The People's Court - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I had forgotten I'd ever seen this case until the annoying, whiny plaintiff whined she she didn't have the texts to prove what she's whining about because she has to buy a new phone every 4 months. 

Couldn't figure out why she brought all her old broken phones to court if the texts "probably" weren't in any of them.  She's one of those people who makes you want to see her feet to see if she's smart enough to put on two matching shoes.

9 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I think that in the clip we see him briefly bringing some document to the bench so JM can peruse it through some strategically placed camera; I do not know if it is simply the summary slip for the hearing or some piece of evidence. 

At the beginning of every case, Douglas swears in the litigants, does his cute little 180 spin, and then appears to be picking up trash or something from in front of the judge while she's saying "Thank you, Douglas" and he's responding, "You're welcome, Ma'am."  I've always wondered what he was picking up.

[Taeolas]

Harvey's Zoom background was just the standard TPC title screen background, when he was using it. So it was still on brand. I'm a little surprised that those end of season eps haven't shown up in the repeat rotation yet. According to my PVR Guide, the current batch of eps are from Feb 2019; this time of season I thought we'd be seeing Feb 2020ish eps (late 2019-2020 season), which would've been the return of the Harvey Zoom bumpers. 

I do wonder since the litigants seem to be appearing from home, how many will go with the "I didn't think I would need/didn't bring it" excuses, when theoretically they can just go to the other room to get it. 

It's going to be an interesting start of season in any case. 

[DoctorK]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

the defendant circles the podium all the way around before landing at the microphone. 

That was pretty bizarre. Plus I was remembering the Austin Powers line "She's a man".

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, the defendant in the sick kitty case looked rather angry, and aggressive, with her posse of enforcers with her.   

[AngelaHunter]

Hey, I just had a thought: All the many, many litigants who deal only in cash: Around here, no business has been accepting cash since the onset of the Plague so I'm wondering how people who can't have bank accounts or credit cards are managing. I know they can use their beloved money orders and Western Union to pay utilities, rent, and car payments (when they actually pay them, that is) but at places like stores or gas stations where you don't know what the total amount will be, how do they pay it? I'm coming up blank.

[Florinaldo]

Around here some places are strictly credit/debit card only these days, but most like grocery stores still take cash although they do prefer electronic payment. But I have never seen a customer being refused paying cash, for example in the provincial liquor stores which prominently display signs saying that cash is discouraged.

If the amount is very small (less than 5 $ for example) I still whip out the cash.

If litigants have a money order that covers more than the amount of their purchase, they could get back change in those places.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Around here some places are strictly credit/debit card only these days, but most like grocery stores still take cash although they do prefer electronic payment. But I have never seen a customer being refused paying cash, for example in the provincial liquor stores which prominently display signs saying that cash is discouraged.

If the amount is very small (less than 5 $ for example) I still whip out the cash.

If litigants have a money order that covers more than the amount of their purchase, they could get back change in those places.

I live in the same place you do and I haven't seen anyone paying with cash any place I go, so didn't know it would be accepted. I do see signs requesting "Debit or CC only". Since I never use cash anyway nothing changed for me but just wondered what it would mean to our litigants who say they go to utility companies to pay with a fistful of grubby bills. I guess they'll manage. They always do.

[badhaggis]

I live is Arizona cash is still accepted pretty much everywhere. I have one doctor that just had a baby she won't accept cash at this time. 

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I live in the same place you do

In which bedroom? (Wildly looking around for signs of a clandestine roommate without a written lease and probably with squatter's rights) 😉

I think that in the first few weeks of lockdown, stores wanted to appear to be very strict but I wised up when I saw an annoying old biddy (kin and kith to so many TV court shows litigants) paying cash at a SAQ liquor store. The clerk meekly fessed up to me that they do allow cash if the customer insists or gets argumentative. I guess losing one sale is not worth the hassle of enforcing the policy.

Also, farmer's market stalls are not all equipped for electronic payment. Which means I can pay electronically for my tea at the teastore in Ottawa but I have to get out cash for fresh produce just a stone's throw away.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I guess they'll manage. They always do.

These crafty creatures always do. As a consequence, raw material for TV court shows is a renewable resource indeed.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

In which bedroom? (Wildly looking around for signs of a clandestine roommate without a written lease and probably with squatter's rights) 😉

😆 I meant in QC but maybe I'm mistaking you for someone else? However, I could be living in a bedroom in your place without your knowledge. We have heard litigants profess not to know who is living with them or that someone just moved in without consent.

