a "Pop of Color" and sharpen. Gee, thanks, Google! Perfect for framing now.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Google Photos decided to "Stylize" some of my pictures. This is the one they chose to give a "Pop of Color" and sharpen. Gee, thanks, Google! Perfect for framing now.

 

 

This is scarier than my original clown photo 

Pennywise would shudder. 

[aemom]

On 5/18/2020 at 2:02 PM, ThePurpleArcher said:

Did everyone else misunderstand Milan when she said 'You don't want to burn your shin!" (How many thought she said 'shi*' like I did, and finally had to close caption it to see what she was saying ? 

 

On 5/18/2020 at 10:41 PM, AZChristian said:

After reading here about this, I listened really carefully and watched her lips.  She DID say "shin" but it didn't sound like it!  LOL.

I happened to see part of this thread before seeing the episode so when I watched it this evening, I looked out for it. I rewound it to listen a 2nd time and she clearly said shin. We have a decent stereo system hooked up to the TV, and I definitely heard shin. 

The guy selling his fridge: A few years ago, my husband was selling an engine and someone tried to scam us in the same way - but with PayPal. At first I was really confused trying to understand why someone would offer to pay a large sum to have the engine shipped - without having any info about how much shipping would actually cost, and then we realized that it was a scam.

[Florinaldo]

19 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Bad used car deal:

Plaintiff was lucky that the defendant was so careless in his paper work, not even knowing the right way to correct a mistake in documents. She was equally sloppy in her story and details, and I am not certain she was completely exonerated from having altered the contract and forging the guy's signature.

Even if the defendant's weaseling tipped the balance in her favour, I do not think she deserved to be reimbursed for her rental car.

[SRTouch]

Hmph! Looks like continuation of the trend of long cases goes on - just sat down to watch today's episode recording and ff'ed 25 minutes to find first case not over, then watched a few seconds of second case and hear litigant (not even sure if P or D) arguing about dog on/off leash......... nope, not promising, but let's rewind and see...... turns out there was long 1st case followed by two short ones

