The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Zahdii said:

We were like "Interest rate?  What is that?  We've heard of it but never really bothered to learn what it was."

And in 1990 at a rent-to-own place you were probably paying 18+% interest. I did the same when very young and foolish. Got my hands on a Master Card and was very happy to pay just the minimum - maybe 10$ - per month, not realizing that was just covering the exorbitant (or "exhuberent" if you are a litigant) interest so the balance would never be paid off in my lifetime.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

I still have boxes of old free/shareware 5 1/4 and 3 1/2 floppies  and an old desktop that could read them -

I'm pretty sure I have some of those in a drawer somewhere. I didn't get a computer until 2001, but lived in dial-up hell for many years.

[AngelaHunter]

These half-hour cases are murder and they make me have great appreciation for the editors who pare them down to less than 15 minutes. This is why we were given the gift of FF, so naturally I'll keep watching.

The plaintiff in the loan/gift case was making my ears bleed. Even though she spoke proper English, her endless ramblings about the entire history of her and the defs was never-ending. It would have been a lot quicker had she eliminated a few dozen repetitions of "you know you know you know" and "basically". I had to FF a little before my head exploded. Anyway, it's the usual nonsense of someone with a big heart ( a sucker) giving money to opportunistic bottom feeders who don't deserve it and never getting paid back. The P is a SSM who showered a few thousand dollars on the reprehensible defs and I have no idea why.

Def husband, who lives in rented premises and has a family, just decided he didn't want to work anymore and quit his job. P sympathized with that. And then, oh, Christmas is coming and d's son ( a "horrible" kid according to P) won't have any visits from Santa, and they were on really hard times and all that crap, so P gives them more money. P then hires D to paint her house, and pays him 1,000$ per room, with her supplying paint, etc., but he has to go fishing, buy new phones and stuff like that, so it takes him forever to do the job. I don't know if he ever finished.

Defs - the aging, vicious bulldog and her hubby, the Big Stoop -  are truly examples of people who are just as replusive on the outside as they are on the inside. For all their poverty and terrible hardships, they never missed a meal. P says D told her their families are just a bunch of meanies and wouldn't help them. Translation: The family is tapped out and fed up with supporting these bone-lazy leeches. D wife denies everything P says. They owe her nothing, since all the money was a gift. P gets nothing. Moral: Don't be a fool and don't give all your money to con artists when you're a SSM.  I couldn't take one more second of either party so skipped the hallterview.

Arrogant, smart-mouthed boy is being sued for running out into the street and smashing into plaintiff's car. Mouthy boy goes to a school JM knows well, but he's not doing his school proud. "Can I finish?" he snarks to JM who gives him a "Don't be smart!" and a minor spanking. Well, sure - he ran out in the middle of the street after "looking both ways." I guess P had another one of those invisible cars since he never saw it. He told the police he ran into the street, but he doesn't remember saying that. He couldn't have broken P's windshield with his head, because if he had, he would be dead. He knows all about such things, this college boy. "Maybe you just have a really hard head", JM tells him and then awards the P the 1400$ or so it cost to fix her car. Nothing for boy's ambulance/medical bills since it was all his fault.

In the hall, the annoying boy tells Doug he never got to tell his story and he's very disappointed in the way the justice system failed him. Go tell it to your mommy or daddy. They'll care. Maybe.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

 I couldn't take one more second of either party so skipped the hallterview.

You probably did the right thing but you did miss her gem reply when Doug said to her “so you won the case, what are you thinking right now”?  The neckless woman said “no comment”.  NO COMMENT?  What does that mean?   And may I add she tossed her head (but amazingly her thick neck didn’t move at all) as if she was the star witness in some really important case.  I’m not even sure she understood the outcome.  I am sure she’s not playing with a full deck.

Her attitude reminded me of the Mike Tyson rape case.  We were just married, living in Indianapolis and the case was a big show stopper.  Anyway, after Tyson was declared guilty his lawyer (I think Dershowitz) ran out of the courtroom, passed the reporters who were shouting questions to him and replied “no comment”.  His assistant said he was in a hurry to file an appeal. The funny part was that he was running through the the lobby of the courthouse to go outside to catch a cab.  Well, anyone who knows Indianapolis knows it’s not New York and if you want a cab you’re going to have to go to the Circle Hilton or some other hotel and call for one.  He didn’t know that.  So, after tearing through the the courthouse, almost knocking down a few reporters he’s shown standing outside on the sidewalk looking up and down for a cab.  

Morons.  All of them.

 

Quote

Arrogant, smart-mouthed boy is being sued for running out into the street and smashing into plaintiff's car.

In the hall, the annoying boy tells Doug he never got to tell his story and he's very disappointed in the way the justice system failed him. Go tell it to your mommy or daddy. They'll care. Maybe.

