The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

1. landscaper busted her fence: P's landscaper's helper hit her raggedy old wooden fence and cracked a fence post - she refused his offer to do repairs and went out and got a fence contractor estimate over $500......... uh, no, unless there's a whole lot more than I saw in pic all she is entitled to is cost of installing a new post - having been in the landscaping business myself, I know how much this type business depends on word of mouth/customer relations, so I would REALLY have tried to work it out short of a lawsuit (not always possible)....... listening to D intro, dude loses ground quickly - seems P originally agreed to let him do repairs (maybe, she says no, D says yes), but after a couple weeks of living with the broken fence she went out and got the estimate....... nope, dude should have been over there right away to do repair instead of making customer wait....... to make it worse, the damage happened while P was on vacation and they found their gate falling down when they got home 4 days after the damage was done - D going to really have to work to dig out of this hole - P has reason not to trust him, and every right to hire a reputable fence company to do repairs - only question in my mind doing now is the amount as I see her getting the labor, but not full price for the new post (which will be a very small part of the $500)....... that is essentially the case, with some fleshing out - we learn as testimony goes on that P never agreed to let D do repair, in fact had fencing guy give her an estimate the day after she got home - partly because he left it 4 days for her to find, and she was rightly miffed that she couldn't secure her 3 dogs...... seems he wanted to barter the cost of replacement/repair, but again, she was under no obligation to be out of pocket for repairs under some barter arrangement....... over to D - who is doing his testimony seated in a car - dude trying to throw employee under the bus, but what I'm hearing is he was sending employee out without supervision and employee was doing a poor job (eventually got fired), not just for P but on other jobs as well - dude pretty lackadaisical - things happen and employees sometime don't report damage to boss - when customers complain  he offers to do repairs and 9 out of 10 times customers are ok with it......... nope, I sure wouldn't hire this guy or his employees......... more BS coming from D which really doesn't change much, MM does her prosecutor trick where she asks a question knowing the answer from his written statement to see what D will answer and I have to laugh when he claims to have done fencing jobs worth $70,000 and she points out in his he claimed they were worth $50,000......... geez, and he thinks she's jacking up the price asking for $500....... so, not that it makes a lot of difference, but D confirms he put off the repair for weeks after being notified of damage and receiving estimate - MM confirms my thought, P was not obligated to let him do repair, but it does add to her reason for not wanting him to do job......... P gets her $507.50........ oh wait, even worse for D when I hear the Judge After the Case talk - it was P who offered to barter price of repair for future work, and D saying no - that makes zero sense to me.
2. new tenant backs out and wants deposit returned: P puts down a deposit even though apartment not ready - 24 hours later decides no way will it be ready on time and backs out, now wants her $1300 deposit returned........ D says she been managing multiple properties for 20 years - says she has 4 man crew and place would have been ready on time - non refundable deposit means she gets nothing back...... seems pretty cut and dry, but seems at one point D said she'd return deposit, soooooo is that enough to be considered a new deal which takes away the 'non' out of 'nonrefundable.'......... ok, these two have history - P has rented from D in the past and apparently they had a fairly good history - ok, basically testimony jibes with intro - except instead of backing out within 24 hours, now P says she changed her mind within a couple hours - which of course hurts her legal case, but at same time makes D look worse for not agreeing to return money......... well, over to D and she redeems herself some - she claims she had already held apartment for ten days to let P come up with deposit - she agrees place needed work, and promised to have workers there as soon as she received deposit - also admits some of the work might not be done by move in, but would be done afterwards (replace/repair cabinets)..... she actually sounds pretty reasonable, but what about promising but not returning deposit......... ah ha! Seems she told P she'd return the deposit once apartment was re-rented - P unhappy that she didn't get the deposit back right away so she went and filed a lawsuit (filed suit within 6 days), so now D says forget the offer, she's keeping the deposit......... I'm leaning towards D here, unless MM decides the offer to return the deposit is binding....... ahhhhhhhhh, but turns out apartment was rented right away, and someone moved in on day P was going to had she kept apartment - that blows away my leaning towards D - she was out nothing, her workers did nothing special to get apartment ready for the other tenant and D lost no rent, the promise to return deposit when place was re-rented was not kept - D owes the money based on the promise........... first interesting hallterview gives some insight into D's reasoning. MM read us texts where D promises the money, even texts setting up a time for P to get the check, and D is giving her the run around. In courtroom after the verdict and in the hallterview D talks like she expected P to pay for the time she spent trying to rent the apartment - uh, no, not how that works - if D was a broker, maybe, but not an property manager....... especially after promising to refund the deposit and leaving P hanging and needed that money to put down deposit on another place

Well, heck, they switched up and have a third case today. Unfortunately, I had gotten up and was getting ready to head out to the pharmacy when #3 came on as I putting on my shoes. Have to do recap later - or more likely no recap for #3

Edited September 14, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

I had to laugh at defendant in the fence case, where he was testifying from the back seat of a car.

I didn't like either litigant in the apartment case.    What was plaintiff wearing around her neck?   Maybe something to keep her beads from making noise during the testimony?  In my view, because the place was re-rented without any loss of money, and it could be that defendant has a waiting list, so no work was involved in getting the apartment ready, so the plaintiff should have had a refund.   Defendant sounds like a broker, not a property manager, so maybe she gets a commission.  However, if that's the arrangement, then she wouldn't she receive the same commission from the second tenant too?   If the defendant wouldn't have said she would do a refund, then plaintiff would be out of luck. 