• DeLorean damaged in shipping: P says he paid to ship his DeLorean, a collector's item, from New York to Florida. Says when it arrived inept shipper damaged car while unloading it - wants $4909.12........ D denies damaging car - says P signed release stating there was no damage, then called next day claiming this damage - he has tit-for-tat suit for 5 grand claiming lost wages......... oh well, if intro right MM will have to work to stretch this out - even assuming there is damage, if P signed release and didn't claim damage until next day that's on him........ there's a chuckle as testimony starts with P telling how much dream car means to him - dude says he was promised if he worked hard and did well in school he'd get the car,  then MM corrects him when he says he "did good in school"...... oh did I mention this is 'nother grown man who has mommy standing next to him in court....... not sure it makes much difference in case, but both sides seem to agree unloading did not go smoothly (in intro D talks about unloading taking 45 minutes 105° heat - that seems like a LONG time to unload 1 car off a car hauler) - anyway, P says he was there, and watched as D unloaded his car, and that during process he saw a ramp bounce up and hit undercarriage of his car......... uh, so he watched as it happened, did he really sign release forms saying there was NO damage - if so, none of what he witnessed matters in my book........ ok, we'll have to see this release - what P is saying is they saw damage at time and D acknowledged it and said he'd contact his insurance company - so is this 'release' simply an acknowledgement that car arrived, or that it arrived undamaged - that'll be key if P's claim that D acknowledged damage is just flapping gums........ yep, after commercial break MM begins grilling P as he did, in fact, sign a damage waiver stating there was NO FREEKIN DAMAGE - D hasn't even opened his mouth yet, but unless there's texts or D comes out and admits he caused damage I don't see a case.........  over to D for quick question - did what P say happen - and of course he says no - says none of P's story about discussion on day of delivery is true - says when P called next day D did say he'd contact his insurance, but he never admitted to causing any damage so no way was insurance going to pay with that signed waiver in hand........ oh my, according to D the P was so happy he was taking pictures and tipped him when delivery was complete.......... ok, no case unless there's a major switcheroo about to happen.......... and now MM seems to be dragging things out instead of ruling - she's taking the time to look through his pix of the damage, but without a timeline that's just so much 💩 - actually, little bit of pix I saw don't show me anything, he says because it's so hard to get a good pix because the DeLorean sits so low to the ground, but if he's trying to get almost 5 grand I would think he'd have an estimate complete with pix of undercarriage when car was on a rack - hmmmmmm now MM takes time to look at the insurance claim he submitted - well, it appears that the insurance company initially offered to settle (probably just to make claim go away) but P turned it down looking for more money - P seems to think insurance offer to settle makes his case better, but no, any claim they receive will cost them money - I imagine they have bean counters who set a break even amount where anything below this amount it's cheaper to settle even frivolous claims, but above that point refuse and go to court........... last point - was D chewing on gum? If so, nothing was said
• little dog mauled by 2 passing big dogs - skipped - not sure what story was, but P, owner of little dog, lost case....... from what Harvey says as he sums things up, little dog was off leash, two big dogs were leashed and walking with owner, little dog runs out at big dogs and got short end during ensuing melee - something about P thinking AC said big dogs were out of owners control, so maybe big dog(s) slipped leash, anyway MM decides little dog owner had no case 
• Suing for rest of money after selling business: sold spa business for 6 grand, but buyer has only paid half - suing for 3.5 grand....... D agrees she agreed to buy business, but says furnishings were included in deal - when she took procession all the furnishings were gone....... simple contract case (if they HAVE a written contract, otherwise it's she said - she said....... ok, right off bat we have disagreement on what case is about - everything seemed to indicate P sold her business, but as soon as MM starts out P corrects her, saying goes she didn't 'sell' her business, she sold out leasing get rights for the 'rented' space........ I don't know, seems both litigants may have English as a second language, as I hear accents and their 'contract' seems to be written in unclear shorthand....... never good when judge has hard time reading and understanding your written contract........ ok, like yesterday's LONG car sale contract case, when contract is unclear the nod goes against person who drafted the contract - today contract says "with south equipment", and P says she meant "with out equipment" but D says she took it to mean "with equipment"........ D may win on unclear contract, but she resorted to self-help by unilaterally not paying half the agreed upon purchase price......... ah, and after break MM rips into D - seems D is very vague about what she thought "with south equipment" meant - she wants to completely ignore word "south" but from way P  is speaking seems to me she may well have thought "without" is spelled "with south" - D agrees P was taking some equipment, but can't tell us what - MM also throws out that some of this equipment is high dollar, - then, P says (and I find credible) that D has a partner who told her to clear everything out......... D losing ground fast....... yep, MM awards P rest of agreed upon purchase price

Edited May 20, 2020 by SRTouch

[Guest]

SRTouch rocks with the daily recaps.  Today's contestants were particularly difficult to sort out.

Comments, observations and assorted sundry:

In the first case the plaintiff seemed nerdy and meek.  Does anyone else think that he might have pretended to be satisfied with the delivery of the car because defendant was twice his size, deep voice and could probably snap him (the plaintiff) in half if he had a mind to?  Even so, signing that paper sealed his fate.  

Second case was boring.  The only observation I had was that if a local community theatre put on a production of "The Headless Horseman", defendant could play Ichabod Crane with nary a drop of makeup, costume or wig.  He could literally walk from TPC to the evening performance.  Shout out to the 70's belt he was sporting.  I liked it.

Third case was beyond a mystery to me.  SRTouch's synopsis answered a lot of questions I had because I could not for the life of me figure out what they were saying.  I actually went closer to the tv thinking that would help me understand the case.  Nope.  Thick accents aplenty.  

Oh well, next up....The Rifleman.

Edited May 20, 2020 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

n the first case the plaintiff seemed nerdy and meek.  Does anyone else think that he might have pretended to be satisfied with the delivery of the car because defendant was twice his size, deep voice and could probably snap him (the plaintiff) in half if he had a mind to?

