The People's Court - General Discussion

[BigBingerBro]

In today's episode (the 2nd of the season) The litigants seemed better positioned in front of the cameras.  Nothing like the looming, screeching divorce lawyer on the first episode.

I also noticed the change of wording at the beginning which removed "small claims".  

[PrincessPurrsALot]

On 9/3/2020 at 12:00 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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.  

Back in the day my family was investigated by the FBI because my mother made a comment to the representative from the utility company of, "I now understand why people blow up your power plants!"  Thanks, mom.  What I enjoyed was them interviewing the people across the hall that had a less than positive relationship with drug laws.  Great character witnesses.  🙂   In our defense, in no instance did anyone hide in the bathroom and no warrants were issued.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

I surprised me when the other judge introduced himself, I had to search to find out that's Mr.Judge Marilyn.    

Why do plaintiffs fall for the 'I need money for my custody fight' line?    Who loans someone they've known for five weeks $2,500?  Defendant says no deadline to repay the money, and in over a year hasn't repaid one penny.     Plaintiff was surprised that the defendant didn't seem as devoted after she gave him the money, and two weeks later she was dumped by him.   $2500 to foolish plaintiff.    Doug is just as snarky as ever in his 'hall' interview.   

So people decided to move in together, and hired a moving company the man hired, and used before.  The plaintiffs claim that the garage door was damaged by the movers.   Let me guess, the plaintiffs only got the usual, virtually worthless insurance.  There is no proof of damage or what it costs.   If you're moving to Malibu, then get your stuff repaired yourself.    The door on the old place didn't crack because the deadbolt was left open, and then someone tried to close it.   That doesn't cause a vertical crack in the middle of the door side, what causes that is someone kicking it in.  Or the deadbolt was open, and someone really hit the door hard.    The hole in the wall corner, to me that looks like it was patched before.   

Zip for the plaintiffs, but counter claim was for extra hours by the mover, (over $500) that plaintiff never paid.   So defendant ends up with almost $200.  

 

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

Different format, but same old. Another woman so hungry for a warm body and a permanent Saturday night date she offers to give some lying, shameless, loser deadbeat 2,500$ five weeks after making his acquaintance. Sure, why not? That will surely lead him to declare undying love and drop to one knee to propose. Except it didn't. Instead, it lead him to dump her two weeks after he got the cash in hand and then changed his phone number. He was in "Escape from Dannemora"? I saw that. In two pages of credits I don't see his name listed, not even under "Uncredited". I guess he got 50$ and a box lunch in return for his less-than-stellar "extra" appearance. How sad he has kids, when he is an amoral grifter. I guess his "baby momma" wised up and ditched him. Yeah, I'm sure he wants custody and used the 2500$ for that, when he can't even take care of himself.

JM said she hated to return P's money, because she needed to be taught a lesson and there really should be a penalty for being such a pathetic fool. Doug in the Hall asked Eric why he hasn't paid the p. one red cent over a year later. Eric starts with the "I don't have a job and it's tough and blablah". Doug sneers that this is all such a sad "sob story." Eric looks pretty able-bodied and needs to get a job since it appears stardom might continue to elude him. No, it may not be a glamorous job, but it will pay the bills, if not child support.

Mr. Pete and Ms. Jennifer, money-grubbers, were very unlikable. No, Mr. Pete has no proof defs did all this damage and no pics of his smashed 200$ vase, but JM should accept a piece of printer paper with some typing on it to establish value of some of his destroyed property. Mr.Pete snarks about this to Doug. No boe-nanza for Ms. Jennifer and her WWII-era door that probably cracked due to age, either. Russian mover defs were very cute!

ETA: I think it's quite remarkable how the screen makes it look like JM is actually sitting at the bench.

Edited September 8, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

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!

Thanks for that info. After reading your post I was more vigilant when the promo clip came up and there is indeed a hint of the scenario I was musing about, i.e. a litigant cutting off the connection. We may learn of the consequence with regards to the verdict, but as for what would happen to the monetary compensations and other considerations litigants receive, the show will probably never tell. It must be spelled out in the agreement they sign before appearing (and quickly forget all about it considering the number of them who say they will appeal the verdict).

Today we got a swearing-in of a witness in mid-case, ending with the inevitable (in the US at least) "so help me god". Would the show offer a secular version for litigants who are non-believers?

59 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think it's quite remarkable how the screen makes it look like JM is actually sitting at the bench.

Yes, the set dresser and camera operator must be commended for framing the shots so perfectly that the props in the courtroom (essentially the two flags) seamlessly match the screen image, which is set up thousands of kilometers away.

The movers were indeed rather handsome and that had no influence on my conclusion that JM was overly generous towards the two money-grubbing plaintiffs, who clearly overestimate the value of their property and of the damage inflicted to it (a common trait for litigants).

Edited September 8, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Today we got a swearing-in of a witness in mid-case, ending with the inevitable (in the US at least) "so help me god". Would the show offer a secular version for litigants who are non-believers?