The justice system didn’t fail him - his parents did.  If he’s as old as he is and doesn’t understand that you need to look both ways at the crosswalk and never, ever jaywalk or jay run with being absolutely sure it’s safe - nothing in this world is going to give him smarts.  I’m sure he’s the pride of his parents but to outsiders looking in, he’s a stupid fool who will not take responsibility for his actions.

And yeah, the reporting police officer made up his statement.  

Include him in the moron comment above.  

Edited June 12, 2020 by PsychoKlown
Punctuation

[AngelaHunter]

28 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

The justice system didn’t fail him - his parents did. 

I have to say that part of responbility for these clueless, entitled millennials goes to TPTB creating an entire child-proofed, padded world in which these millennials have no idea that anything can ever hurt them. They think that if they step onto the road, all traffic will come to an instant halt the way it did when they got off their school bus. I have and had no objection to stopping my car when a school bus full of little kids stops and totally agree with this, considering little children have been killed after getting off the bus. I do object to this as I sit there and watch 6-foot tall 17-year old guys get off a bus and fool around and dawdle on the street, knowing that no car can move until they decide to finally get off the road. Why should they look? Result: 20-something-year-old men who feel the world must come to a halt to accommodate them. Oh, and that nothing they do can ever possibly be their fault.

 

28 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

The funny part was that he was running through the the lobby of the courthouse to go outside to catch a cab.

Maybe he needed a cab to get wherever he needed to go to file an appeal? A different courthouse, maybe?

Edited June 12, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

Best part of the "is it a loan or a gift?" case was when JM corrected the defendant and said "you are saying the reverse of what you want to say". That lady could not even keep her lies straight. I am certain that a good chunk of the money claimed was indeed made up of loans. Too bad that the plaintiff had no evidence to support her claim.

JM also asked a question we must all have felt at one point or another, where are all those people ready to give out gifts of money just for the asking; there certainly are none in my circle of friends and acquaintances. Also, is there a workshop of some kind that moochers like the defendants attend in their youth sot they can learn early on to have at the ready the useful refrain "as a gift" to every answer they give to a judge?

As for the runner being struck by a car, I thought he made interesting points about the circumstances of the collision, but JM was not willing to explore them because she made up her mind from the start. I did not find him arrogant, just sure of himself and his arguments, even though he may have been in shock after the run-in and thus did not remember talking to the police. There were also big problems with the plaintiff's testimony as she was not able to reconstruct even the most basic facts of the intersection and the true position of the various vehicles.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I have to say that part of responbility for these clueless, entitled millennials goes to TPTB creating an entire child-proofed, padded world in which these millennials have no idea that anything can ever hurt them

Maybe he needed a cab to get wherever he needed to go to file an appeal? A different courthouse, maybe?

Excellent point. Never thought about that. 
 

And with Dershowitz he could possibly have thought there was another courthouse but there wasn’t.  Speculation amongst the bemused spectators was that he thought he was in Manhattan but alas, he was in Indianapolis IN. 

[AngelaHunter]

37 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

JM also asked a question we must all have felt at one point or another, where are all those people ready to give out gifts of money just for the asking; there certainly are none in my circle of friends and acquaintances.

I have friends I've had since I was barely past the toddling stage. Not once has any of them thrown 3K, 1500$ or even 500$ at me as a gift. I've never done so for them, nor have they asked. If I had a friend who was a SSM and who offered me such sums because I justf felt like quitting my job, I'd probably refuse if I knew I couldn't pay it back. But these career grifters would never refuse. Any and all handouts are welcome.

 

41 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

There were also big problems with the plaintiff's testimony as she was not able to reconstruct even the most basic facts of the intersection and the true position of the various vehicles.

It didn't matter. He admitted to JM he was out running in the street because it was more convenient for him to go around the tanker trucks. If he couldn't see cars coming he needs to either learn to pay attention or get his eyes checked. Plaintiff, who was driving on the road where cars belong and who wasn't even moving, didn't hit him on the sidewalk or in a bike lane, where pedestrians and bikers belong. He hit the side of her car. It's a dangerous world out there, even for college students.

 

18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Excellent point. Never thought about that. 

I think about it every time I see the big, grown up guys getting off the school bus. It makes me wonder how I and my friends survived when all traffic never came to a halt for us and we had to learn to be cautious when crossing a street.

[Florinaldo]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

It didn't matter.

It most certainly did in my view. She was confused in her testimony, he was confused after the collision. It could have been a wash. But JM would hear none of his relevant clarifications or objections to the plaintiff's assertions (including the windshield). I think that plaintiff at the very leat overreached in her claim and JM gave her a pass.

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/12/2020 at 7:58 PM, PsychoKlown said:

Excellent point. Never thought about that. 
 

I should have put an eye-rolly smiley after what I said about a different courthouse, because, no way.  >Belated eye rollie: 🙄

[Carolina Girl]

I disagreed with Judge Milian on the Loan/Gift case.  This was due to the Defendant's own testimony that she "checked" her texts with her wireless service.  