Case #3 is a restroom attendant service for events, and then when plaintiff wanted to put the defendant at another location, she refused, was fired, and refuses to return the $250 in supplies, and uniforms the  plaintiff company gave her.   However, defendant's lame story is that someone broke into her truck, and stole all of the supplies.    Defendant is full of it, I doubt bathroom supplies, and cleaning supplies are not at the top of a thief's list.  

Plaintiff gets $100, not the $250.    Defendant's ridiculous counter claim for $2000 is dismissed, because it's as stupid as the rest of the case. 

Edited September 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

32 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  Defendant is full of it, I doubt bathroom supplies, and cleaning supplies are not at the top of a thief's list.  

Maybe some thief had a such a cleaning emergency he needed to break into def's car to get those highly desirable half-empty bottles of Dollar Store knock-off cleaning products? We got JM launching into a story about how guilty she feels when she goes into a washroom and has no money to tip the bathroom attendants. I guess I go to the wrong places since I can't remember the last time I saw a bathroom attendant.

Fence case was kind of boring, except for plaintiff's boyfriend, hovering on the edge of the screen. That fence looks like no one has ever maintained it/painted it/stained it since the day it was installed. Still it was obvious the cracks in the post were new. Def is a fence-master who has done 50K, no - 70K - or maybe even a 100K of fencing work. Too bad such a virtuoso couldn't find a few hours in his busy schedule to fix the damage one of his employees did.

To anyone here who has ever rented apartments: Did you ever feel that demanding new kitchen cabinets was reasonable? When I rented I did ask the landlord if he could possibly replace the wrecked kitchen lino, but he seemed to find that request amusing. Oh, well. I guess times have changed.

[AZChristian]

11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe some thief had a such a cleaning emergency he needed to break into def's car to get those highly desirable half-empty bottles of Dollar Store knock-off cleaning products?

Hey, in these Covid days, toilet paper and cleaning supplies can be sold for mucho bucks on the black market.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What was plaintiff wearing around her neck?   

Looked like it could have been a cloth covid mask, pulled down under her chin.  Kind of like you see every day at Lowe's or Walmart.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant is full of it, I doubt bathroom supplies, and cleaning supplies are not at the top of a thief's list.  

She was also very arrogant to think that as an employee, she could decide where she should be posted and what her shifts would be. That is management's prerogative. Too bad the plaintiff did not keep more extensive records, he would have deserved more.

[AngelaHunter]

46 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

She was also very arrogant to think that as an employee, she could decide where she should be posted and what her shifts would be. That is management's prerogative. Too bad the plaintiff did not keep more extensive records, he would have deserved more.

Agree. I remember my employer requested I come on Saturdays for three weeks. I didn't say, "How dare you ask that of me? Of course I won't come." Had I done so I would have expected to get fired. We're talking about a bathroom attendant in this case, a position that wouldn't be terribly difficult to fill.

[Pepper the Cat]

Is it just me or is there something off about the background for the After the Verdict chats?

The chairs just don’t look real to me. Nothing looks real except Marilyn and her husband. Are they sitting in different chairs and then the background  is superimposed over it?
 

And there was some tapping noise in the 2nd case that was driving me crazy!

loved having 3 cases!
 

[BigBingerBro]

25 minutes ago, Pepper the Cat said:

Is it just me or is there something off about the background for the After the Verdict chats?

I also find myself scrutinizing the set instead of listening to what they are saying.  I noticed how the chairs they are sitting in are sooo close to the drapes behind them.  Why?  Do they have to be pushed back so far that they are touching the drapes?  It all just looks so cramped.

[AZChristian]

Just now, BigBingerBro said:

I also find myself scrutinizing the set instead of listening to what they are saying.  I noticed how the chairs they are sitting in are sooo close to the drapes behind them.  Why?  Do they have to be pushed back so far that they are touching the drapes?  It all just looks so cramped.

I'm a lover of beige . . . but it's a neutral backdrop for a variation of colors in the room.  That corner - with the white plantation shutters and beige draperies and beige furniture and that horrible scale thing are not what I would expect to see in an expensive home in Miami.  It looks like a set, but with nothing with color to pop.  A lot of our local news people have been working from home during Covid, but their backdrops seem to be warm, not sterile.  It's hard to imagine that someone as vibrant as Judge Milian would live in such a sensory-deprived environment.

[Taeolas]

Someone with better eyes and more experience than I will have to confirm. But I'm pretty sure that all of the scenes except for Douglas in the courtroom all have fake backgrounds. 

The Judges feel like they are on simple sets; both when JMM is adjudicating and when she's talking to JS, probably zoom enhanced. I don't know if she's actually at home filming, or more likely they have a location in Florida that could be isolated while being set up as a studio for the show to film from. Maybe the Judges just wanted some more privacy so they didn't want to show off too much of their homes; or maybe they feel better having home be a separate place from work.

 

Doug's after-case interview also feels like its in front of a Zoom screen, and Harvey's been remoting in for work even before the new season. 

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Agree. I remember my employer requested I come on Saturdays for three weeks. I didn't say, "How dare you ask that of me? Of course I won't come." Had I done so I would have expected to get fired. We're talking about a bathroom attendant in this case, a position that wouldn't be terribly difficult to fill.

Also, if I was the manager/boss/whatever and I knew my employees made $20 bucks a night at one location, while taking home $200 somewhere else, I'd be rotating my employees to balance things out. Or, maybe saving that $200 a night place for my very best employees or as a reward for someone I heard was working their butt off. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by SRTouch

[Pepper the Cat]

1 hour ago, BigBingerBro said:

I also find myself scrutinizing the set instead of listening to what they are saying.  I noticed how the chairs they are sitting in are sooo close to the drapes behind them.  Why?  Do they have to be pushed back so far that they are touching the drapes?  It all just looks so cramped.