I have always puzzled over this. It doesn't matter if a litigant is a non-believer or a devout religious hypocrite appearing here with a large cross dangling on his/her neck and starts the testimony with, "I was going to/coming from CHURCH. I go to CHURCH ten times a week!" This swearing-in has never stopped people from lying like rugs. Does anyone think that having some utterly amoral thief, murderer, con artist, rapist, or mugger swearing on a bible is going to ensure he/she speaks only the truth? Even when caught in their lies, and even when their lies are showcased on video, they continue to lie and lie.  I guess this swearing-in thing is just a meaningless ritual and everyone knows it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I was on a grand jury and the oath ended with "swear or affirm" to avoid offending those who say swearing an oath is against their religion.   So I bet there's something on the application for the show about swearing, or taking an oath, and I'm sure "so help me God" is included in that.   

In a real courtroom, lying under oath can be prosecuted, but I'm not sure it is very often.  

Edited September 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why do plaintiffs fall for the 'I need money for my custody fight' line?    Who loans someone they've known for five weeks $2,500?  Defendant says no deadline to repay the money, and in over a year hasn't repaid one penny.     Plaintiff was surprised that the defendant didn't seem as devoted after she gave him the money, and two weeks later she was dumped by him.   $2500 to foolish plaintiff.    Doug is just as snarky as ever in his 'hall' interview.   

Quote

Different format, but same old. Another woman so hungry for a warm body and a permanent Saturday night date she offers to give some lying, shameless, loser deadbeat 2,500$ five weeks after making his acquaintance. Sure, why not? That will surely lead him to declare undying love and drop to one knee to propose. Except it didn't. Instead, it lead him to dump her two weeks after he got the cash in hand and then changed his phone number.

I had typed a whole paragraph on Judge Judy's theories on why this happens to people ("women want to "nest", etc.) but I see that ANGELA HUNTER broke it down perfectly in her comment.  BOOM.

Edited September 8, 2020 by patty1h

[Primal Slayer]

I was both surprised and happy that this was back, whatever the format is. But I was laughing when I saw Dougless in the courtroom...all by his lonesome...swearing people in over video lol. Im interested to see if they use a similar format for JJ.

[AngelaHunter]

How I always wish to have more cases like the log house contractor one. I must say if this contractor works the way he talks the house would not have been completed until the end of the decade. He was absolutely "flabbergasted" that def told him to pack up his stuff and get lost, even though plaintiff told him numerous times he wasn't happy with the construction, which was a kit that included everything and needed to be put together and for which contractor was charging nearly 60K.

Contractor argues that his installation of doors and windows was "only off by an inch or so." The stairs didn't fit either. Gee, I'm not in construction but I would think those would be major problems. P says he called the manufacturer, but it seems they couldn't understand each other.

Anyway, def doesn't pay P the 14000$ he owed at that stage of the job, and had to pay another contractor 15,700$ to correct what P did and finish the job. JM awards P nothing and awards D the extra 1750$ he had to pay.  Def starts screeching with glee, jumps up and hops around like a pre-pubescent girl at her first boy band concert. He could have gotten more, but claims cash payments, no reciepts and shows the usual piece of paper with some typing on it. I could type up and print a bill for 10 million dollars. I guess D never watched this show before or he wouldn't have bothered.

Doug in the Hall makes the mistake of asking P what he  thought of the judgment. We get more one word per minute endless, repetitive droning by P, which I FF.

Then we got a woman who seemed to be challenged in some way and when asked what happened, starts a long monolgue about all of her landscape activities and timetable from Sep to Dec, including the branches she picked up and leaves removed from her landscaping and blahblah and which JM finally cut off. P is suing her neighbour, the D, because there were substantial burn marks on her siding and fence. She has absolutely no proof at all the def. created these burns, but wants her to pay for them anyway. Seems D had roofers doing work, so maybe they did it, or maybe some rotten kids threw something they lit on fire into the 2-foot space between siding and fence. Who knows? D has a very large piece of plywood in her yard with similar large, black burns on it, but D claims she's never seen it before. Anyway, case dismissed.

[AZChristian]

My burning question:   Do Judge John and Judge Marilyn REALLY have that big silver scales of justice on a too-small plexiglass table in the corner of a room of their house?

[BigBingerBro]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

My burning question:   Do Judge John and Judge Marilyn REALLY have that big silver scales of justice on a too-small plexiglass table in the corner of a room of their house?

At first I thought it was kind of cool, but now having seen it several times, it looks kind of tacky.

[Redcookie]

On 9/8/2020 at 8:54 PM, Primal Slayer said:

Im interested to see if they use a similar format for JJ.

Is t JJ done now? Didn’t she announce that she was stopping JJ but was in the process of creating another show.

not a fan of the new format because we only get 2 cases instead of 3. Bummer

[Primal Slayer]

28 minutes ago, Redcookie said:

Is t JJ done now? Didn’t she announce that she was stopping JJ but was in the process of creating another show.

not a fan of the new format because we only get 2 cases instead of 3. Bummer

I believe she has 1 or 2 more seasons left.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Do Judge John and Judge Marilyn REALLY have that big silver scales of justice on a too-small plexiglass table in the corner of a room of their house?