If it was truly a GIFT, there was no reason for Defendant to go back and check to see if there were text messages between her and the plaintiff where she acknowledged it was a loan.  Because there was no reason to send such a text.  If she believed it was a gift, she'd have made damn sure she sent a text saying so.  

And I'm sorry, but wasn't the rule unless there is specific evidence that it is a gift, it is assumed to be a loan?  Or do I have it backwards.  

Hell, if you think a large amount of money is truly a GIFT, the first thing you should do is send a text thanking the individual for bestowing such a gift and saying something like you hope you are in a position to do THEM "such a kindness" some day.  

[Katy M]

25 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

nd I'm sorry, but wasn't the rule unless there is specific evidence that it is a gift, it is assumed to be a loan?  Or do I have it backwards.  

That sounds backwards to me, but my business law classes were a million years ago.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

And I'm sorry, but wasn't the rule unless there is specific evidence that it is a gift, it is assumed to be a loan?  Or do I have it backwards.  

I am also under the impression that the default position is that it is a loan, not a gift because the latter is the least expected action.

Hoever, don't the TV show judges usually say that for it to be a enforceable loan there has to be clear understandings: a definition of terms like the schedule of payments and the amount for each, as well as the date it must all be paid off (not the frequent and inadvisably vague  "repay me when you can"). They also often say that there had to be a reasonable expectation of repayment, which is sometimes interpreted so narrowly that it sounds like the lender should have performed a credit check though a credit company, instead of relying on generic assurances (the evanescent "tax refund"), for the judges to accept their claim.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Katy M]

11 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I am also under the impression that the default position is that it is a loan, not a gift because the latter is the least expected action.

Hoever, don't the TV show judges usually say that for it to be a enforceable loan there has to be clear understandings: a definition of terms like the schedule of payments and the amount for each, as well as the date it must all be paid off (not the frequent and inadvisably vague  "repay me when you can"). They also often say that there had to be a reasonable expectation of repayment, which is sometimes interpreted so narrowly that it sounds like the lender should have performed a credit check though a credit company, instead of relying on generic assurances (the evanescent "tax refund"), for the judges to accept their claim.

It should go without saying, but unfortunately doesn't, that your best course of action is to get it in writing.  It doesn't have to be fancy.  I, X, am loaning Y $1,000.  Y will pay me back $1,000 no later than 6 months from today.  Both parties sign and date. Done.  If you wnat to get fancy have it notarized.

[AngelaHunter]

I know today's gift/loan kerfuffle was a rerun, since Levin wasn't in his circus tent, but loose on the street, but I don't remember it because I can't remember a damned thing.

This woman is the poster child for what we discussed upthread: Someone who wants to be seen as a savior, a benefactor for the deprived. I think this might be a mental problem for which she should get help before she ends up living in her car.

I feel she deserves the "TPC Biggest Sucker" award. These two grifters - hubby didn't have the balls to show up - seem to be big, healthy hogs capable of supporting themselves, yet plaintiff, who is alone and has health issues makes the decision that she's going to pay all their bills for them. Neither of the defs can have a bank account and have probably stiffed everyone they've ever been in contact with, but P says these "friends" of a few short years are "like family". The def probably has family and they have washed their hands of these moochers. I have a niece I love dearly, but I would NEVER ever pay all the bills for her and her boyfriend, no matter what, never mind that she would never ask. 

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy at all for plaintiff. She probably would have continued supporting these leeches had not she been called a "shriveled up 50-year-old baby" by the very grateful def. The very worst part is that P doesn't seem to get it that Defs knew they had a "mark" and were going to take her for everything they could get. I was hoping JM would shame Def, who is an utter slimeball with her, "I never got the cash put into my hand",  but no doubt she realized this woman was not capable of that particular emotion.

5 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

And I'm sorry, but wasn't the rule unless there is specific evidence that it is a gift, it is assumed to be a loan?  Or do I have it backwards.

I would imagine the opposite? A loan should be memorialized in some way\ - even if only using a cheque and writing "loan" on it,  but I can't see anyone getting evidence that what they gave was a gift. What would be the point, plus that would make for a lot of clogged email boxes after Christmas. 😄

Edited June 15, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

I have a policy of never supporting another person, or making loans.    I have a distant relationship with my brother, and his wife, but one day I was surprised to have a phone message from him.   I called back, thinking it was bad news or something.   He said that his wife's business was falling on hard times, and they really needed to remodel for better business.    I said No,     For some reason, he hasn't called back. 

They had a rerun of the woman who bought her third car from a used dealer, and wanted more money to fix it than it was worth.   The issue was that the contract was updated, without initials, by the dealer for the one year warranty, up from the 3 month warranty.   Judge M's decision was for rental and repair costs, because the writing on the contract looked like the dealer's.   However, if the woman bought three cars from him, and kept any paperwork from this or the previous deals, she could easily trace his handwriting.    I think that's what the car owner did.     