The chairs seem to be too big. They are wing chairs but the “wing part” seems to be very high.

 

[AngelaHunter]

I need to start paying attention. I didn't even register the giant decorative scales and haven't noticed anything else. Maybe it's a corner of their living room or bedroom and they jammed the chairs close together so viewers won't see anything else?

Just had to go take a look at the wing chairs, which I also had not noticed. Agree that they are huge.

IMO, the only thing that is too close is Levin's increasingly ugly mug. Seriously, that thing fills my screen and I can't get my finger on the FF button fast enough.

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

It's hard to imagine that someone as vibrant as Judge Milian would live in such a sensory-deprived environment.

Yes, we've often seen her wear electric blue, purple and green under her robes. Maybe she likes a more neutral home. I know someone who likes any colour, as long as it's beige!

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, Pepper the Cat said:

Is it just me or is there something off about the background for the After the Verdict chats?

As I wrote last week, I believe this is very likely a set: just two wall sections brought together to form a corner with some non-descript paint and curtains. Plus the gigantic Scales of JUSTICE. They do that all the time on TV and film, create the impression of a whole room from just a small fake section of it; the tight framing maintains the illusion.

[Ashforth]

This show is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the rent/personal belongings/Las Vegas room charge dispute today. Both parties look like crackheads and neither has any credibility.

At this point, I'd rather watch the incredibly gross Food Paradise on FN.

[SRTouch]

1. rental dispute: as @Ashforth said above, two ROUGH crackhead looking some sort-of-cousins are feuding over........ well, not really sure what the feud started over. Anyway, defendant somehow had a house - I think story was a son gave it to her?, but who knows and I'm not going back to give it another listen. Apparently shortly after moving in P had some sort of medical emergency which landed her in the hospital. When she gets out the two are feuding and she decides she'd rather be homeless than go back to her room at the biddy's house. (In hallterview D says she has been homeless for years and has left owing previous landlords.) Oh, and P was getting some sort of asistance/aid for the rent - and says D with the house never turned in the paperwork. Sooooooo P was there less than a month, but had signed a 1 year lease (probably a requirement for her rent assistance) - and P still owes a couple hundred rent for that month. Lot's of nonsense back and forth, and again I feel JM can't control these remote litigants nearly as well as in courtroom. These folks must be from California or some other high damage limit jurisdiction as both are asking 10 grand. P wants $3500 for the stuff left in her room plus $6500 in pain and suffering. Yep, homeless for years and needing rental assistance, but had $3500 worth of crap in her room. D wants a year worth of rent, plus the never paid deposit, then rounds everything up to 10 grand...... oh, forgot to mention, the house has since been foreclosed on and D is a holdover being sued to be evicted. Rough Justice - order issued that P can pick up her stuff (D admitted she still has it) and nothing else - D gets $200, the amount owed for the 1 month rent
2. dog case - not abuse, but kind of neglectful: P hired D to walk her 2 labs, but warned D that she needed to watch Newton, who has a habit of eating things he shouldn't (something I hear labs are famous for) - sure'nuf dogwalker set down Newton's harness where he could get it and he ate the plastic buckles off it - result was a blockage and big vet bill, wants 5 grand........ D admits Newton chewed the harness, but says P wasn't that concerned at time and D questions whether it was the harness buckles which required surgical removal 4 week later....... ok, D has point, P admits Newton eats stuff he shouldn't (fancy name is pica - one of my cats eats plastic bags so I can't leave them out) -  could well be pieces of the harness caused blockage, but P will need to prove it........ lots of chit-chat, but in end all P has is vet report saying 'chewed up black plastic' was removed from Newton - oh, and poor Newton has had 3 or 4 other surgeries to pull stuff out of his gut......... not doing it for me - sitting here in my recliner I can see several things made of black plastic that a dog may treat as a chew toy - P hasn't proved her case, case dismissed........

Edited September 15, 2020 by SRTouch

[Maverick]

Today's rerun had the mouthy disabled vet trying to get his security deposit back.   Wow, this guy.   I know he has issues from his military service, but being a vet, having a disability, your race, gender, etc. doesn't give you a right to be an asshole.   This dude was a piece of work.   Threatens to sue when looking at the apartment, the rules don't apply to him because he knows how landlords are, telling the judge he doesn't like the way she;s talking to him, expecting the judge to make a 'quick call to HUD' to gather evidence...if she's interested in dispensing justice.   The amount of energy MM had to be expending to maintain her self-control could power a small city.   She's lost her cool and kicked people out for far less.

 The dog case from today shows that this Zoom thing is not going to work long-term.   I thought she was going to lose her shit when the kooky plaintiff couldn't hold the bag of doggie stomach contents up to the camera and her ear piece kept dropping out.   It just needed some wacky music to be Benny Hill 2020: Benny Goes to Court .

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, Ashforth said:

This show is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the rent/personal belongings/Las Vegas room charge dispute today. Both parties look like crackheads and neither has any credibility.

I thinkk that is a consequence of taking most (if not all) of the new cases from direct applications since their usual source, real-life small claims courts, has dried up because of COVID-19. People who bother going through the small claims process are probably more serious and there's a higher probablility (though no certainty) that their claims are more substantive than claims from those who simply fill out the application form on the show's Web site.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I had a lab, and she would chew up almost anything.   The anxiety she had was she worried about getting caught scarfing food, and getting it taken away (an entire steak once, and a pork chop on another, and a bunch of expensive, unlined leather gloves).      I remember someone else who had a lab talking about everything his dog chewed up over the years, and it included quite a few remote controls, all kinds of plastic, socks, food including the bag or wrapper it came in, sticks, gravel or rocks, any food it could get near.      I bet the harness the dog ate the buckles off of had a lot to do with the dog's surgery a month later, but it could have been something else the dog ate too.   I think the little pieces of the buckles would have gone through, and the other plastic was something bigger. 