Yeah, that looks a little overdone. Also, I wish JM would skip the robe outside of the courtroom, it looks too staged when she is sitting in a chair and talking with her husband. Speaking of which, hubby doesn't look totally comfortable on camera, he often starts out a bit stiff but loosens up as he starts actually conversing rather than just reading a script.

[howiveaddict]

On a shallow note.  It looks like Judge Milan has a home covid dye job.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  The color seems darker.

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

On a shallow note.  It looks like Judge Milan has a home covid dye job.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  The color seems darker.

Plus her nails aren't polished,  which they always have been in the past.  Definitely looks like she's isolating. 

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, AZChristian said:

My burning question:   Do Judge John and Judge Marilyn REALLY have that big silver scales of justice on a too-small plexiglass table in the corner of a room of their house?

I think this is very likely a set designed to give the impression they are in their living room; if the camera ever pulls back, we will know for sure.

I was asking myself the same thing about the big-ass scales; it may be a set dresser choice as a visual cue to remind us "they are judges, don't you know?". Or it may be a joke gift that they received at some point and that they trotted out for the show. Unelss they really are making such tacky decorating choices in their home.

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She has absolutely no proof at all the def. created these burns, but wants her to pay for them anyway.

She really was suffering from quite a case of the stubborns. Not listening to questions or counter-arguments and constantly returning to her conviction, without any facts to support it. She even tried to interject while JM was rendering her decision, no doubt to repeat her exact same story all over again.

The piece of burned plywood in the defendant's yard could be seen as suspicious, especially in light of her flimsy explanation ("I never go back there in my yard"), but certainly not enough to prove a case on the preponderance of evidence.

Is it standard practice in the US for roofers to still use hot tar melted on burning coals? I have never seen that here in Canada when a roof is being redone (which does not mean it never happens).

Edited September 10, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Speaking of which, hubby doesn't look totally comfortable on camera, he often starts out a bit stiff but loosens up as he starts actually conversing rather than just reading a script.

It's possible he's not very accustomed to speaking much at home, what with 4 outspoken social justice warriors around. 😄

Admits with embarrassment to not even noticing said big-ass scales.

 

 

[AZChristian]

37 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Admits with embarrassment to not even noticing said big-ass scales.

Have you been postponing an eye examination?  LOL.  They are HUGE!

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, roofers for a flat or mostly flat roof (one that isn't pitched enough to allow shingles) use big buckets of tar, they heat it in a little trailer type of thing, fill the bucket, and then use it.     That tar isn't going to set the garage on fire, an it's almost all empty when the roofers put it back on the ground.      However that woman's garage was on fire, it wasn't the defendant.   I bet the plywood came from the garage or plaintiff's stuff. 

Interesting dog case on this morning's rerun.  A rather bizarre young woman was walking her dog, on what she says is a private road (some subdivisions own their own streets), when defendant's dog attacked her dog.    The attacking animal was 15 years old, big, and could barely move, but plaintiff claims the dog broke through a chain link fence, with chicken wire attached, and the solid wood garden fencing at the bottom, and attacked her dog.    The defendant's dog was put down before the case aired, because of it's movement and health issues.    Then it gets even stranger.    The adult daughter of plaintiff looks like she's going to fall asleep standing at the plaintiff table, claims the woman who came out and called the dog back wasn't the defendant, but defendant and her boyfriend live there, no other adult women do.     Then the big mistake, boyfriend drives up to daughter later, and says they'll pay the vet bills, so they do get their $197.    Plaintiff jerk dad wants treble damages.    

Then sleepy daughter makes her claim about the dog not looking like defendant's dog, and the woman at the house not being defendant woman.    Defendant says plaintiffs come on her property, she comes home to dog poop all over her steps, sidewalk and yard inside the fence, and her other dogs don't have access to the front yard.      Unfortunately, no proof of plaintiff's vandalism and harassment, so he gets the $197.    Daughter should take the $197 and get that amateur dye job fixed, and find out why she's almost comatose in court and in the hall.  I believe the defendant, and wonder if it was even the defendant's dog that attacked.     If it's truly a private road, then put out no trespassing signs on defendant property, and a security camera, then when you catch plaintiff and daughter vandalizing, charge them with everything you can.   

Two hysterically funny women are next fighting over a used snowblower payment.   They used to work together, and plaintiff was selling the snow blower to defendant, and has a receipt for $500, but now she wants $1500 for a brand new one.   Another wrinkle, plaintiff says defendant is married, lives with her husband, and wanted to rent plaintiff's apartment to meet her boyfriend.     I think the plaintiff lost, but I don't really care.   I wonder what husband of defendant thought when he watched this?   Or when everyone who recognized the wife mentioned what she was up to?  

 

 

[SRTouch]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

How I always wish to have more cases like the log house contractor one. I must say if this contractor works the way he talks the house would not have been completed until the end of the decade. He was absolutely "flabbergasted" that def told him to pack up his stuff and get lost, even though plaintiff told him numerous times he wasn't happy with the construction, which was a kit that included everything and needed to be put together and for which contractor was charging nearly 60K.