The other rerun was a woman who took what turned out to be a phony cashier's check from her former friend, (he was selling a french door fridge to someone in Las Vegas, he's in New Jersey.   

When the check was found to be fake, she had already given the friend the money for the purchase, the moving of the fridge, and the extra.   The loser friend kept and spent the last $700, and paid nothing to the woman.    A 50 year old man who has no checking account is an issue, as Judge M says, he owes money to someone for something.     The woman was such a fool that I don't think I would have given her the money back, but the Judge did.  

Edited June 16, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A 50 year old man who has no checking account is an issue, as Judge M says, he owes money to someone for something.     The woman was such a fool that I don't think I would have given her the money back, but the Judge did.  

Horsefeathers!  He sounds like a catch.

In all seriousness, are we the chosen people who understand that it’s not wise to loan anyone money (family and friends) without the expectation that we might never see it again?

I (like a lot of you) work hard for my money.  I will not part with it to someone who either refuses to work or plans to spend the money on items that should be paid with their paycheck but likes to be the life of the party at bars and restaurants.   

I am working so that when I retire I can live comfortably and without a lot of worries.  The contestants we see have goals that range from new rims to owning three or more 95” tv’s.

Sad all around. 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

The contestants we see have goals that range from new rims to owning three or more 95” tv’s.

The best are new rims on a 20+year old vee-hickle. Just have to mention today's "as is, as seen" car. Gee, yeah - if I wanted to buy a 21 year old truck and the honest owner  gave me a laundry list of things it needed, of course I would say "Sold!" I wouldn't dream of having a mechanic check it out first, since that might cost me 100$, and then I would sue him after I found out the relic indeed needed all kinds of repairs. In a different world, plaintiff would have had to pay def for this stupid, even outrageous waste of his time. Maybe plaintiff could get her "fiance" to help foot the bills. Yeah, right. 😏 He looked very industrious.

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I (like a lot of you) work hard for my money.

I've worked hard since I was 18 to support myself with no subsidies from Mommy and Daddy and eventually to have a decent standard of living. To me, loaning money to deadbeats you've known for 3 months who have no credit (why do they think this is?) or even to people you've known 3 years yet are like "family" is an invitation to disappointment. There really is no cure for "stupid".

A life-long friend who was on "hard times" with her family - partly through unfortunate circumstances and partly through bad decisions - asked me to co-sign a 10K loan for their son to go to police academy, as she and her husband had no credit. This caused me terrible stress. I didn't want to let my friend down, but also didn't want to leave myself open to having to pay that loan off if for whatever reason he didn't complete the course.  With great reluctance I said no. I"m glad did that, since son did not complete the training.

[Guest]

I briefly saw the repeat case today with the two feuding neighbors.  

I must have been either occupied with something else during the first viewing or it did not stay with me that Mr. Vulgar Gesture had teeth like a jack o’lantern.  I saw those beauties in high def today and was mesmerized.

And it might be wrong but whenever I see someone missing the really necessary teeth I wonder how in the hell they chew food.  

How do dentists do it?

[Guest]

I must confess that I have searched hither and yon for the perfect reality show.  They put me to sleep when I sometimes get a touch of insomnia.

I can’t find one.  I get depressed watching super obese people licking their fingers while eating a tub of Kentucky Fried Chicken.  As I said earlier feet make me nauseous so the whole idea of watching people with foot problems would have me vomiting all over the sofa.  And for the love of God, please don’t get me started on those addicted to watching a  dermatologist poke around pimples and other assorted growths on people’s bodies.

But maybe I’d watch those two PC contestants scrapping in the hallway of their apartment.  It might put me to sleep and if not maybe I’ll finally have an answer about how tooth challenged individuals (no matter how vile they are) eat a hunk of steak.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Litigants,

Do not make statements about any group that may share a characteristic with any person shown on the show.  This includes, but is not limited to persons in housing, receiving public benefits, and of presumed cultures or generations.  Snark the people on the show.  Do not snark people you assume are like them based on shared characteristics.

[Jaded]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I know!😮 I've never watched that stuff, but I've seen the thumbnails and titles on YT. Not really my idea of entertainment. Yuck. The only reality I watch are my three court shows - this one, JJ, and Hot Bench sometimes. I gave up reality shows many years ago when some guy was talking about his... attraction to his pool floats, and when I realized they were exploiting people with heart-breaking, utterly tragic physical conditions for ratings, with no resolution/cure at the end. It's a sideshow for the New Age. Despicable.

I watched a few episodes of that strange addictions show on TLC before feeling to weird about watching to continue. I saw the ones with the guy who had the obsession with pool floats or as they called them inflatables, the woman who drank gasoline and the other woman who was eating her deceased husbands ashes to feel close to him.