I think I could snap him in half. Okay, I am concerned about this epidemic of jelly-like Baby Hueys who bring their Mommies with them. "I did good in school," Huey brags. Um, no. JM corrected his crummy grammar but was too nice about it. Oh, this was all such a big, huge emotional day - something he repeats several times - for him that he just signed a paper saying the old car was in great shape when it was delivered. He admits in the hall he didn't bother reading it. All those emotions, you know.  Mommy remains silent but stands and beams at the testimony of her Pride and Joy. After all, this car was a project for Huey and Mommy. Huey respectfully disagrees with JM at every turn. Maybe he wants to be a lawyer when he grows up? I'm sure he'll do "real good".  As for def., I was so wishing JM would demand to know if he was chomping gum in her court and halting the proceedings to make him get rid of it, like some school child.

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

The only observation I had was that if a local community theatre put on a production of "The Headless Horseman", defendant could play Ichabod Crane with nary a drop of makeup, costume or wig.

I swear that was my first thought! The perfect Ichabod. But I didn't care about that because I disliked the plaintiff so much. Call me unreasonable, but that "glasses perched on the end of the nose with eyeballs peering over the top" just bugs me. That, combined with her admitting she just lets her little dog run loose on her unfenced property and doesn't even watch him because whatever was on her damned phone was more important made me hope she would lose. Oh, an animal control officer told her she didn't need to leash her dog on her own property? Did the officer know there was no fence and she had no idea where her dog was, due to her super-important texts? Maybe executive decisions needed to be made and she's the only one who could make them? I'm sorry the poor little doggie got hurt, but it's 100% her fault. She'll never admit it, of course.

I've had a really long day which is not yet over, so couldn't pay much attention to the "With South Equipment" case, except to think that if you know you are not proficient in the language, either Google something or get a lawyer who knows how to speak English to write up a contract. It's kind of important.

Before this last case, JM and Douglas were chatting about something that made them laugh. Too bad we don't know what, because the Raddled Levin Troll in his lair couldn't shut his big flappy pie hole so we could find out. Fuck you, Levin.

[NYGirl]

I too hated the Plaintiff in the dog case.  She had that bitch face going on and she definitely expected to win the case!  As soon as I saw the defendant I rolled my eyes.  He was kind of soft spoken and not the usual attitude-acting pit bull owner.  I was so glad he had his dogs on leashes while she didn't.  I kept yelling at the Judge that Plaintiff's dog didn't have her dog on a leash and I guess she heard me today!

Third case.  I have no idea.  I don't hear that well as it is and their accents threw me.

The first case guy was an idiot for signing that paper.  If I was his mom I'd take that car away saying. "You didn't do that well in school Mister!!"

[Florinaldo]

7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

DeLorean damaged in shipping:

Plaintiff was using the defense employed by so many young female litigants on these shows in trying to weasel out of an agreement by appearing cutely vulnerable: "my poor weak wittle bwain could not grasp what my signature on that document would weally mean, and I was intimidated by the Big Bad Man". Pitiful, but perhaps not very surprising from someone who had to bring his mommy to court.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Plaintiff was using the defense employed by so many young female litigants on these shows in trying to weasel out of an agreement by appearing cutely vulnerable: "my poor weak wittle bwain could not grasp what my signature on that document would weally mean, and I was intimidated by the Big Bad Man".

We've heard every other excuse for not reading a document before signing it - it was dark, it was raining, he wouldn't let me read it, I/he was in a hurry, it was ten o'clock at night, it was cold, etc. Now we can add, "I was too overcome with emotion to read it so I shouldn't have to abide by it" excuse.

I got a kick out of the big bad gum-chewing, smirking driver just flat out denying every single word Mommy's Boy said. The damage, the conversation, the offer to pay through insurance?  Never happened! 😆

 

[AZChristian]

Darn.  The Governor did his weekly covid update and I missed these episodes.

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's rerun is the case of the woman who wanted fake dreadlocks put in, or $1180 total cost, and 14 hours in the chair.    Now she's suing for the money back, pain and suffering, and claims half of her hair fell out, and she couldn't go to her own birthday party.

(plaintiff wants $9,000, for the original stylist, glue removal ($700), the other lock-tician's services (over $2k), $4,000+ for hall rental for the birthday party, and pain and suffering). 