 

 Is the apartment defendant named Crayon?   Plaintiff looks stoned, and needs a good dentist.    Who is the woman in the background of defendant's picture?    So defendant instead of paying her mortgage is now suing the mortgage company over her foreclosure?   

Labs don't have separation anxiety to chew, they just chew everything.    

Edited September 15, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

dog case - not abuse, but kind of neglectful:

You have to live with the consequences of your life choices. If you decide to keep a dog who chews every object around because he has "anxiety", you have to expect veterinary expenses and repeated surgeries. Don't try to blame others, especially when there is no way to establish that the blockage was due only to the Belt Buckle of Doom or if other objects he chewed at home when plaintiff was present would have contributed to his condition, either before or after the incident with the dog walker.

After the sorry spectacle of the two "rough crackheads" in the first case, the kooky crone who brought the complaint in this one was a form of comic relief.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Is the apartment defendant named Crayon?   Plaintiff looks stoned, and needs a good dentist.    Who is the woman in the background of defendant's picture?    So defendant instead of paying her mortgage is now suing the mortgage company over her foreclosure?

Yep Ms Crayon - she's one of those folks with lots of courtroom experience and knows all the big words - some of which she actually uses correctly. According to P, D was suing someone else during time P lived there, she has the new lawsuit where the new owner of house is suing to get her out - and of course there's this case. Being experienced, D has a couple witnesses on hand to back her version of events. Part of D's counterclaim had to do with a UHAUL bill which she claimed D owed, but that UHAUL was wanting P to pay. She had her witness to tell us that story, but no bill from UHAUL demanding money. Also had a witness to tell us P didn't have $3500 worth of stuff. Sooooooo D brought her witnesses but left her evidence at home. 

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Ashforth said:

This show is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the rent/personal belongings/Las Vegas room charge dispute today. Both parties look like crackheads and neither has any credibility.

At this point, I'd rather watch the incredibly gross Food Paradise on FN.

I don't even really know what the case was about, except each party wanted thousands of dollars for.. something, mental anguish, heartache and all that. I was so turned off by the closeups of the nasty dental situations, the 2" long orange talons and, as JM pointed out, "You are homeless, someone else has to pay your rent, but you had 3400$ worth of stuff there?" (plus can also take jaunts to Vegas). "I never, ever tooken DeeDee!"

Then we have squatter def, "Crayon",  who seemed barely able to keep her eyes open and knows all the legal terms that enable her to keep squatting in her foreclosed lair and not returning P's junk. She called her witness to lumber over and I thought I was seeing an earthquake happen, especially when she flung herself into the chair. I don't know what "Food Paradise" is, but yeah - I guess I'd probably rather watch that.

When I heard about some 19-year-old also being tooken to Vegas along with his 16-year-old preggo g/f  I'd had enough. Next!

I think I know why P's dog has "anxiety". Actually, Labs can and often do eat everything in sight. We used to have a neighbour whose two Labs regularly got loose and would run to our house. I would let them in - they were very sweet - but one night one of them grabbed a sock and it was halfway down the dog's throat when I managed to extract it.

Anyway, I doubt someone like P, who seems very fragile, should have two big, strong working dogs. Can't see her giving them sufficient exercise and stimulation. Hey, but people want what they want and if the animal suffers because of that, tough. Yeah, so the dog needs a 4th surgery to remove objects from his stomach and that automatically means D is liable, 3 or 4 weeks after she watched him? Could be true since D admits she ignored P's request to leave nothing in the dog's reach, and as JM noted, she did so anyway to save herself 10 steps. P got on JM's last nerve with her inability to listen and her insistance on shaking the bag with the dog's gross stomach contents. Hell, she could have washed that shit before displaying it. Ew. I can't remember seeing JM quite so annoyed with a litigant.

[Taeolas]

One thing I picked up on, is the "After the verdict" segment gives the judge a chance to see what happens after the verdict. Usually they leave the courtroom and then the litigants can unleash their responses to the producers in the hallway (or Doug on TPC) without the judge hearing of it. 

Now, clearly JMM and her husband are rewatching the cases and the parts they don't see before they comment, so they can now see what's said about the verdict and comment on it. I hope some of the other shows pick this up and carry it on after COVID. 🙂

[Ashforth]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

P got on JM's last nerve with her inability to listen and her insistance on shaking the bag with the dog's gross stomach contents. Hell, she could have washed that shit before displaying it. Ew.

It looked fresh, right? kind of wet and shiny and with hair on it.

She knows her dog eats everything (I have a friend whose bulldog ate so many rocks and other stuff while on walks that after at least one surgery he had to get a muzzle for her that looked like an umpire's mask). There was NO WAY for her to prove that the dog didn't ingest that plastic on her watch and not the dogwalker's.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Ashforth said:

It looked fresh, right? kind of wet and shiny and with hair on it.

Yeah, and sticking and dripping on her fingers.🤢Disgusting. I really need to stop watching this show with dinner.

8 hours ago, Maverick said:

 I thought she was going to lose her shit when the kooky plaintiff couldn't hold the bag of doggie stomach contents up to the camera and her ear piece kept dropping out. 

Anyone stumbling on this forum might wonder, "Doggie stomach contents?? What the hell are these people watching?"

I do admit I sometimes ask myself what the hell I'm watching.