I watch or try to watch The Peoples Court, Judge Mathis and Hot Bench. I was a regular viewer of Judge Judy for a long time but she got too mean for me. I remember people thought she was mean when her show first started. During those times it felt like she was reacting to the dumb, stupid, inconsiderate and disrespectful people that would appear before her. Now it seems like she's gone way past that to the point where her treatment of people seems borderline cruel and often times demeaning when people don't deserve it especially if she's having a bad day then finds out whoever is in front of her is on any type of public assistance. 

Judge Milian and the others on their respective shows can get stern, blunt and to the point with those who they think deserve it but they don't seem to go over the line like Judge Judy can.

[aemom]

 

On 6/12/2020 at 6:56 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I have to say that part of responbility for these clueless, entitled millennials goes to TPTB creating an entire child-proofed, padded world in which these millennials have no idea that anything can ever hurt them. They think that if they step onto the road, all traffic will come to an instant halt the way it did when they got off their school bus. I have and had no objection to stopping my car when a school bus full of little kids stops and totally agree with this, considering little children have been killed after getting off the bus. I do object to this as I sit there and watch 6-foot tall 17-year old guys get off a bus and fool around and dawdle on the street, knowing that no car can move until they decide to finally get off the road. Why should they look? Result: 20-something-year-old men who feel the world must come to a halt to accommodate them. Oh, and that nothing they do can ever possibly be their fault.

It's really more about manners. I taught my boys, one of whom ironically is 6 feet tall and 17 years old, that when you're crossing the street, don't stroll, but move briskly across the street.  But, in Quebec they also learn that nobody stops for pedestrians, so that is probably a built in lifesaver, lol.

On 6/12/2020 at 7:31 PM, Florinaldo said:

As for the runner being struck by a car, I thought he made interesting points about the circumstances of the collision, but JM was not willing to explore them because she made up her mind from the start. I did not find him arrogant, just sure of himself and his arguments, even though he may have been in shock after the run-in and thus did not remember talking to the police. There were also big problems with the plaintiff's testimony as she was not able to reconstruct even the most basic facts of the intersection and the true position of the various vehicles.

The part he was trying to explain, but didn't do well, was that he came out from between the trucks and then was running parallel to the trucks along the street. He was either too far over, or she clipped him with her car because she was too close to him. I'm not convinced that it was his fault. 

Also, when a homeless man once deliberately dove onto the hood of my husband's car while he was driving down the street, his head bounced off the windshield and smashed it and he was fine.

On 6/19/2020 at 5:57 PM, Jaded said:

I was a regular viewer of Judge Judy for a long time but she got too mean for me. I remember people thought she was mean when her show first started. During those times it felt like she was reacting to the dumb, stupid, inconsiderate and disrespectful people that would appear before her. Now it seems like she's gone way past that to the point where her treatment of people seems borderline cruel and often times demeaning when people don't deserve it especially if she's having a bad day then finds out whoever is in front of her is on any type of public assistance. 

Judge Milian and the others on their respective shows can get stern, blunt and to the point with those who they think deserve it but they don't seem to go over the line like Judge Judy can.

I feel the exact same way, which is why I stopped watching. Ironically, I first started watching JJ when I was on mat. leave with the now 6 foot tall, 17 year old. 🙂

I think that this is it for the summer now for new eps. 🙁

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

The behaviour in question have been prevalent in Montréal since well before the age of cellphones, texting and messaging.

That's for sure. It's an age-old tradition.

I forgot all about the "I bought an old car and want my money back" case until the poor def. started speaking. So I bought a 15-year old car with 160,000 miles on it. The "check engine" light comes on but it turns out it only needs a 100$ fix. Not good enough for SSM with a sainted SON. She wants all her money back and goes to the lot (where the dealer actually gave her a 90-day warranty) to carry on, screech and yell at def. Go pick up your old car, plaintiff.

[NYGirl]

OMG today's rerun!!  Talk about a BO-NANZA!!! A girl sued a nail salon for a little cut on her finger for $9,000 pain and suffering!!!  She said she turned down modeling jobs but she's not a hand model!  Her mother kept coaching her and JM had to threaten to throw her out if she said one more word to her daughter.

On the way out the mother said..."it's obvious she doesn't know her job".  (meaning JM).   HUH??? (said in Harvey Levin voice)

BTW she won $32 ..the price of the manicure.

You cannot make this stuff up..no way

[CrazyInAlabama]

I remember the nail case, it was hysterical, and I bet the mother wanted her to come on the show to get more publicity for her daughter.   I bet it didn't help whatever career she had, because the daughter look like a very difficult person, and the mother showed that she's going to right there with her daughter, causing problems.   My afternoon rerun is the nail case, where the plaintiff's mother goes off talking to Doug in the hall, and he pretty much tells them to leave.   