Contractor argues that his installation of doors and windows was "only off by an inch or so." The stairs didn't fit either. Gee, I'm not in construction but I would think those would be major problems. P says he called the manufacturer, but it seems they couldn't understand each other.

Anyway, def doesn't pay P the 14000$ he owed at that stage of the job, and had to pay another contractor 15,700$ to correct what P did and finish the job. JM awards P nothing and awards D the extra 1750$ he had to pay.  Def starts screeching with glee, jumps up and hops around like a pre-pubescent girl at her first boy band concert. He could have gotten more, but claims cash payments, no reciepts and shows the usual piece of paper with some typing on it. I could type up and print a bill for 10 million dollars. I guess D never watched this show before or he wouldn't have bothered.

Doug in the Hall makes the mistake of asking P what he  thought of the judgment. We get more one word per minute endless, repetitive droning by P, which I FF.

Well, heck, just now notice a new episode is recording. When I check, sure'nuf, this was sitting there from yesterday. I haven't been watching the reruns - or even following them here. Enjoyed some elements of the new format - dislike others - can't snark on audience, but like not hearing Harvey as much. @AngelaHunter nailed the recap - well except for FF through hallterview where P complains the replacement contractor overcharged - which gave me a good laugh 

Quote

Then we got a woman who seemed to be challenged in some way and when asked what happened, starts a long monolgue about all of her landscape activities and timetable from Sep to Dec, including the branches she picked up and leaves removed from her landscaping and blahblah and which JM finally cut off. P is suing her neighbour, the D, because there were substantial burn marks on her siding and fence. She has absolutely no proof at all the def. created these burns, but wants her to pay for them anyway. Seems D had roofers doing work, so maybe they did it, or maybe some rotten kids threw something they lit on fire into the 2-foot space between siding and fence. Who knows? D has a very large piece of plywood in her yard with similar large, black burns on it, but D claims she's never seen it before. Anyway, case dismissed.

This was good for laughs. P complains that D set her place on fire and tried to hide it sometime in the last 6 months with no proof - but it had to have been her. Not really sure what her reasoning was, as I fell asleep during her rambling monolgue of nonsense. Somewhere in here we learn something about roofers that P forgot to mention - but the timer went off and I went to pull a cake out of the oven. Oh well, not that interesting. P still yakking away after the verdict when we go to commercial. 

Last comment - I like the Mr and Mrs Judge talking about the case a lot more than shortstuff and the peanut gallery scenes

Edited September 10, 2020 by SRTouch

[Carolina Girl]

On 9/8/2020 at 11:23 AM, 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?

Judging from the previews, you won't have to wait long.

 

On 9/8/2020 at 4:22 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I was on a grand jury and the oath ended with "swear or affirm" to avoid offending those who say swearing an oath is against their religion.   So I bet there's something on the application for the show about swearing, or taking an oath, and I'm sure "so help me God" is included in that.   

In a real courtroom, lying under oath can be prosecuted, but I'm not sure it is very often.  

I'm a Notary in California.  Whenever I have to execute a jurat, I ask the affiant if they wish to "swear" or "affirm" If they say "swear" I add the "so help you God?"  If they "affirm", I stop with "the statements contained herein are true."  

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Have you been postponing an eye examination?  LOL.  They are HUGE!

Actually, I do have an eye apointment coming up next month!

Yeah, I did note that but didn't recognize it as scales. 😁

9 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

I'm a Notary in California.  Whenever I have to execute a jurat, I ask the affiant if they wish to "swear" or "affirm" If they say "swear" I add the "so help you God?"  If they "affirm", I stop with "the statements contained herein are true."  

They can swear, affirm, take a blood oath or pledge their firstborn. The next words out of their mouths are often a bunch of lies, and usually silly, dumb lies that would be easily detected by a child, e.g., "My insurance expired 10 minutes before I crashed into that parked car, right when I was on my way to pay the premium."

[DoctorK]

I was really pleased that the car versus bike case came out the way it did. Both plaintiff and defendant were complete jerks. Plaintiff just did a lot of fast talking and smiling while saying completely bogus things while the defendant was trying to double dip by previously getting depreciated value from the insurance company for his bike, then suing for the difference from replacement value. Also, did he really think the judge was going to order the plaintiff to "donate" $1000 to a bike activist group?

[CrazyInAlabama]

It must be a relief for Douglas to have Judge Marilyn on TV, he doesn't have to worry about her slipping on the stairs stepping down from the bench now.

In the tenant vs. landlord case, defendant claims he has no criminal past, so why did Judge Marilyn ask him specifically how he got injured?  Landlord seems shady already.  However, the defendant/landlord says plaintiff flunked his background check.    Both litigants seem like whiny little jerks.   The move never happened, but plaintiff had already paid the movers, and $1800 to landlord.   Plaintiff receives $1800, and $600 for the move, so $2400.    Defendant left the broadcast, and lost anyway.  