 

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I guess losing one sale is not worth the hassle of enforcing the policy.

I was interrogated in a way that would do the SS proud when I entered the SAQ at the beginning of this mess. I was just so grateful that liquor stores were seen as an essential service that I didn't mind at all. I never tried to pay with cash though. I don't do well with cash, which reminds me: Would you mind holding on to my 5K in small bills for me that I've had stashed in a shoebox in my closet? If I have it I'll just spend it all on stupidities and even though you'll refuse to put it in writing I'm sure you'll give it back to me when I request it.

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

These crafty creatures always do.

Indeed. Even when they declare they're living in their cars/couch surfing/sleeping on park benches, they still manage to have 5K worth of property, including the latest iPhone and tablets, etc.

[CrazyInAlabama]

This afternoon's rerun is the bizarre case of the Russian or Ukrainian upstairs neighbor, being sued by the woman who owns the downstairs condo.   The upstairs woman has a 10 year old that lives with the husband, but the husband, and child live elsewhere, because as the husband says, "She needs her space".   

There is a video of the bizarre screaming, and noises coming from the upstairs apartment, and it sounds horrible, with loud banging, and screaming like someone is being murdered.    The woman lives alone, and says she just gets mad.   

The plaintiff says on one occasion, she called police because she thought someone was being murdered in the defendant's condo, and the police finally hauled her away in an ambulance.  The plaintiff says the police, and EMTs had a hard time getting the woman into the ambulance.   The husband says he doesn't know anything about this.   

The husband denies the defendant has mental health issues, but he's lying.    The defendant is severely disturbed, and I feel sorry for the plaintiff, who will never be able to rent that condo again, or resell it either.       The defendant just stands and stares when she's asked a question, and barely talks at all.     

Yes, Harvey, residents of condos, apartments, and housing are not allowed to drive other people out with excessive noise.   As Judge Marilyn says, it sounds like the Exorcist upstairs.     The husband isn't going to move her out either.  Poor Doug in the hall-terview is trying to talk to the woman, but she's almost comatose.    The defendant is totally out of it.   The husband blames everything on the downstairs neighbor.  

$5,000 to the plaintiff.   

On a shallow note, Judge Marilyn's hair looks more brown than red now.  

[Maverick]

 That was so strange.  The defendant in the hallterview just keeps going "I'm sorry.  I don't meant to disturb anyone."    The husband walks off and the woman asks Doug, "I'm sorry what should I do".   "You should go with your husband."   Just really weird.

 The first rerun today had the woman who moved in with a guy she knew for a month and bought $5,000 worth of furniture (because she doesn't want his stuff that other women have sat on).    Spoiler alert, the relationship only lasts a few months and now she wants the be reimbursed for the furniture.  She didn't have to pay rent during the relationship because of her genitalia ("she's the woman, it's not her responsibility to pay the rent").   You can imagine how that went over with the Judge.    My favorite bit was when Doug called the guy out for going back to his ex after they broke up to which the guy responds in his Georgia drawl "we ain't gonna talk about all that".   Stay classy, People's Court litigants.  

[AngelaHunter]

Levin must be picking the reruns and choosing the most freaky and disturbing ones, because other peoples' tragedies are just gossip to that little POS.

The screaming, stomping wife: Gee that glass of wine really looked like the glass of water when the T-Rex was approaching in "Jurassic Park." Yes, if you feel ignored it's normal to carry on like one possessed. She seems to have serious mental problems. The creepy, weirdo husband, who looked so much like Francis Dollarhyde in "Manhunter" found out that mail order Russian brides may not be as described or as expected - quiet, compliant, subservient, and dependant - by the creepy weirdos who order them. It's not like he couldn't get an American woman. From what we see here, there is no man so undesirable or marginal that multiple women will not only hook up with him, but shower him with money and gifts and happily breed with him.

I didn't feel sorry for giggling plaintiff either. She pulled a sneaky fast one on the person renting her condo and deserved to lose the rental income, IMO. IF she  couldn't live with the insanity, why would she think someone else would, and pay for the privilege of doing so?

[NYGirl]

I felt sorry for the defendant woman.  She probably has nobody here except for the creepy husband and along with her mental health issues doesn't know where to turn or what to do.

I hope she gets some help.

[AZChristian]

56 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

I felt sorry for the defendant woman.  She probably has nobody here except for the creepy husband and along with her mental health issues doesn't know where to turn or what to do.