Then there's the pathetic woman who was paying a neighbor very little to watch out for her house in Florida when she was at her summer place.   There was a hurricane, and she's blaming the man for all of the damages, called the police on him, and the man was served with a restraining order because woman claims he threatened her.    The sheriff was ordered by the judge to confiscate any guns from plaintiff, and he inherited some, and bought some, so he had 15 pistols, and long guns.    The plaintiff still can't get his weapons back.    The judge held the plaintiff responsible for the damages a hurricane did to the house.    The defendant is a total whack job.      I hope no one will watch her home after this case aired.    Plaintiff receives $nothing.     The $750 plaintiff paid on his attorney for the restraining order was wasted.    Defendant is horrible.    

I saw the wild rerun with the Fez guy, who claimed he was owed a fortune for doing some minor work for some man.     I love how he kept saying his work should be paid at 'market value', and he was owed thousands.      

Edited July 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I too enjoyed the repeat of Dragon Momma, who fixed JM with a true Death Stare, and her 21-year old baby who lost out on her big chance to be a movie star because she had a paper cut or two. Momma is right: JM doesn't know what she's doing. I'm sure Mom knows all about the law. If not for JM's bungling, Baby Girl (and Mom) would have had a whole bunch of money for nothing.

But the best was the evil, vile hag who accused plantiff, who worked for virtually nothing to maintain her place in FL, of destroying her place. The hurricane with 95mph winds had nothing to do with the destruction. I guess he had some psychotic break and charged over to her house with a hammer and scissors to smash stones and tiles, cut wires and wreak mayhem inside her place. Plaintiff has 15 guns in his home(!!) - a veritable arsenal. He must be one mighty hunter. I find that weird. Vile hag, as seen in the video, had no problem standing as she called him "You mother" but here needs to sit and use a walker.

[Maverick]

 I wonder if the judge who issued that restraining order called JM to ask how she dare question his/her ruling.   It's bad enough watching the sad degradation of society via the entitled, incompetent and generally clueless litigants but now JM is having to call out the judiciary as well.   There truly is no hope. 

 Everytime they cut to red Fez guy I couldn't help but think of Will Ferrell in Austin Powers and wondered if this was about painting the defendant's evuuul secret lair. 

[jilliannatalia]

Is the maximum award still $5,000, or has it increased?

[Maverick]

 It is based on the limit for small claims court in the state where the original suit was filed so it can vary. 

[Taeolas]

I think some jurisdictions have raised it to maybe 7000$? and an occasional case has gone that high on the show. But the show's general maximum seems to be staying at 5000. 

[AZChristian]

46 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

I think some jurisdictions have raised it to maybe 7000$? and an occasional case has gone that high on the show. But the show's general maximum seems to be staying at 5000. 

I've heard maximums from $2,000 to $10,000 on TPC.  It seems that on TPC, they follow the state maximum.  On Judge Judy and Hot Bench, the maximum "for our jurisdiction" seems to be $5,000.  Kind of makes me wonder whether someone from a $2,000-maximum state might hit a BOnanza if they are selected for JJ.  Maybe they could get $5,000 instead of $2,000.

[DoctorK]

Old case, border collies chasing and harassing neighbor's cows. Dog owners admit that their dogs get out a lot but they are so sweet and border collies protect animals so it is impossible that they hurt the plaintiff's cows. They should be forced to read "All Creatures Great and Small" to learn about herding dogs that go bad and kill sheep and cattle by just running them to death for sport, no need to make contact to cause death. What really got me annoyed was when the defendants alleged (correctly but not quite the way they stated) that the plaintiff was a convicted felon and shouldn't have had a gun to shoot one of the dogs, which has nothing to do with the case, but then the two defendants turned to each to smirk and chuckle at this brilliant move. I was surprised that JM ruled the way I thought it should go, I expected her to go all mushy over the sweet little border collies (actually not so sweet, right at the end the defendant admitted that her dogs have been chasing cows all the time).

[CrazyInAlabama]

The dog owner was horrible.    I hate how she was so proud of her dogs chasing the plaintiff's cows for years.    The livestock chasing rules everywhere I've live say that if an animal is chasing livestock, the owner of the livestock can shoot the animals.   All of the woman's dogs should have been shot when they first started chasing cows.    The fact that the defendant still claimed her dogs meant no harm was ludicrous, and then plaintiff's video of the surviving dogs being back a week after he shot one showed there was nothing accidental about defendant's dogs getting out.   I'm guessing the dogs were still getting free run of the neighborhood.    It really irritates me that the plaintiff sold the surviving cattle, because the defendant wouldn't keep her dogs at home.  

All the woman had to do was keep her dogs at home.    Especially since she knew they chased the plaintiff's cattle.    Then when the plaintiff had the video of her other two dogs being back worrying his cows a week after he shot one, so the woman didn't care.  

Edited July 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 All of the woman's dogs should have been shot when they first started chasing cows.