The bike case is bizarre.  (Rochester, NY) $3065 is the plaintiff's claim for damages to his car, defendant says plaintiff hit him, and could have killed him.   Counter claim by defendant is for his squashed bike, and clothing.   Plaintiff says defendant hit his car on a dark night, and pouring rain, ended up on the car windshield, and everything was defendant's fault.  I must be mean today, I already loathe the defendant.   Plaintiff was going south on Culver, defendant was going north on Culver, and was going to make a turn when the accident happened.   The car windshield picture is awful, you can see where the defendant's body landed, and where his head hit.     The biker wasn't injured, except some bruises.    Defendant claims there wasn't a pouring rain, and it was only misting.    Defendant was also in the left lane to turn, and claims the car rammed into him.  Plaintiff claims he was at a traffic light.    Police report says pouring rain.    Police report says car hit bike from behind, not opposite directions.    Defendant made a claim against plaintiff's insurance company for the value of the bike.   Defendant is also suing for a bicycle advocacy group donation of $1,000.    Defendant replaced everything he's claiming for, $2815, but is suing for the extra $1000, plus the insurance company paid for some of the damages already.     This was obviously after dark, so was the bike rider visible?   

Defendant doesn't get anything, because the  insurance already paid him, or that he claimed twice, and not the donation.    I don't think anyone received anything. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[BigBingerBro]

That fist defendant in the "Room for Rent" case was the biggest paranoid drama queen I have seen in a long time on this show.  Judge MM made a good point that the Plaintiff should have seen it coming.

 

I am finding the litigants in general tend to be slighly more candid and impulsive in this new format.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I was really pleased that the car versus bike case came out the way it did. Both plaintiff and defendant were complete jerks.

Weren't they, though? You just know that when a litigant, like this P, starts with, "I'm gonna be honest witchyoo", and "I'm a spiritual person" that we are going to hear a bunch of lies. P is thoroughly perturbed and outraged that any cyclist would be on the road in less than perfect weather conditions. The pouring rain! Yet he hit the D from the rear, but it's not his fault. All that rain, you know. Def is a dweeby, annoying asshole lacking only a man bun, who thinks cycling makes him some sort of superior being. I used to cycle all the time. I tried as much as possible to stay on cycle paths, but if I had to use a public road I made sure I obeyed the traffic rules for my own safety. P couldn't drive his car for a week? That's what happens when you hit someone, no matter how spiritual you are and give the person you hit a "pat on the back".

The CL room rental: P is a giant baby who looks at least 35 yet lives with Mommy and Daddy. He decides the time has come for him to be on his own and needs them to check the room he's moving into, just to make sure it's okay and safe for BIg Baby Boy. Gee, when I moved into my first place - an apartment and not a room - no one came to examine it for me.😕 I had to decide all alone if it might be suitable. Boo hoo. Anyway, Def is a creepy weirdo and I think we heard he was in the hospital because someone punched him in the face? Fairly soon into this case, I saw why that might happen. P goes to visit him during the hospitalization and brings him soup and coconut water because that's just the kind of caring and nurturing person he is. Histrionic D didn't approve of BBB's Mommy busting in to his place because he answers the door in his underdrawers (ew) even though he was expecting P to show up. Who does that? P's Daddy was okay, but D was critical of Mommy's attire and was quite bitchy about it. He probably didn't want a big moving truck in front of his place because turning a private residence into a rooming house is forbidden in his area. The way he switched the camera off in high dudgeon made me wonder if he's done this before, just banking that whatever idiots he lured in with his seductive CL ad wouldn't bother suing him. I bet BBB resides with his coddling parental units to this day after his foray into the grown-up world ended in disappointment.

[BigBingerBro]

Hmmmm craiglist ad, soup and coconut water to the hospital, answering the door in underwear.....   Methinks there was a bit more to this arrangement....

[SRTouch]

Less than impressed by either litigant in biker vs car case. I had same question @CrazyInAlabama raises - how visible was biker? Here locally our cops will stop bikers riding around after dark without head/tail lights. Dude showed us black helmet, and have to wonder if he had on reflective garb and lights on the bike. I gotta say, some of those strobe lights are hard to miss, but I sometimes have trouble judging the distance and am on them before I expect. Biker lost all sympathy when it turns out he had already been paid by the insurance. Guy wasn't just double dipping and trying for full replacement value, but wanted an additional grand just because. Have nothing good to say about car driver. His insurance already found him at fault, JM tells him he's at fault, yet he's still ranting in hallterview about bikers daring to travel on a public road.

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Another wrinkle, plaintiff says defendant is married, lives with her husband, and wanted to rent plaintiff's apartment to meet her boyfriend.

It was worse than that, IIRC. Plaintiff said def wanted to rent a room in her house so she could bump uglies with her paramour. P said NO, but defendant just moved in anyway and P could do nothing to stop her. I hate when people just move in my house without my permission. But hey, I have a big heart and don't want to be rude.

Edited September 10, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

AH-Thanks for that clarification.    That whole case was bizarre, The snow blower was actually the smallest part of that case.  

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

AH-Thanks for that clarification.    That whole case was bizarre, The snow blower was actually the smallest part of that case.  