[NYGirl]

You guys are scaring me!  I have a black lab but she never chewed anything (knock wood).  She's going to be 5 in November so I think I'm safe now.  Am I?  Am I?  Please say yes.

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, NYGirl said:

You guys are scaring me!  I have a black lab but she never chewed anything (knock wood).  She's going to be 5 in November so I think I'm safe now.  Am I?  Am I?  Please say yes.

I'm no expert, but I'd say if your girl is 5 and hasn't yet dined on underwear, remote controls, or a string of Xmas lights, you're safe!👍

[CrazyInAlabama]

A friend would leave her lab out back in the fenced yard when she went to the grocery store, or other brief trips, and one day she came home to seeing white tubes all over the yard.   Her 2 year old Lab had ripped down the down spouts, and chewed a few.  

(I missed some of the beginning)   This morning's rerun is an adult daughter (25 years old), with her mommy, suing her former landlady over the withholding of the daughter's security deposit.    I don't think the daughter has said a single word yet, just helicopter mommy.    The defendant says she gave the daughter the choice of leaving right now, or cleaning up her room immediately.    The defendant's pictures of the room are horrific.   The mattress has stains all over it, there are many bowls, and wrappers of food, including what looks like full soup bowls sitting around. and the defendant says she told the daughter to leave because she couldn't stand the stench from the daughter's room any longer.  There are clothes, and dirty stuff all over the floor.   The daughter finally talks, and says she has anxiety issues, and a learning disorder, so she couldn't clean.   The daughter was only in the room for four months, and there is no written lease.   The mother paid extra because the daughter kept swiping a lot of the defendant's food, and supplies.   

Why would the daughter get $900 back, when she stole food, stunk the place up with rotten food, and is a disgusting human being?     The daughter and her mother deserved nothing.  

What a surprise, daughter moved back with Mommy.    Judge Marilyn returns six weeks of rent, for $900.    Sorry, Judge M. feeling sorry for the daughter does not mean other people should pay her for disgusting habits.   

Mother says the daughter graduated massage therapy school, and is waiting to take a certification exam.   Sorry, but I expect people who lay hands on me to wash them, and have proper sanitation,   I wonder how long the daughter will last at a massage shop?  My guess is not long.  

I think Judge Marilyn felt sorry for the plaintiff, and let that guide her judgment.   

Edited September 16, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

1. Nonpayment for services rendered: D hired P to design and mail out advertising mailers - P says she did work, D approved of mailer, and she has proof from post office they were mailed - but D refuses to pay the $2360 owed........ from intro and the preview clip, D doesn't think he has to pay because he didn't get the response he wanted - in preview he's was trying to argue the design was no good, but MM cuts him off, saying he approved the design, work was done, why didn't he pay...... really, unless D proves P overcharged,  or sent them to incorrect addresses, he owes the money....... ok, evidently this was not a simple design/print/mail job - according to P, she provided multiple proofs to which D made changes, she'd make changes and send him new proof, more changes, etc, and she told him this change orders changed the price, he agreed to increase, and after 4-5 cycles they finally had an acceptable proof - copies made and mailed out, but D received no call backs......... yep, over to D after MM tells us she has reviewed their texts/emails and P's testimony is backed by the evidence........ ok, his defense begins with not believing the proof from the Post Office - says it was just a scanned copy and nothing like he's seen from Post Office in his 27 years of business........ ah ha, I didn't expect a phony Postal receipt,  so we go back to P to see what she did to provide better proof of mailing........ ok, P uses a postal service company to address and sort the mailers, and this company deals with Post Office, so her evidence is from this middle-man company, not Post Office - ok, I can  buy that, and it explains why Post Office told D his copy of proof of mailing wasn't from Post Office - but they could have dropped the ball, did she follow up with the middle-man and make sure they took mailers to Post Office - well, when it came time for stuff to be mailed P paid the Post Office directly, and I guess wrote a second check to the middle-man - thing is, she didn't do a good job of communicating it to her customer, the D - I suspect lots of text/email and no face to face confabs...... even her proof here of payment to Post Office is sort of questionable - a copy of a check - that had me wanting to see her bank statements proving payment to middle man and Postmastet....... ok, this is better - when D questioned whether his mailers were sent, P followed up, received confirmation, and then provided D with that information along with contact information for the supervisor of the Middle-man company who handled account.......  sounds like she did everything she could, maybe time to go back and ask D what he did to follow up....... oh my, D getting mouthy with da'Judge when she asks to see everything P sent him - apparently there was about 80 pages of stuff, and I'm thinking he skimmed them and never read anything - yet another litigant complaining he isn't being given a chance to prove his case and yakking about his long years experience as if that amounts to legal proof instead of producing a paper trail - like what P apparently provided - dude getting huffy and MM is ignoring him as she goes through evidence I'm guessing provided by P....... once again the remote thing fails when litigant starts ranting and MM can't reign him in, and these ranting litigants aren't nearly as entertaining remotely as they are in person....... P gets her money and D cries about Judge not caring and listening get to his non-evidence.......... really pretty simple, his defense has gone from she never proved they were mailed to whining that he never received the proof - even though the judge is telling him SHE has seen the proof. ..... in after case chat MM tells us how she has done mass mailings herself. She said that when she does she includes a few family/friends that she can call and ask if they received her mailer - good idea, I know my boss at the pizza place used to ask employees if they had received his monthly mailer the week they were due to mail
2. No show contractor: Ps say they paid thousands to D for work on house, and he just quit showing up....... D doesn't really argue he quit showing up - his argument is that he did most of the work, and P were paying as work progressed - problem was that P had money troubles and stopped paying as scheduled, so he stopped until they started paying again - could be telling truth, but sort of hurts his case whrn we hear they had money to pay another contractor to do the work..... testimony not going good for Charlie, the contractor - seems Charlie retreads his no-show excuses - P says Charlie claimed in June that Wife was in hospital with problem pregnancy, then same excuse in November, and some other contractor told P the pregnant wife story was bogus....... case may well be decided on phone records/text trail since P is saying Charlie was no-call/no-show but Charlie claims he was working group with P because they were having cash flow problems.......... ah, and P says he paid for supplies in early November but that was when Charley quit coming....... oh, Charlie, these tests MM is showing aren't good for your defense - you're admitting you owe the deposit, but coming get up with excuses why you're not paying - really, P sounds like he was willing to work around the wife's health, said he could wait for the majority of the work but he wanted the exposed pipes insulated quickly......... MM brings up her family contracting history, then really brings hammer doen on Charlie with the EVIDENCE - they have texts where Charlie says he owes the deposit - he tries to claim the $600 was actually payment for other work - MM shows us the company tract - in Charlie's handwriting - where he acknowledges receipt of $600 for insulation, but he never provided insulation - my, doesn't Charlie look sheepish when MM points that tidbit out......... he tries to skip ahead a month - seems when he didn't refund the deposit P tried to hold his tools hostage, but Charlie showed up with the cops to get them without paying the refund he agreed was owed........ uh oh, and MM gets Charlie to admit he was lying to get the tools back........ again, litigants yakking and MM having trouble maintaining control - I think maybe taking the simulated courtroom out of the equation and using zoom just makes it easy for litigants to forget the whole legal simulation......... ok, Charlie owes the $600, but why the hell is P asking for additional 4 grand!?! His justification bounces around - he deserves something cuz Charlie lied - cuz he paid some other contractor $3600 (which he would have paid Charlie if Charlie had stayed on the job) - cuz Charlie came with cops even P was illegally holding tools hostage etc etc - he keeps trying to justify his money grab after MM is ready to rule.......... P gets $600