It makes me sick when animals suffer for the mind-boggling stupidity of their owners.

[Florinaldo]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The dog owner was horrible.    I hate how she was so proud of her dogs chasing the plaintiff's cows for years

I hated her at first sight. There was something about her attitude, her dismissive smirk and the dynamics with her witness (both silently cackling with each other as the facts were exposed); or perhaps it was her ugly dress. She also pulled the frequent stunt of bringing up something about the other party that had nothing to do with the case and was only designed to smear his character. My only regret is that the plaintiff did not decide earlier to use his gun against the rogue dogs and that he got only one animal.

She was as vile, in her own particular way, as the house owner from the day before who claimed that the hurricane had miraculously spared her house while she was up north, only to leave it vulnerable to being ravaged by her housesitter. Both are viciously deluded hags.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

She was as vile, in her own particular way, as the house owner from the day before who claimed that the hurricane had miraculously spared her house while she was up north, only to leave it vulnerable to being ravaged by her housesitter.

Not even JM could muster up any  of the sympathy or respect she usually has for the elderly for the vicious Florida harridan.

[TresGatos]

On 7/9/2020 at 3:58 PM, DoctorK said:

What really got me annoyed was when the defendants alleged (correctly but not quite the way they stated) that the plaintiff was a convicted felon and shouldn't have had a gun to shoot one of the dogs, which has nothing to do with the case, but then the two defendants turned to each to smirk and chuckle at this brilliant move.

And he tried to blow up a judge! Or so they claimed. The D admitted he wanted to blow up someone who had "messed with his family" and claimed it was a guy who had been messing with his former wife while pretending to be his buddy but it still made me wonder if the target had actually been a judge in a divorce or child custody case. 

[Florinaldo]

Today was a repeat, but new to me. In the visiting French soccer team case, when the plaintiff said she paid for the van because she felt at the time that God had put her there for a reason, my thought was that she was not suing the right party; she should have brought the action against her Supreme Being for false representation or detrimental reliance.  😉

[AngelaHunter]

I have no memory of today's "Shanika, the Foreclosure Specialist" and squatter collecting welfare.

JM: "Were you evicted?"

Shanika: "I never received eviction papers". (evasive,shifty liar)

Landlord: "She was evicted".

JM to S: "Did you pay all your rent?"
S: "Yes I did". (outright liar)

Landlord: "She owed four month's rent."

Anyway, Shanika wants 2500$ for the bedroom set she left in her apartment 13-odd years ago. She didn't have room for it in the U-Haul all those years ago, so that's not her fault and defendant should have kept it for her in perpetuity.  Oh, and she wants lots more money for harassement or some shit. She is belligerent, nasty, and has poor grammar so I maybe see why she was on welfare. Who would hire her to deal with clients?

JM detests her and ends up throwing her and her follower out when she constantly "screams" over JM and she demands to know why JM doesn't honour what some other judge said over a decade ago. Shanika hangs around the hall after getting the bum's rush, to get her 0.02 cent's worth in with Doug and informs him that JM is "nothing" and whatever she said means nothing to her. So there. Now piss off, Shanika.

31 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

the plaintiff said she paid for the van because she felt at the time that God had put her there for a reason,

I always find this kind of thing curious. Does their god involve himself with van rentals? I don't know but putting that aside, the def. royally stiffed her with his "None of this had anything to do with me even  though it's my organization and I arranged all the "intertwining" but I had no money, so plaintiff should go to France and sue". Nice that she gave away all this money behind her husband's back. I don't know if her religion would condone that kind of marital deceit, but what do I know? I'm a heathen.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the dog vs. cattle case.   My relatives in the country say 'messing with' to mean someone is boinking someone's spouse, or live-in.     So my guess is the plaintiff went after some guy who was cheating with the plaintiff's wife.     That still had nothing to do with the dog case.   

I saw the former deadbeat tenant suing the landlord after over a decade.   I love how Judge M told the defendant how to get the judgment against the plaintiff for back rent reinstated.    There is no way on Earth that plaintiff could have paid $2500 for a bedroom set all of those years ago.  

I laughed all through the case, because the plaintiff was a total liar, and the landlord was amazed to still be litigating this case all of these years later.  Also, the plaintiff's wig was so bizarre, and cheap. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Also, the plaintiff's wig was so bizarre, and cheap. 

Yes, that was one janky-ass wig.

[Florinaldo]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I always find this kind of thing curious. Does their god involve himself with van rentals?

I am also puzzled by athletes, performers or other people whose concept of a Supreme Being – allegedly engaged in overseeing an entire universe – envisions said being as finding time to get involved in the outcome of a game, in who gets an award or in this case whether the visiting team gets a van or not. Or how a TV court case turns out; we often hear litigants exclaim "Praise Jesus!" or some other similar reaction. I guess their alleged divinity relaxes by finding time for relatively trivial interests (much like we do).