And don't forget, that snowblower was an antique, about 30 or so years old! Nothing either of them said made an ounce of sense. 

[SRTouch]

Ok, guess this new format is going to continue 2 case days. I'm fine with that as long as they aren't 2 unedited cases like it seemed we were getting at the end of last season. The new format seems to cut some of the hallterview and Harvey and the 3rd case to give time for the after the case with the judge talk.

1. new/used gaming chair off cl: I guess instead of snarking on the gallery now we get to talk about the litigants room/house. Check out D in the chair case - looks like a gamer's room, unmade bed, cluttered, and tuxedo kitty wondering in background (dang, couldn't have shown more of kitty). Pretty simple case - D advertised new/still in box chair and was paid $225. Come to find out box looks like it had been opened and pieces were missing. That actually happens sometimes, but D accepted responsibility and ordered replacement pieces...... well, that would be good, except he ordered the WRONG pieces....... all in all, D comes off pretty sketchy........ P comes a whole lot better - and he's not going after lotto money or time wasted or travel etc, just wants money back and ready to return the chair........ simple case and MM gives P what he asked for.
2. room rental debacle: P is older vet homeowner who rents out extra rooms - usually to vets - P says D is younger vet who turned out to be a nightmare tenant who left owing rent...... D says he did odd jobs in lieu of rent and owes nothing........ so, rental agreement ends after D gets into it with and other tenant - both tenants drunk - cops called - when cops arrive D hurries out to cops to tell his story, and flips a chair in front of P so he can't follow - turns out part of lawsuit is $70 for damage to the chair, but no picture of damage and P claims he fixed it himself, so forget that........ bottom line, while D  is telling cops his tale of woe, P writes up a notice to quit, puts it on D's door and goes to bed..... later he wakes up to more racket, and when he investigates noise he finds D banging on another tenant's door, damaging the door..... cops come back....... ok, over to D (who looks high to me, backwards ballcap, Freedom Vapor Warrior t-shirt (not sure what that means) cluttered kitchen counter) D rambling defense isn't much of a defense - hey, FF still works with new format 😆 - according to D, the altercation with other tenant was this other guy getting on D for owing back rent..... after commercial it's a continuation of his ramblings - basically he admits he owed rent, but, just like was said at beginning, he feels he did enough extra chores to pay it off...... thing is, P is an oddity for TPC landlords and he actually gives receipts - MM tallies the receipts and compares them to D's copies and finds D owes money....... but then it's back to slipshod paperwork - P admits D was to get credit for work, but says the work D did amounted to 4 hours or $40, but he has nothing showing he ever subtracted $40 (just like his claim of damages is nonexistent)........ then D starts listing things he did that add up to more than 4 hours - no proof, just asking P what about this or that........ one thing with this format, MM doesn't have the control she did in the courtroom as she let's these these two yak in what would be cross aisle discussion........ rough justice in face of no evidence - MM rules D owes $340 - I have no idea where she got her numbers

Edited September 12, 2020 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

Old vet suing for $70 for a chair that he was able to fix... this case is just a time waster.   I was more entertained by looking at the messes the four guys in today's cases were living in.  SR TOUCH already mentioned the gamer guys sloppy bedroom with unmade bed, and both of those military guys had kitchens that could use a good decluttering.  I was also waiting to see if the arm that appeared over older vets shoulder while he was testifying would show up again.  It was spooky.

[aemom]

On 9/8/2020 at 5:57 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Different format, but same old. Another woman so hungry for a warm body and a permanent Saturday night date she offers to give some lying, shameless, loser deadbeat 2,500$ five weeks after making his acquaintance. Sure, why not? That will surely lead him to declare undying love and drop to one knee to propose. Except it didn't. Instead, it lead him to dump her two weeks after he got the cash in hand and then changed his phone number.

Sweet Jesus Christ!  I just continue to be gobsmacked at how desperate some women are.

 

On 9/8/2020 at 2:23 PM, Florinaldo said:

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.

On TPC's website, there is a link Submit Your Case and they ask for details.  No mention of already having a court case filed, so I think all you need is a legit complaint.  It must be a hoot to be one of the people who reads the submissions - I'm sure that there are some doozies.  This will be especially true if JM never mentions "as well as your court costs," on the list of damages that the plaintiff wins.

 

On 9/8/2020 at 2:23 PM, 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?

Or I wonder about the opposite, when JM loses her shit and wants to throw someone out of her court, will she just throw them out of the Zoom call instead?

 

I would much rather listen to JM and her husband chat about cases than listen to more antics by Levin, so thumbs up to that, but I was surprised that they are referring to him as "Judge John."  I guess that it sounds catchier than "Judge Schlesinger," but it seems unbalanced to refer to them differently. 

 

I wonder if the two Dougs yell at each other across the room during breaks?  It seems kind of lonely there with just the two of them and minimal camera crew.  I had no idea how this format would work, but it seems ok.  However they need to check the sound quality because with the couple suing the Russian movers - the boyfriend sounded he was partially underwater.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The chair case was only interesting because of the cute cat in the background.    Also, Judge Steve talking about Judge Marilyn's habit of going through ever item in drive thru bags, while he grabs the bag and goes without checking.  