Edited September 17, 2020 by SRTouch

[AZChristian]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This morning's rerun is an adult daughter (25 years old), with her mommy, suing her former landlady over the withholding of the daughter's security deposit.    I don't think the daughter has said a single word yet, just helicopter mommy.    The defendant says she gave the daughter the choice of leaving right now, or cleaning up her room immediately.    The defendant's pictures of the room are horrific.   The mattress has stains all over it, there are many bowls, and wrappers of food, including what looks like full soup bowls sitting around. and the defendant says she told the daughter to leave because she couldn't stand the stench from the daughter's room any longer.  There are clothes, and dirty stuff all over the floor.   The daughter finally talks, and says she has anxiety issues, and a learning disorder, so she couldn't clean.   The daughter was only in the room for four months, and there is no written lease.   The mother paid extra because the daughter kept swiping a lot of the defendant's food, and supplies.   

-----

Mother says the daughter graduated massage therapy school, and is waiting to take a certification exam.   Sorry, but I expect people who lay hands on me to wash them, and have proper sanitation,   I wonder how long the daughter will last at a massage shop?  My guess is not long.

I remember that case well.  At the VERY beginning, Mommy said that she had put her house on the market, so I suspect she was paying slobdaughter's rent to keep her out of the house so that anyone who came to the house wouldn't just run screaming after seeing (and smelling) her room.

My ex-daughter-in-law was a licensed physical therapy technician.  And she was a slob.  Even when they lived with us for a few months, she NEVER picked up after herself.  Wherever she left something was where it was until she wanted it again or I got tired of having to look at it.  She lost several jobs.  I suspect it's because at offices like that, employees are expected to put things away promptly so that other people can find them if they are needed for other clients.  Ex-DIL never seemed to understand that concept.

I suspect the world's newest massage therapist won't even get hired because her personal hygiene will be a turn-off for anyone interviewing her.

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I remember that case well.  At the VERY beginning, Mommy said that she had put her house on the market, so I suspect she was paying slobdaughter's rent to keep her out of the house so that anyone who came to the house wouldn't just run screaming after seeing (and smelling) her room.

I missed the part about mother selling the house. and I can see why it would be a good idea to have the daughter elsewhere.    Bet mommy is moving somewhere that doesn't have room for daughter too.  

Anyone who saw this case should steer clear of daughter.     Also, employers routinely do background checks, and this case will show up. 

Edited September 16, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Nonpayment for services rendered:

Not bad. Better than crackheads, domestic violence, FBI raids and carelessly spawned babies. Plaintiff was overly verbose, but that annoyance paled in comparison to the Def. He's been in business for 27 years - not 25 or 28, no - he informs us multiple times it's been 27 years. You'd think someone who has been in business that long wouldn't act like a sulky, whiny baby: "Do I get a chance to talk or am I just going to be blasted?" He seems to equate being questioned by a judge who needs information to being scolded by his first-grade teacher. OH, grow up.

I think he came close to picking up  his toys and going home, but he managed to find the fortitude to stick it out. He continues to whine to Doug-in-the Hall, with many repetitions of "It is what it is." Yeah, we all know what that means. It's not plaintiff's fault no one wants to go to your bar.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

No show contractor: 

I think contractor was kind of a crook, who uses any excuse to not do work he was paid for in advance. Yes, his wife was pregnant and he had to be by her bedside 24/7 for who knows how long. He actually admits he's a liar who agreed to return the P's money just to get his tools back and had no intention of refunding the 600$. We know that was long since spent, and not on insulation. P wife sits there like a lump until hubby lets her talk and even then he feels the need to coach her, for which JM spanks him. Getting back the 600$ wasn't enough for them though, and they have to be avaricious greedy pigs shooting for the lottery. I guess their hurt feelings over lying contractor is worth 4K or so. Denied.