I hope she gets some help.

She spoke fairly good English and was a lab technician according to her own entry on linkedin.  She does need to be referred to someone who can help her, but she has had numerous run-ins with the police and they seem to have done nothing.  I think creepy husband doesn't care because he doesn't live with her and doesn't have to hear the noise all night.  Social services needs to become involved.

[AngelaHunter]

Why do these episodes look so much worse on the second viewing? Could it be because on the original viewing we are just too bemused to really listen to details? Those two foolish numbnuts bitches screaming and cursing and nearly coming to blows and vandalizing a car because proper etiquette rules were not observed? Yeah, many times I"ve stopped on a street to let someone enter the lane of traffic from a parking lot if there a lot of cars behind me. I've even stopped to let pedestrians cross! Do they all wave, smile and say "Thank you kindly, m'am?" No, they do not. Do I charge after them, jump out of my car and screech at them to be decent human beings? No, I do not. I may be a little cracked, but I'm not totally nuts like these two.

[laprin]

13 hours ago, NYGirl said:

I felt sorry for the defendant woman.  She probably has nobody here except for the creepy husband and along with her mental health issues doesn't know where to turn or what to do.

I hope she gets some help.

I also felt sorry for the female defendent, but her creepy husband pissed me off. He knows his wife has mental health issues and left her alone in the condo to be someone else’s problem. As a condo owner this hits close to home. I would be so angry if I could not enjoy my home because her husband refused to get her help. He would rather they pay for two homes than sell the condo and get his wife the care she needs. As an owner, I can’t just walk away at the end of a lease or by breaking one.

There is one thing the condo association could do to get his attention. They could fine her for every noise complaint. A $1000 fine per incident would start to rack up pretty quickly and if left unpaid the association could file a lien and seek eviction. If the association fails to take action, with her proof, the plaintiff could sue them for failure to act. 

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, laprin said:

As an owner, I can’t just walk away at the end of a lease or by breaking one.

You can't live in the place, sell it or even rent it out and meanwhile must keep paying the mortgage and condo fees. I would be beyond livid. Didn't the Creep say that the plaintiff is on the condo association board, or maybe even the head of it? I'm sure the hubby would just ignore any fines, and make the board take him to court each time and still not pay them. I wonder if there is a set number of fines issued after which an eviction can take place? But even that could drag on forever. We've seen how hard it is and how long it takes to get even non-rent paying squatters out of a place.

What on earth do you do in a situation like this, where your home is rendered unhabitable this way?

[laprin]

19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:You can't live in the place, sell it or even rent it out and meanwhile must keep paying the mortgage and condo fees. I would be beyond livid. Didn't the Creep say that the plaintiff is on the condo association board, or maybe even the head of it? I'm sure the hubby would just ignore any fines, and make the board take him to court each time and still not pay them. I wonder if there is a set number of fines issued after which an eviction can take place? But even that could drag on forever. We've seen how hard it is and how long it takes to get even non-rent paying squatters out of a place.

What on earth do you do in a situation like this, where your home is rendered unhabitable this way?

The only option is to fight torture with torture. Defendant’s husband clearly wants to have as little to do with her as possible so dragging him into court constantly may do the trick. If he fails to show, the judge is likely to enter a default judgement that expedites the eviction process. The plaintiff may have been head of the condo association, but she could not make decisions without the majority of the board agreeing to pursue eviction. Obviously, not an easy decision, especially since this likely only impacts the plaintiff or maybe one other resident. Our condo only has two units per floor at opposite ends of the hallway. I never hear my neighbor. I occasionally hear sound from the unit above me, but doubt my neighbor hears it. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, laprin said:

Obviously, not an easy decision, especially since this likely only impacts the plaintiff or maybe one other resident.

Exactly one of the problems. People who are not affected by events have little interest in working to fix them.  I really don't know what this plaintiff can do that won't take years to find a resolution and in the meantime she's stuck in limbo with an unliveable place she has to continue to pay for. The stress of that would kill me.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I find it hard to believe that the screaming woman actually holds a job.   She was almost comatose in the court, and with poor Doug, and the husband certainly didn't care.    

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I find it hard to believe that the screaming woman actually holds a job. 

She has, or had, a job? Doing what? I completely missed that.