This is the case with the plaintiff's witness, the expert Lock-tician, who says in California installing extensions aren't done by licensed beauticians, or cosmetologists.   The defendant is one who spearheaded the lock-tician legislation.    Lock-ticians do natural hair, and locks.  

Note to plaintiff, they make wigs that would have covered your head. 

How can anyone sit in a chair at a salon for 14 hours?    ( I think the longest I've ever been in a salon is two hours max, for a color and cut.   Part of that was wandering around waiting for the timer to go off.  )

Edited May 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

How can anyone sit in a chair at a salon for 14 hours?    

I guess being a vain masochist would help...

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Darn.  The Governor did his weekly covid update and I missed these episodes.

Here you go: The Emotional Boy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBxbEVRk9DE

 

[AZChristian]

40 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Here you go: The Emotional Boy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBxbEVRk9DE

 

You are beyond awesome!!!!

[AngelaHunter]

8 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

You are beyond awesome!!!!

Aw, shucks, ma'm. T'weren't nuthin'. ☺️

[Guest]

Watching right now and a question keeps floating through my mind:  What do you think Judge Marilyn Millian's blood pressure reading is?

The vein's are popping out of her forehead.  So much for botox.

And pool boy?  Can you imagine someone calling her a lawyer girl?  She also called the plaintiff sweetheart.   Irritating.  

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Aw, shucks, ma'm. T'weren't nuthin'. ☺️

Watched the DeLorean and dog cases.  More interesting than a lot we've seen lately.  

Absolutely agree that the plaintiff in the dog case was liable.  IF she'd had a fence, the defendant's dogs would not have been able to attack her dog . . . even if the defendant did get tripped up and dropped the leashes.  So the fence would have kept the dogs separated if her dog was not leashed.  Since there was no fence, she needed to have her dog leashed.

[SRTouch]

Ok, thinking I'll just stop saying anything when we have LONG cases - today I sat down to watch when episode was have over, FF'ed half an hour and see split screen with 1 litigant and empty lectern from first case so somebody got the boot - after rewinding I almost watched whole case - least watched more than usual without FF....... 2nd case - same 30 minutes of tenant suing for security - this one I relied more heavily on zip button