9 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

so I suspect she was paying slobdaughter's rent to keep her out of the house so that anyone who came to the house wouldn't just run screaming after seeing (and smelling) her room.

I thought she had an air of desperation which said she would pay and do anything to not have this slovenly behemoth fouling up HER house anymore.

[Florinaldo]

17 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Nonpayment for services rendered:

Defendant's attitude was so dickish that it added to the impression that he decided not to pay simply because his mailing did not get the response he expected. That's a risk you take with such campaigns, especially since his material did not seem very convincing from the little we heard about it. I also tend to believe that he lied when he said he did not receive some e-mails and documents P sent him; at the very least, he did not examine them thoroughly enough like you said, perhaps because he suspected the contents would undermine his justifications for not paying.

[aemom]

 

On 9/14/2020 at 8:10 PM, Pepper the Cat said:

And there was some tapping noise in the 2nd case that was driving me crazy!
 

 

On 9/14/2020 at 4:56 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I didn't like either litigant in the apartment case.    What was plaintiff wearing around her neck?   Maybe something to keep her beads from making noise during the testimony?

It was driving me crazy too (though as my hubby would say: "That's not a drive, it's a short putt.")  I think that @CrazyInAlabama pinpointed what the problem was.

 

On 9/14/2020 at 5:39 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe some thief had a such a cleaning emergency he needed to break into def's car to get those highly desirable half-empty bottles of Dollar Store knock-off cleaning products? We got JM launching into a story about how guilty she feels when she goes into a washroom and has no money to tip the bathroom attendants. I guess I go to the wrong places since I can't remember the last time I saw a bathroom attendant.

I was trying to remember too.  I think it was at a fancy Italian wedding hall at least 20 years ago. 

 

On 9/14/2020 at 8:37 PM, BigBingerBro said:

I also find myself scrutinizing the set instead of listening to what they are saying.  I noticed how the chairs they are sitting in are sooo close to the drapes behind them.  Why?  Do they have to be pushed back so far that they are touching the drapes?  It all just looks so cramped.

The whole thing looks so off.  The scales aren't even the right scale (lol) for the room - they are way too big - you can't even see the tops of them.

I'm thinking that if it's at their home, they took one room and put the bench set on one side and the fake chit-chat corner on the other side and called it a day.  But Levin should have sprung for a better set dresser because I could have done a much better job setting up a nice looking chit-chat corner.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Defendant's attitude was so dickish that it added to the impression that he decided not to pay simply because his mailing did not get the response he expected.

He reminded me of a litigant who refused to pay an investigator for all his work because the information the client wanted could not be found and didn't even exist.

[LetsStartTalking]

On 9/8/2020 at 12:38 PM, Percysowner said:

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.

TPC used to film in NYC, but it hasn't for years - it has moved to a newer media center in CT ('Judge Jerry' is filmed in the same complex, in his own studio). I believe Milian has a home near Greenwich, CT if I remember correctly.  Many celebs have moved out of NY and into CT over the past 50 years or so - its close enough to NY but taxes and cost of living are not as expensive (still very pricey, though, for the average American).

Judge Milian looks like she had a rough summer quarantining, and no longer has access to her studio hairdressers and make-up artists. she can't look 20 years younger on TV when she's left to her own devices. (Her hair looked better reddish/blond than her natural dark brown, her makeup needs work, her nails need manicuring). Not a big fan of her talking to her (handsome, sexy) husband after the case - sort of trying to copy 'Hot Bench' when the judges discuss the verdict. Totally unnecessary.

Any reason why that idiot is still standing in the 'hallway' when no one is there to meet with him ? That could be eliminated. So can Harvey - there's no reason for him to be there taking questions. Doug doesn't need to be there either talking to TV monitors (but he has a nice butt so I don't mind seeing him walk back and forth).  Can't he 'swear the litigants in' from his home remotely ?

As for the new format - I'm still adjusting.  It doesn't seem right with litigants 'zooming it in'. If this proves successful, and cost effective, will there be any need to change formats back to the way it was pre-Covid? Or will the show (and other shows) stick with 'zoom' meetings /  interviews ? It's going to take some getting used to.

 

[SRTouch]