Today's repeat was kind of funny, or it would have been if not for the mention of  children living in chaos and violence. Remind me of why anyone wants to be a landlord? Oh, well, at least "Velma" told Doug in the Hall that she learned a lesson from all this: Do background checks and do not allow anyone on probation, drug dealers or other criminal elements to move into your dwelling.

But I get it, Tanisha. When the FBI(!) busted down my door (Why? I just sent some harmless text and the FBI have nothing better to do), raided my house and arrested my criminal boyfriend who was hiding in the john, I was just glad when it was all tooken care of. Of course it was the landlady's fault that her stuff got stolen by the other criminal element in the building, even though Tanisha was the cause of the FBI breaking her door down and then she walked away and abandoned all her junk. Landlady kindly kept all this crap for months - "She threw it out, in her basement!"  JM kindly informs plaintiff that throwing something out and storing it in a basement are two completely different things. Duh. The real reason plaintiff didn't take it is she had nowhere to put it, so free storage until I feel like getting it! I'm sure all this was a lot of fun for the kids.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Another poster said the screamer has a Linkedin saying Lab Technician.   I find it hard to believe that the defendant woman ever had a job.       

I loved the FBI case, they don't break down a door with their SWAT team (they have them), over someone saying that Tanisha sent them a mean text.     I love that hubby had warrants, and apparently locked himself in the bathroom to hide from the FBI.    The fact the downstairs neighbors eventually were proven to have burglarized the dump while the doors were down was really funny.       I love that it turned out that plaintiff wanted the cash for her furniture, and refused to pick it up, after landlady was kind enough to store it for her.    Plaintiff saying that she didn't have anywhere to store the furniture, and wanted the money instead was hysterical.    At least landlady is doing background checks on tenants now.  

Edited September 2, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AZChristian]

51 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Another poster said the screamer has a Linkedin saying Lab Technician.   I find it hard to believe that the defendant woman ever had a job.    

According to Linkedin, she DID have a job as a Lab Tech in Russia.  Her current job (for 13 years, I think) is "Housewife."  That's about the time she moved here from Russia and married geeky guy two months later.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

According to Linkedin, she DID have a job as a Lab Tech in Russia.  Her current job (for 13 years, I think) is "Housewife."  That's about the time she moved here from Russia and married geeky guy two months later.  

Thank you!   That's makes a lot more sense.     It scared me that there was a possibility that the defendant was actually around people, while wielding sharp objects.  

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM kindly informs plaintiff that throwing something out and storing it in a basement are two completely different things. Duh.

Yep, that was a gem, it is depressing how stupid and/or ignorant these litigants are.

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by DoctorK
missed a word

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Yep, that was a gem, it is depressing how stupid and/or ignorant these litigants are.

I'm wondering what would motivate the FBI to arrive with a SWAT team and break down one's door.  If they raided the homes of everyone who sent nasty, vile, or even threatening texes they would have time for nothing else.

I once had two detectives arrive at my apartment when I was renting. They had information that my father was living there with me and demanded I reveal his whereabouts that night. I informed them my father had been deceased for some 6 years, so they left. They didn't break my door down, probably because I didn't lock myself in the bathroom instead of answering their knock. Really, who but a child would think hiding in a bathroom will make a SWAT team go away?

[CrazyInAlabama]

I wonder if it was a no knock warrant?    Either way for the FBI to show it must have been a major crime.  

[AZChristian]

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I wonder if it was a no knock warrant?    Either way for the FBI to show it must have been a major crime.  

The plaintiff kept using the word "terrorism" . . . the FBI will get involved in terroristic threats.  From their website:

"Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."

You can fit a lot of actions into those categories.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, the FBI didn't come over some minor text or email, and I'm guessing if we saw what that woman sent, it would be major.   I love the boyfriend thought hiding in the bathroom would prevent the FBI from arresting him.     My guess is he was flushing a lot of stuff while hiding in the bathroom or throwing it out the window.  

[AngelaHunter]

I never saw today's eps. I skipped the first case because it had the word "dog" in the blurb.

Second case had a bunch of low-level scammers and liars. Plaintiff, who seems to spend most of her disposible income on hair weaves/braids/multicoloured whatever, likes to buy cars she can't afford from shady, hustling used-car dealers who do their business in a cash/no receipt/no records way. JM asks P if she works full time, and the answer is "It depends". Plaintiff lies on her credit application, saying she works full-time, 40 hrs per week. Moon-faced, dopey yet glib def who thinks he's charming or a comedian, gives her the car before verifying this. That's how they do things. Turns out she's a liar and when contacted her employer says she's part-time only.