The shirt says Freedom Vapor Barriers, not warriors.  I had to DVR it, and pause it to read it.   They redo the vapor barriers under mobile homes, tie downs, etc.   That shirt was very hard to read.    They have the same logo on their web site in Florida.    If that shirt was for advertising the company, then they need to make it readable. 

So landlord has no proof of anything?   Why did they even bother coming on the show. .   

Edited September 12, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Check out P in the chair case - looks like a gamer's room, unmade bed, cluttered, and tuxedo kitty wondering in background

Actually, I think that was the defendant. I liked the cat, but the rest of the room looked like a basement dweller. The plaintiff's room looked like what I would expect from a young IT guy who is into gaming, small, fairly neat, and based on the reflections in his glasses, he has an impressively large monitor/TV. Regarding the chair, it looked like the two missing parts were a plastic cone (cosmetic only) that covers the gas piston (one of the more expensive parts) and a single allen wrench (about $5 for a complete set of 16 sizes at the store). I am also surprised that a computer involved guy would not have a set of allen wrenches, those fasteners are not rare on computer gear. I think he might have been better off to bargain for a big piece of the cost back from the defendant. I got a nice screen cap of the cat in the background, not sure how well it will appear here.

On the second case, the old guy was flaky and didn't seem to understand that he brought no evidence; the young guy seemed a little sketchy. Based on the background in the old guy's image (apparently in his kitchen), I would never had moved in; clutter doesn't bother me too much but he looked right on the edge of hoarding.

 

 

[AZChristian]

Did anyone catch this guy's first name?  It hasn't been on here yet.

Never mind . . . I found a promo video for it on FB.  Gotta admit, I was nervous.  This guy could be my grandson's twin (including the lifestyle of gaming setup, sloppy background, and tuxedo cat) . . . but once I heard his voice, I knew it wasn't him. 

Phew!!!!

ETA:  Before he spoke on camera, the announcer gave his name:  "This is Joshua."

Guess what my grandson's name is?  But . . . it's NOT him.  He doesn't live in New York.

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by AZChristian

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

new/used gaming chair off cl:

Def. looks exactly the way I picture the quintessential "gamer" - a dweeby looking adult man-child, sitting in his fetid lair in which he couldn't stir his stumps to get out of his chair long enough to make that fusty-looking bed.  Gee, I guess we don't need to wonder why his wife left him and gave him a crappy chair with parts missing, if that was even true. *Disclaimer* I'm sure there are many mature, responsible, reasonable and honest adult men who spend all their off-hours "gaming". I don't know enough about it to be sure but the majority of those I've seen resemble the D, right down to the patchy, scruffy whiskers and the pallid "never see the sun" complexion.

Plaintiff was beyond irritating, but why use one word when you can use ten, and separate them all with with "basically", "you know" and meanderings into all sorts of irrelevant crap, digressions and trying for the sympathy card with the sick uncle? JM had a hard time making him STFU for two seconds. Hey, gaming is very serious business for these boys. Allen keys are not rare commodities and can be had for a couple dollars at any hardware store. I got a whole bunch of them on a ring for about 8$.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

room rental debacle: 

OMG. I was getting claustrophobic looking at the verbose old duffer's kitchen, crammed with junk in every available inch. His zero-evidence pontificating was really annoying. "I don't know. I don't recall. Maybe. Maybe not. Here's a picture of the door D damaged. What? Why, no. I don't have a picture of the damage, just the door pre-damage. Use your imagination, Judge." 

Def, some jerk wearing a backward baseball cap and living, judging from the settting, back with Mommy was quite a wise-ass who seemed to have rehearsed his wise-ass answers. He was very snotty, considering his circumstances in which he got booted from his little room in that run-down place. He tries to be all articulate, stating he would hate anyone to "lose the roof under their feet". Oops. He corrected that to "lose the roof under their head." Try again, smart mouth. Or maybe someone does live on the roof at that place.

Shouldn't JM have told him to take that stupid cap off, even if this is only a remote TV court? He probably would have argued that Mommy lets him wear it all the time.

It looks like Harve bribed the Crayola people to come back to colour in his face and patch a few of the cracks. Harvey, have you considered that the close-ups is not your friend? In the intro - "the louse". I see Levin is still writing that nonsense for No-Neck to parrot. Newsflash: No one has used to the word "louse" to describe a dishonest or disreputable person since probably the 1940s.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, aemom said:

I wonder if the two Dougs yell at each other across the room during breaks?  It seems kind of lonely there with just the two of them and minimal camera crew. 

I'm still not sure that Hallway Doug is actually on set with "Thank you, Douglas."  It looks like the hallway MIGHT have been put together by the same folks who did the excellent screen of JM's bench, and he could be standing next to it in his house.  I wonder if he has a large, tacky scales of justice there.

[AngelaHunter]

Just now, AZChristian said:

I wonder if he has a large, tacky scales of justice there.