1. car deal gone wrong: P bought old BMW thinking it had 100,000 miles on it only to later find out it's actually has over 200,000 miles on it - suing for $8000.......... D is dealer who says he's been selling cars for 38 years - says he told P when he bought car he didn't know the true mileage (TMU)...... apparently there's a form in California that car dealers use when they are unsure of  of the actual mileage. If they use the form, the law requires the buyer sign the form...... D says P went off the rails when he decided he overpaid, and started making death threats - he has a countersuit, but not for the death threats, nah, he just wants balance of purchase price, $1457......... ok, couple live wires here, D glaring at P throughout intro and leaning towards him looking ready to rumble, and from preview MM has trouble with P loudly/aggressively interrupting and is asking WTH his 'OFF' button is........ should be easy case - D may be shady and got P to sign the TMU form without explanation, but from link I posted law requires dealer to have that signed forms - if he does, he wins, if not, according to link, it's considered fraud in California (since P wants 8 grand I assume they're in California).......... ok, P bought this car was back in December of '17....... what took so long to file suit?..... anyway, a couple years after purchase P's son moves to NJ, and when he goes to register car and when NJ DMV clerk looks at title P received when he bought car it clearly says 98,107 miles 'not actual miles' clerk clickety-clacks her keyboard and says actual mileage listed as 206,000 miles....... maybe not California, he's talking about registering car in NJ and having cop friend in Brooklyn run the VIN and THAT comes back showing 236,000miles........ P blows up (and he's upping the volume here in court), he's been robbed, and tells judge that changing odometer reading makes it a federal crime - D HAD TO KNOW the true mileage, surely he checks carfax on his cars, yada yada...... uh, yeah dude, and buyer can check carfax himself before buying car - duh........ anyway, a week before D bought car from previous owner it was serviced by a Brooklyn BMW dealer and mileage is listed as 239,000 miles........ geez, how many different mileage readings do we have for this car.......... sooooooo a week after being serviced, when D buys the car (supposedly without doing a carfax) and then when he sells it to P a week later the odometer reads 98,000........ yep, somebody rolled back the mileage - but has D covered himself by issuing that title saying "not actual mileage" - and is that form I referenced in beginning a federal requirement or strictly California.......... okkkkkkk when asked WTH happened, D says he has the receipt and paperwork proving that the instrument was replaced, as required by federal law (yeah, I think I've heard something like this before but don't remember the specifics)......... ok, some question of whether or not P was informed as he should have been - seems the bill of sale says nothing about 98,000 not being correct miles, but receipt and the title P received from DMV 2 years ago does say 'not actual miles'.......... ok, new twist, already knew it was P's son who went to register car in NJ, now turns out the son signed the purchase agreement when car was bought - and forms he signed says 'true mileage unkown' - so would P even have standing to sue if son signed the paperwork and was registering the car? Who was registered owner the 2 years car was in NY?........ apparently this is first time P is hearing that the 'certificate of sale' the son signed has marked ODOMETER DISCREPANCY in big bold letters, so Douglas has to take signed forms for P to look at, and P doesn'the even argue that's sonny's signature....... WTH is sonny anyway? He seems central to case even if daddy has standing to sue....... ok, P case pretty much shot to hell, but MM still questioning why D didn't run a carfax, and she catches D trying to pull one over on her - something about how in NY dealers don't bother with car faxes on 10yo cars - whoa, buddy, says MM, don't insult her intelligence, this is a 9yo car, not 10 - guessing form I referenced is a California thing, and in NY you just have to have it on the title and certificate of sale (which DOES require buyer's signature)...... uh, case not bad, actually kind of interesting and had me googling stuff, but is pretty much over, P even packing up his papers to leave, yet I look at clock and see we haven't even reached 15 minutes, yet I know MM is still talking to D when clock says 31 - well, maybe we 'll have a good show P gets the boot....... ok, guess MM doesn't get that replacing the odometer doesn't necessarily mean someone committed fraud - I'm  not sure how a BMW electronic instrument cluster works,  so not sure how the replaced cluster read 98,000 - did it be that was used and you can't reset mileage reading without some special BMW computer? I don't know, but buy D's story that discrepancy not necessarily intentional fraud (maybe late saying this, but D is NOT salesman who sold car to P, so really has no knowledge of what was said to P, he'says going ing strictly off the paperwork - which is signed, but like DeLorean boy yesterday, apparently not read........ ahhhhhhhh, P has lost HIS case, but now MM is shifting to counterclaim - so maybe we have legit could terclaim to argue instead of the normal 10 second 'nope no way" ruling........ yep, looks like next 15 minutes will be spent on counterclaim which has nothing at all to do with the mileage dispute - so one of those where we have two cases which same litigants (though MM didn't have them swap lecterns......... seems this dispute began over a year and a half ago when P filed complaint with Bureau of Consumer Protection - seems he felt he had paid for car, but D shows balance owed - ok, kind of tired of these guys, may start FF'eding when I get back from kitchen with new cup of coffee....... annnnnnndddddd again, D is referencing P's dealing with employees who are not here - not quite hearsay as he notes he presented office records and receipts to MM....... yep, zipping through some of this - his paperwork and receipts show balance and some payments, but P is arguing not all the payments are represented - well, heck dude, just like doing your own carfax instead of expecting dealer to do it, maybe you should keep copies of your payments/receipts (actually, since absent sonny boy seems so central to purchase, I'm wondering if P took sonny's word for payments which actually never made it to D......... ok, started to zip ahead, but actually enjoying D's argument and P's reaction - according to D, sonny's move to NJ and registering there was some sort heme to avoid paying the outstanding balance - MM scoffs at that notion, and camera cuts to P playing air violin........ ok, over to P, dude still all loud and obnoxious and making little sense - he filed the complaint to Consumer Protection claiming D would not release the lien against the title, yet he admits he hadn't paid off the loan........ huh? No really, that's what he's yelling about, and MM is getting frustrated as she tries to get her question out and he just keeps yammering over her......... ok, commercial break, when we come back same old same old - P loud, aggression and obnoxious, has no evidence, not listening to questions, etc - MM lets him go on to give us a show, but eventually shuts him down - yep, just like the carfax, he's expecting D to provide the evidence of payments when D is suing saying payments were never made -now he's yelling again about how this should be a federal case - MM actually pretty mild when giving him the boot, all things considered, but does get loud at his idea that D should disprove D's claim - D wins the countersuit - not for full amount he asked for, but close (think it's  $3 less).......
2. Rental deposit dispute: I left room before P intro began, but my doesn't she look like something - not the wild purple hair type something, but VERY stern looking as she leans back in chair looking down her nose towards D - haven'the heard what the deposit was, but she tacked on pain and suffering and wants a total of 3 grand....... could it be their local max is 3 instead of 5 grand like most places......... D argues place had just been remodeled before P moved in, and 1yr later when she moved out, it needed another complete remodel cuz P trashed place - but no countersuit......... simple case if anyone has before/after pix...... uh-oh, in preview it seems D DOES have pix - problem is she included EVERYTHING, even stuff she doesn'the claim P damaged....... ok, back to section 8 housing ( side note - wasn't tenant on yesterday's HB a refreshing change?) - not real sure what MM is wasting time getting all this backstory about how tenant thought landlord was so nice before she moved in  and then switched to an arrogant b*tch once she was there - does it matter? She was there for a year, moved out when lease ended, and is suing for deposit....... well, I guess if this is going to stretch to a half hour case we have plenty of time for drama........ MM asks for specifics - what did D Do, not how did she act 1 notjing, p wants to tells us drama, so over to landlord - same thing - talking about attitude during tenancy, which means squat as long as tenant pays on time and doesn't cause drama and destroying place......... geez, 1st case may have wore me out, not sure I can take these two for 30 minutes....... ok, MM seems to be tired of the background drama crap, and decides to move to damages and the deposit........ ok, sounds like this was a vacant house bought for rental and completely redone - question is was this a bandaid reno or an actual cost plate renovation - guessing little of both - sounds like landlord did a lot, new cabinets, appliances etc pix look good - but then she has tenant responsible for everything in lease and is now after tenant for.... well, everything....... problem is I wonder about the mechanicals - plumbing, HVAC, etc - and some of what tenant complains of is broken AC, stopped up or leaky plumbing - oh, that's another thing - landlord complains about tenant continually complaining, but after move out says she wasn't notified of problems - so far MM has had to admonish both sides for yapping away and not listening or answering her questions - MM is going through the damage claims, tossing some, questioning amounts, and only agreeing to a couple......... in lease tenant agrees to maintain yard, and she left grass uncut and a dead spot where she parked hoopty on grass - also, she did leavery a mess behind - but she kept $885 and so far (in my mind) she kept too much.......... MM is over these, she says landlord can keep $600, so P gets $285 - surprise, no pain and suffering - MM gets up & walk out