Plaintiff wants back her 2K deposit ( I guess she's used to having her cars repossessed after she's used up the deposit and D has proof she's done this before) plus 500$ she says she gave defs for insurance. Defs have absolutely nothing on their table - no contract, no records of anything concerning the purchase or insurance but say they did accept 500$ in grubby, crumpled bills, but of course gave no receipts and P never thought to ask for one. Defs say P refused to return the car key to them when they took back the car, so they are out the towing fee, cost of repo company and new keys. JM asks for proof of this. OH, well, they don't have any of that with them today They claim they have "Deposits are non-refundable" signs in 5 places in their office as per New Jersey law since they are all about proper procedure, plus it's on their contracts. JM finds no such clause in the sample contract and doesn't buy the pictures of the brand-new signs defs say have been in their place of business for years. In an unsatisfying verdict JM, who notes that all these scammers deserve each otherbut awards P 1500$. Yay. Now she can go do this again. I'm sorry all these hustlers got any financial rewards for their hustling.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I love the rerun of the man who was parking across someone's driveway, the police ticket the car, and the car is towed.    The man claims there are $5,000 in damages to the car.   I hope the tow company invested in a video camera for each operator to prove previous damages. 

Then it turns out the man called his insurance company about car damage on the 15th.   Then on the 17th the car is towed, and picked up.  On the 18th the plaintiff is did another claim to his insurance.  The photos of the 15th damage claim, and the 18th damage claim are identical.    Then plaintiff filed this lawsuit, claiming the tow company caused the damages on the 17th, that he had already sent a claim to the insurance company on the 15th.    When plaintiff loses, because he's a liar, he tells Doug it's all racism, and a plot by the police, and tow company to steal his money.

[Katy M]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then it turns out the man called his insurance company about car damage on the 15th.   Then on the 17th the car is towed, and picked up.  On the 18th the plaintiff is did another claim to his insurance.  The photos of the 15th damage claim, and the 18th damage claim are identical.    Then plaintiff filed this lawsuit, claiming the tow company caused the damages on the 17th, that he had already sent a claim to the insurance company on the 15th.    When plaintiff loses, because he's a liar, he tells Doug it's all racism, and a plot by the police, and tow company to steal his money.

It's obvious what happened.   He did damage to his car.  Fixed it.  And the tow truck damaged the exact same space in the exact same way.   That's just some bad luck.

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, Katy M said:

And the tow truck damaged the exact same space in the exact same way. 

Well, they did! It was obvious from his 15+(Okay,maybe it was only 10) heart-rending exclamations of "LOOK AT THAT!" in the first millisecond of viewing the car how shocked and distraught he was by the damage those diabolical, racist tow people did just to be evil.

[DoctorK]

Oh boy, the new season got off to a great start! The defendant/divorce lawyer was a piece of work, who kept talking over JM and screeching at the judge. I can't imagine any judge putting up with her behavior in any case in which she represented someone suing for divorce. The defendant didn't help her presentation (though I doubt this affected JM) by looming over the camera, shoving her face into the lens, and screeching, all of this with bad lighting. At first, I was afraid that JM would go soft and fuzzy for the poor abandoned suffering wife abandoned by evil husband, but if she was ever leaning that way, the defendant sure killed that off quickly.

With the new format and the often displayed inability of many litigants to look and act presentably, I wonder what kind of goodies we will see in litigant backgrounds, perhaps holes in walls, dogs crapping on the carpet, passed out people?

[bref]

I was promised new episodes today, the blurb at the bottom of the screen says NEW, Season 24, Episode 1, and yet--I have seen this before. Recently. It's the one with the un-charming brother who called the judge "Miss Milian". Anyone know what's going on?

[Taeolas]

Sounds like your station mixed up. Or they swapped episodes around and/or moved networks (like Hot Bench is moving in Boston). 

It was certainly a new episode today, with everyone showing up by Zoom TV in the courtroom (only Douglas was there in person). 

 

Judge Mathis also started new today. He's got plexiglass barriers up at the bench and the litigant stands, and the much smaller audience (~10 people) are wearing face masks. Litigants and Mathis were unmasked, but the bailif was. (I'm shocked that there isn't a Judge Mathis thread, since he's like the 3rd or 4th oldest active TV Judge show out there now). 