I agree that the promoter washed his hands of the whole affair rather expeditiously. He most probably felt he was in over his head and wanted to extricate himself quickly from the situation; he knew how difficult it would be to go after his French colleagues. However, she bears some of the blame for making such a stupid choice and I would have been satisfied with a judgment that assigned a 50-50 responsibilty on the litigants, meaning her getting back half her money.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Or how a TV court case turns out; we often hear litigants exclaim "Praise Jesus!" or some other similar reaction. I guess their alleged divinity relaxes by finding time for relatively trivial interests (much like we do).

The deity must have days just as mind-numbingly boring as mine to become interested in ensuring a plaintiff gets the 200$ they are still owed on the 1998 Pontiac Bonneville they sold to some shifty defendant. Maybe those big crucifixes they so often sport really do work? Even so, don't they think they should praise JM instead, or at least give an honourable mention to her?

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I would have been satisfied with a judgment that assigned a 50-50 responsibilty on the litigants, meaning her getting back half her money.

I was wondering if this fell into the category of a smitten woman hoping to buy the def's love.

[AngelaHunter]

More reruns today although I did not remember any of them until I checked the original air dates. I won't go over the gooch-eyed, smirking, ridiculous, uber-douchebag asshole, Harold, the car dealer who has no driver's licence because he can't stop breaking the law and has no insurance yet opens his dealership at around 6a.m.

The two girls with the roommate squabble:

"Me and Nathalie were friends."

"Everything was going good".

"I saw our lifes..."

"She's messier than me."

They are in college. I can only think this is the sad result of "No child left behind".  Even if you are a lazy idiot who never could learn basic grammar all through elementary and high school, you will still get into a college because demanding even a low level of literacy might hurt some feelings or be offensive. Can't have that! I flunked history in high school, due to laziness, fooling around in class, and disinterest. I remember how embarrassing it was to sit with the younger kids the next year. This made me try harder and catch up. No one cared if I felt "uncomfortable" because it was MY FAULT, two words that have become obsolete.

Anyway, I gave up watching that case the second I heard that these idiotic nitwits thought it was a good idea to get a dog when no one had the brains to look after it, even if they were ever home. Ugh.

 

[SRTouch]

12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

More reruns today although I did not remember any of them until I checked the original air dates. I won't go over the gooch-eyed, smirking, ridiculous, uber-douchebag asshole, Harold, the car dealer who has no driver's licence because he can't stop breaking the law and has no insurance yet opens his dealership at around 6a.m.

I haven't been watching any of the rerun court tv, but today was rolling enchildas to put in oven and joined 1st case already in progress. MM was truly PO'ed at Harold - especially when she couldn't get a single honest answer from him. Even after being informed she had his arrest record in front of her, he tried to soft pedal the charges. 

12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

The two girls with the roommate squabble:

"Me and Nathalie were friends."

"Everything was going good".

"I saw our lifes..."

"She's messier than me."

Once I had the enchildas in the oven, and I went back to reading with TPC for background noise. Had to bail once I heard a few minutes of this one.

 

[Pepper the Cat]

I think Harold was stoned in court. 
2nd case- What happened to the puppy????

[AngelaHunter]

32 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Even after being informed she had his arrest record in front of her, he tried to soft pedal the charges. 

The most astonishing thing about Harold with his douche-baggery, idiocy, protruding egg tooth, Bugs Bunny grin, and his Loser for Life behavior? He found some pathetic little mutt who was so terminally desperate she was willing to let him jump her bones and to procreate with him. "It seemed like a good idea at the time" does not excuse this, but I don't know why I continue to be so amazed the depths to which women will stoop in order to keep the most marginal POS around, and even then it doesn't work since Harold doesn't even support the fruit of his loins. I've just made myself queasy.

Edited July 16, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Once I had the enchildas in the oven

And you didn't invite us? Enchiladas...omg. I love Mexican food!

[DoctorK]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Harold with his douche-baggery, idiocy, protruding egg tooth, Bugs Bunny grin, and his Loser for Life behavior

Ah but he really is quite the ladies' man, I hope you caught him smirking and winking at the judge. Too bad that JM apparently missed it. What's not to love in an aging romeo with greasy hair starting to show gray/white, perpetual smirk and quite a tidy (not so) little paunch?

Edited July 16, 2020 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Ah but he really is quite the ladies' man, I hope you caught him smirking and winking at the judge. Too bad that JM apparently missed it. What's not to love in an aging romeo with greasy hair starting to show gray/white, perpetual smirk and quite a tidy (not so) little paunch?

...and oddly short arms, or maybe his paunch just made them look unusually short? I don't know. I had a hard time just getting past a car dealer who isn't allowed to drive.  Anyway, I did notice Harold giving JM his best Lothario looks. I tried to ignore that because it was actually making me aggressive.

"I'm sure the judge can't resist this expression. It never fails!"