Edited May 21, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Watching right now and a question keeps floating through my mind:  What do you think Judge Marilyn Millian's blood pressure reading is?

Listening to those two loudmouths - one an ignorant palooka and the other a fast-talking used-car salesman -  with the volume turned to "Max" in yet another Old Beater Battle was making MY blood pressure go up. I couldn't help but think if half these litigants would try using their brains (what they have of them) and ears instead of their big mouths a lot of these cases would never come to court. Plaintiff: "Yeah, I had all my receipts for my payments but I lost them." Does that mean you don't have them? The fact that you once did is not very helpful.  Sonny-boy, whose car it is, didn't bother showing up to back up Dad, but he signed a contract that put him on notice that the mileage could be a big ol' lie. What does Sonny care, when Daddy is on the hook for the payments? Too bad, so sad. Car dealer was a cheap hustler  who informs us no one heard of CarFax in 2017 but at least he had some sort of evidence, so he wins. Personally, I think JM should have tossed the plaintiff the minute he mimed playing a sad violin as D was babbling on.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Rental deposit dispute:

I was startled at hearing the extremely deep voice of the plaintiff. Other than that, just another dreary case of apartment (or house in this case? I forget) deposit not being returned because the renter made a mess of the place and left piles of junk outside for someone else to clean up. We've seen so many of these, yet I still puzzle at how gobs of grease get all over the place in the kitchen? Oh, well. D landlord of course wants to be paid for her "Pain and suffering" because her tenant was a PITA. Is there one person here, ever, who knows what might constitute "Pain and suffering" because it's not what they think it is. Your 14-year-old hoopty conks out, someone breaches a contract, your weave is faulty or your pool isn't blue enough, etc.? Those aren't it.  Sorry. You want to win a lottery, buy a ticket.

[ThePurpleArcher]

In the car deal gone wrong case some observations:

 

1.  Upon realizing he was losing the case rather rapidly, the Plaintiff (Mr. Ortiz) muttered "I shoulda taken care of things 'my way' ".  Sounds like a thug threat, and JM doesn't question him about it. Hmmm. I;m afraid for the defendant since the P appeared quite unstable as the case was going down.

 

2.  At one point, JM decided to prop both her feet up on the desk. Yep - she did this. Something a kid would do, and at 59 she's not a kid. Just goes to show the world: all the money in the world can't buy you class or manners. But I always knew that by how she talks with her hands and yells at people for no reason. 

 

 

[zillabreeze]

8 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

In the car deal gone wrong case some observations:

 

1.  Upon realizing he was losing the case rather rapidly, the Plaintiff (Mr. Ortiz) muttered "I shoulda taken care of things 'my way' ".  Sounds like a thug threat, and JM doesn't question him about it. Hmmm. I;m afraid for the defendant since the P appeared quite unstable as the case was going down.

 

2.  At one point, JM decided to prop both her feet up on the desk. Yep - she did this. Something a kid would do, and at 59 she's not a kid. Just goes to show the world: all the money in the world can't buy you class or manners. But I always knew that by how she talks with her hands and yells at people for no reason. 

 

 

1.  Yep.  Little plaintiff asshole was pulling a scam and got caught.  Then wanted to doubledown with obvious threats.  Loved him losing and having to pay for arrears!  Sure wanted a hallterview with that one!  Why, why can't we have cameras down the "storming out" hallways!

2.  Aww, don't rag on my girl!  I thought the feet on the bench was hysterical!  She had P's number and was trying to shame him on his BS claim.  I thought it was a "You are not serious RightNow, and I won't be either moment"

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

At one point, JM decided to prop both her feet up on the desk. Yep - she did this. Something a kid would do, and at 59 she's not a kid.

I think she did it to show the plaintiff how utterly contemptuous she was of him. He fully deserved having to gaze upon the sole of her shoes for the rest of his testimony.

On the other hand she was very patient with the litigants in the second case who kept interrupting, talking over everyone and blurting out answers before the question was finished. Plaintiff was another example of those leeches who think the world owes them everything, including almost free lodgings and cleaning up their mess when they leave. And of course compensation for pain suffering, just because someone was not as obsequious to her as she thinks she deserves.

[ThePurpleArcher]

22 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I think she did it to show the plaintiff how utterly contemptuous she was of him. He fully deserved having to gaze upon the sole of her shoes for the rest of his testimony.

 

Yep, I know why she did it. But she's being 'disrespectful' in a court of law by doing so, something she reprimands others for doing. If she wants to be taken serious as a 'judge' she needs to act professional. Save the over-acting for your kids at home, when they misbehave. 

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

2.  Aww, don't rag on my girl!  I thought the feet on the bench was hysterical!  She had P's number and was trying to shame him on his BS claim.  I thought it was a "You are not serious RightNow, and I won't be either moment"

I think she is just so passionate about the law and hates injustice. Dealing with an endless streams of liars, scammers, lowlifes, abusers, morons, etc is enough to make anyone get a little testy. I certainly couldn't deal with them or listen to their convoluted lies recited in mangled grammar. At least we get to see them get spanked, not that it makes the least impression or causes them one drop of shame.