Oh, that reminds me: I took special care to note the scales of justice. Hmm, yeah. I see. They would look much better with a nice trailing plant on each.

[AZChristian]

Found the scale for sale on Wayfair.  It's 41" tall, on top of a very skinny plexiglass table.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Actually, I think that was the defendant. I liked the cat, but the rest of the room looked like a basement dweller. The plaintiff's room looked like what I would expect from a young IT guy who is into gaming, small, fairly neat, and based on the reflections in his glasses, he has an impressively large monitor/TV. Regarding the chair, it looked like the two missing parts were a plastic cone (cosmetic only) that covers the gas piston (one of the more expensive parts) and a single allen wrench (about $5 for a complete set of 16 sizes at the store). I am also surprised that a computer involved guy would not have a set of allen wrenches, those fasteners are not rare on computer gear. I think he might have been better off to bargain for a big piece of the cost back from the defendant. I got a nice screen cap of the cat in the background, not sure how well it will appear here.

On the second case, the old guy was flaky and didn't seem to understand that he brought no evidence; the young guy seemed a little sketchy. Based on the background in the old guy's image (apparently in his kitchen), I would never had moved in; clutter doesn't bother me too much but he looked right on the edge of hoarding.

 

 

'Nother thing I need to pay attention to with the new format - without the gallery I lose track of whether litigant talking is plaintiff or defendant. I actually wrote about D thinking he was the plaintiff, realised my mistake and changed the 'P' to 'D' - and missed changing a 'P'........ 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Found the scale for sale on Wayfair.  It's 41" tall, on top of a very skinny plexiglass table.

Oh, wow. It's the same one! I see there is one review. Must be JM's.

2 minutes later...

After checking, I see it's not her:😄

Quote

This is a very Lavish piece that compliments my lifestyle,just what I needed.

 

[zillabreeze]

I hope MM and Mr. MM will relax a little bit.  She has picked at him all these years, so you know there's some good banter at home.  Their "chats" could be fun, if they'd just loosen up.

I may be the lone ranger,  but I think that the litigants "backgrounds" are a hoot!  Dear dawg!  At least MAKE UP YOUR BED!  or throw away all of the fast food crap on the counters!

If it's not a repeat, I can roll for now.

 

[aemom]

On 9/9/2020 at 11:13 PM, AZChristian said:

Plus her nails aren't polished,  which they always have been in the past.  Definitely looks like she's isolating. 

It's funny that you say that because I noticed that she had one color polish during the case and when she was speaking to her husband afterwards, it looked like a different color.  I am somewhat addicted to nail polish, so I tend to notice these things. 😊

 

On 9/10/2020 at 5:42 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Anyway, Def is a creepy weirdo and I think we heard he was in the hospital because someone punched him in the face?

JM asked him why he was in the hospital, he didn't want to say, and then she pushed again and said something like: Did somebody punch you in the face or something?

My take on this was that the D was in-the-closet-gay and he was freaked out about the big moving truck because he was worried that all the neighbors would think that he was moving in a boyfriend and not a roommate.  People who are not ready to come out of the closet often think that certain things look like "alarm bells", when most people would not bat an eye over the situation.

 

On 9/11/2020 at 3:09 PM, SRTouch said:

Ok, guess this new format is going to continue 2 case days. I'm fine with that as long as they aren't 2 unedited cases like it seemed we were getting at the end of last season. The new format seems to cut some of the hallterview and Harvey and the 3rd case to give time for the after the case with the judge talk.

I feel the exact same way.  I would even rather listen to an entire show of Mr. and Mrs. Judge, than Levin with or without his 2nd rate peanut gallery and/or the litigants droning on and on and on.

Edited September 14, 2020 by aemom
Correct punctuation is important

[laprin]

On 9/8/2020 at 8:54 PM, Primal Slayer said:

I was both surprised and happy that this was back, whatever the format is. But I was laughing when I saw Dougless in the courtroom...all by his lonesome...swearing people in over video lol. Im interested to see if they use a similar format for JJ.

I hope not. I would rather see the plaintiff and defendant continually side-by-side on screen, which is easy enough with gallery view. I think that if plaintiffs cut out in a huff they should not be paid their appearance fee, which I hope they increased since there is no longer a flight/hotel stay.  I am not at all interested in the follow-up conversation with MM’s husband. Oddly, they have little chemistry. 

[AZChristian]

7 minutes ago, laprin said:

I am not at all interested in the follow-up conversation with MM’s husband. Oddly, they have little chemistry. 

Totally superficial of me, but I think Judge John is better looking in still pictures.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I bet Judge Steve is still nervous about the cameras, and the commenting.    Judge Marilyn has many years of camera experience, and I don't think her husband does, and who knows who's doing his makeup, so that's he's probably not really comfortable with camera makeup either.    

Today's case (an older rerun) of another fool who buys a used car, and doesn't know what "As Is" means was boring.    However, the rerun of the NYC woman who rents out sheds and garages without plumbing facilities, and claims they're rented for storage was a hoot.    The fact that she's been cited for years for the same thing is ridiculous.