 

Anyways, back to TPC, that first case is a great start. Love how they leaned closer to the camera and pointed even closer as they got more frustrated and angry.  🙂

[CrazyInAlabama]

I was getting sick of the defendant/divorce lawyer sticking her cleavage in the camera, and her hair swishing was beyond irritating.    I wish these two people would get divorced.  

[Florinaldo]

A case involving unjustly redeemed travel points did not sound promising to start the new season, but the defendant quickly made it quite the spectacle. Screeching and interrupting, with the most grating voice I have heard in a very long time. JM even told at one point her to stop her "barking"!

I wonder who would ever hire her as a lawyer; she does not inspire confidence and is certain to irritate any presiding judge. Or perhaps that is the winning strategy she uses as a selling point: "the judge will tire of listening to me so quickly that they will decide in your favour just to get rid of me". She certainly came across as a bargain-basement attorney.

The show will probably be tweaking their new formula in the next few weeks, for example by instructing litigants not to lean into the camera, a request many will probaby ignore (as repeatedly happens in a number of Web conferences these days). The segments with JM and her husband are interesting, but they might think of eventually having them only every other episode or so, lest they become repetitive or trivial.

So now litigants do not get a free trip and hotel stay as an incentive to come air their dirty laundry on national TV, just the prospect of not paying whatever judgement goes against them and a guarantee to collect on a favourable decision. I wonder if the show has added other incentives or considerations to compensate for the change. Perhaps they increased the award kitty.

Poor Douglas, he must feel so lonely in that courtroom with little or no crew present, since the hardware can be remotely operated, and only Doug in the hallway to shout to as a form of human presence.

 

Edited September 7, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

Well, that was interesting. I think some ground rules need to be set for this new remote format. People seem to feel that if they are in their homes, it gives them license to yell and scream and talk over JM. I was annoyed that she didn't halt the autobiographical monologues from both these insufferable windbags.

The screeching harridan is a divorce attorney(!!) who feels it's a good idea to not get divorced even after three years of living apart and to continue having a joint bank account when said harridan and her smarmy hubby obviously despise each other. She says their separation was not "acrimonious". That made me wonder if she knew the meaning of the word.

Anyway, litigants need to sit down and not charge the screen, hover over it and display large, distasteful cleavage in close-up mode. It was interesting seeing her taste in decorating. The word "tacky" comes to mind. I wonder if all the people in her area who are considering divorce saw this. No way would I hire her. The woman is a nut.

I didn't mind seeing JM and her husband chatting. JM can't believe that people who were married for 30 years and produced a bunch of kids could hate each other this way. Really? I guess she never heard about Betty Broderick or all the other "War of the Roses" scenarios.

The case of the giant leech who let his friend pay for his trip, right down to all the food he shoved down his throat (after his credit card was "compromised" - yeah right) and claimed it was a gift was just the usual and boring.

Levin is using this opportunity to get even MORE of his ridiculous ugly mug stuck in the camera. I guess he was getting antsy, what with being deprived of his little numbnuts fan club outside. I bet he wrote all those "Dear Harvey" questions himself.

[Schnickelfritz]

Anyone else get a little excited when they announced a new segment called "After the Verdict"? I was hoping that it meant that we were finally  going to get some updates on past cases we have long been curious about.

At least the new segment wasn't more of Harvey the Wonder Dog!

Aside - is there any reason Harvey can't read the viewer questions out loud?

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She says their separation was not "acrimonious". That made me wonder if she knew the meaning of the word.

I chuckled when she said that and not a second later we got a shot of JM showing her disbelief at that ridiculous statement, which was contradicted by everything else they said about each other.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

(after his credit card was "compromised" - yeah right)

It probably was a MasterCard which got caught in an illicit rendez-vous with an Amex in some sleazy rundown ATM.

 

I think some of the legal info HLprovides in his answers might actually be useful to some viewers, providing they actually listen and are able to understand it.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Pepper the Cat]

I like the After the Verdict part. 
I really like that Harvey no longer questions random strangers watching it on the street. I get really excited for a moment and thought he was gone altogether but then he popped up with the Q&A thing. Which is tolerable. 
I agree with the poster who said that there will be some tweaking along the way as we all navigate through this “new normal”

 

[AngelaHunter]

6 minutes ago, Pepper the Cat said:

I get really excited for a moment and thought he was gone altogether but then he popped up with the Q&A thing. Which is tolerable. 

I didn't dare hope for no Levin, because I knew I would be disappointed. Levin is temperamentally incapable of keeping his increasingly Droopy Dawg face away from any camera around. I think if he were to be deprived of his vaudeville-era "He hardly knew 'er" stupid crap he might shrivel up and die like the Wicked Witch in "The Wizard of Oz" after the house dropped on her. He needs to wear a mask, made of Saran Wrap.

[BigBingerBro]

The new format is interesting but seems like overkill to me.  I caught the tail end of Judge Mathis and the plexiglass, masks and social distancing was more of what I was expecting from PC.  Let's see how long the Zoom stuff lasts.  I don't see why Judge MM can't also be in the courtroom at least.  I guess she likes being at home. (if that's were she actually was)

The screeching defendant in the airline points case actually was trying to make a valid point regarding how she felt the miles should be split, etc, but MM was not having it more due to her demeanor than anything.  

The Iceland trip case was pretty unremarkable IMO

After the Verdict was a nice addition, definitely scripted but they made some great points.  Less of Harvey the better.  

[break21]

45 minutes ago, BigBingerBro said:

The new format is interesting but seems like overkill to me.  I caught the tail end of Judge Mathis and the plexiglass, masks and social distancing was more of what I was expecting from PC.  Let's see how long the Zoom stuff lasts.  I don't see why Judge MM can't also be in the courtroom at least.  I guess she likes being at home. (if that's were she actually was)

The screeching defendant in the airline points case actually was trying to make a valid point regarding how she felt the miles should be split, etc, but MM was not having it more due to her demeanor than anything.  

The Iceland trip case was pretty unremarkable IMO

After the Verdict was a nice addition, definitely scripted but they made some great points.  Less of Harvey the better.  

I agree Mathis was way easier to watch with the new format.  Maybe it will just take some getting used to but I hated the Zoom on People's Court.

[Percysowner]

On 8/28/2020 at 5:51 PM, jilliannatalia said:

A bailiff is so incredibly relevant in the new remote format.

Maybe not, but having a job is relevant to Douglas, so I'm fine with that.

 

2 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

The new format is interesting but seems like overkill to me.  I caught the tail end of Judge Mathis and the plexiglass, masks and social distancing was more of what I was expecting from PC.  Let's see how long the Zoom stuff lasts.  I don't see why Judge MM can't also be in the courtroom at least.  I guess she likes being at home. (if that's were she actually was) 

Judge Marilyn lives in Florida, a COVID hotspot and would have to travel to New York, where things are under pretty good control. Under NY law, she would have to quarantine in order to shoot in the court room. So, Zoom it is for the foreseeable future. I don't know where Judge Mathis lives or where the show is shot, but I'm sure quarantine restrictions play a big role in deciding how to bring these shows back.

[Taeolas]

Judge Mathis is filmed in Chicago. I don't see any information on where he lives, but I suspect it is probably Chicago as well. (either Chicago or Detroit). 

In any case, I made a Judge Mathis thread to correct the oversight of the second longest serving TV arbitrator (after Judy) not having a place to talk about. 

[Florinaldo]

I did not listen to the opening spiel from the announcer yesterday, but I did today and I noticed some differences from previous years. The main one is that it does not say that the litigants have a case in small claims court and have agreed to drop it in order to have it settled on TPC. It says "they have a legitimate dispute" and are on TPC to have it settled.

I suppose that the level of business has dropped in real-life small claims courts as operations slowed down or were outright suspended. Since these are feeder tribunals from which TV court shows get most of their business, I conclude that TPC has chosen to now take up much more direct applications to flll up their programming.

I wonder how long it will be before an angry or disappointed litigant decides to cut off the connection in a huff before JM has rendered her decision? Would such an action result in a simple dismissal of their claim or would they also lose whatever compensations the show offers litigants?

I usually do not listen to Judge Mathis since I find his paternal folksiness to be annoying, but I took a look today to see how their new set-up looks. I think I prefer the empty courtroom of TPC because we know it is truly safe; the efficacy of visors on their own (without a face covering) is considered to be very limited and it also makes the audience look like a gathering of kindergarten welders.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I wonder how long it will be before an angry or disappointed litigant decides to cut off the connection in a huff before JM has rendered her decision? Would such an action result in a simple dismissal of their claim or would they also lose whatever compensations the show offers litigants?

There was a preview clip that showed somebody flipping off their camera with JM looking surprised - but I don't know if it was before or after the decision.  It will be interesting!