1. older divorced couple feuding: these folks were married for 20 years, got back together as friends with benefits, he loaned her money for new AC, she finds out he's sleeping around and stops repaying the loan - she seems to have been way more committed to their renewed relationship, and unilaterally decided to write off the loan because she had helped him out on rent over six years - she may have moral high ground, but unless they had some prior agreement to offset loan for rent she's going to have to repay the loan and then come after him for rent money......... ah, sure nuf she has countersuit for 5 grand for those years of back rent........ ok, we'll have to see how this goes, but P is saying he wasn't bothering to keep track of how much she had paid back on the loan and he relied on her to keep track - heck, if he wasn'the keeping track I guess we have to rely on her numbers........ oops, except that she kept records and turned it in as evidence, and when MM goes over the numbers it shows she owes a couple grand on the AC....... didn't mention it before, but D has a disability where she sometimes needs help keeping track of paperwork - seems when she went to buy a car she took P along to help - says next day she discovered that P had put himself down as the owner of the car she was buying....... anyone else think it strange that, knowing this lady had this traumatic brain injury making her fussy at times with paperwork the old geezer relied on her to keep track of the balance of the money she owed him........ that apparently got straightened out, and MM wants to move on to getting the dirt on the old couple's whoopy making - according to P, once she learned he had an overnight lady friend guest her whole attitude changed and she wanted him out of her apartment........ oh, did I forget to mention she owned the 4-plex apartment building where this guy was living - apparently they loved in separate apartments in a sort of informal landlord/tenant arrangement, and once she found out he was 'cheating' on her (even though they were no longer married) she wanted him out of her building and unilaterally decided she no longer needed to pay off the AC loan - and wanted a bunch of back rent...... oh, but here's a funny - after giving him the heave ho, she went to the credit union and pulled out $500 in change - when he asks for her loan payment she points to a paper bag and where she had $500 in loose change - and that was the final payment she made (MM already said her canceled checks show a balance over 2 grand)........ ok, but since P was relying on D to keep track of the balance throughout the time she was making payments how do we know it wasn't paid off - there's also the rent question - they never had a written rental agreement, but he paid rent (of course no receipts) and now she's claiming she was giving him a discount that she wants to retroactively cancel and collect........ MM laughs about a 'woman scorned' and the $500 in loose change - but only evidence we have shows her owing on the loan and no way to collect on back rent - course she may be happy with making dude look bad on national TV....... oh, and P is asking for over 3 grand even though D provided proof showing he's asking for an extra grand....... yeah, as expected she owes the 2 grand and can't collect anything going for back rent........ only regret D has is that P was able to take the loose change to the bank without having to count/roll it all........ 
2. rental kerfuffle: p rented on a month to month basis - says when she fell behind on rent D kicked her out with 30 day notice and refuses to return deposit - she wants almost $1800......... have to wait and see what their jurisdiction codes are - here a landlord can give you a notice to vacate the morning after you fail to pay, then you get a few days to pay, and if you don'the you can get evicted - after GETTING put out takes longer because your case has to be heard, but technically you could be kicked out 10 days after failing to pay on time (never happens of course)......... D intro talks about what a great person P is, but that he needs her rent money and if she can'take pay in full and on time he had no choice but to get rid of her......... ok, not liking P much here as she tries to dance around when MM asks her how much rent she paid and P us talking about total - rent plus the $1300 something deposit - pretty simple question - how much was rent and what did she pay - and she talks 5 minutes without ever answering - part of this is she was to receive social service help........ oh, and why do people not take a moment to adjust the camera angle - this woman has her chin in the air and talks down her nose and it appears she has nostrils bigger than her earlobes....... way she was dancing I don't have actual numbers, but if i understood her social service was giving $1795 a month - of course she wanted a $2000 a month apartment and she was to make up the difference - she was responsible for the deposit, and once that was paid she didn't have the money to pay her portion of rent and D told her it wasn't going to work........ problem with my understanding is I didn't think social services would approve a month to month lease.......... ok, I'm over this woman who can't answer how much rent she paid without a long involved narrative so I begin FF'ing through this mess........ when D starts talking I start listening again and learn he isn't much better - he does say he kept deposit because she didn't give him 30 day notice, so question is, since he told her to move out, does she have to give notice? did he give a date she had to be gone by and did she exceed his date? Sure sounds like she was just doing what he asked, so why is he trying to keep deposit? Another wrinkle, he was in such a hurry to she her gone that he offered her $1000 to move out. She even says she went through emergency housing to meet his time limit and she ended up in a shelter with her kids for 25 days........ I'm not understanding D's testimony here - think he's claiming he offered P says grand to move out by May 31st (which she did with social services help) and then he says he offered the case worker a grand to make it happen - did he give actually anybody a grand? Did he give both a grand? I'm confused and don't really care......... yep, he says gave the case worker a grand - but not P - to expedite the move - which has MM questioning a government employee accepting a bribe and MM advising P to file a complaint with social services using tape of D's testimony as evidence......... D tripping over himself trying to justify keeping the money and his testimony doesn't match his answer to complaint - I'm over this guy, he's admitted to bribing a government worker and his testimony is all over the place - he shouldn'the get to keep the depisit, but he questions who actually paid it - was it social services or did P pay? Who deserves the refund? MM decides since P gave him the money, he pays her and if social services wants that money they can chase P for it....... now there's a question of $400 for part of a month rent - well, P lived there part of a month, so sounds like this is prorated rent........ sounds like it messed up the timeline of when she actually moved out, but not worth going back to figure out - P gets back deposit but not prorated rent......... 
3. hey a third case! It'll need to be quick as there isn't much time.  car transport case: p hauled a wrecked car, but hasn't been paid - wants $150........ P hauled car from NY to Florida and D wouldn't pay - big kerfuffle - cops called - cops told P to unload car and sue for payment, which is why we're here....... D says he paid what P estimated, and refuses to pay extra - funny thing is D says car was totaled in an accident, yet he's countersuing for damage done to the wrecked car during move?......... contract case - whose taking bets on whether they have a written contract?......... ok, anybody here ever watch that show where independent contractors bid on shipping jobs and the winner picks up the item and hauls it where ever it's supposed to go? Well, that's what this was. When they're bidding they're given information about the item, and how much extra work may be needed to load unload the item. According to P, his winning bid was based on a vehicle ready to load and trailer - but when he arrives he not only finds a wrecked car, but one buried in 5 feet of snow - not at all what the contract said....... so, at least when I was watching the show, the contractor would have to renegotiate a new contract or just eat the extra cost - wonder what happened?....... sooooooo, when P shows up expecting to just roll a car onto the trailer D has sent a 3rd party and can't be reached for any renegotiations D, but does the extra work and gets wreck on ghe trailer - unless there's something in his contract, sounds like he eats the extra cost........ he is not helped much when he says he has this personal thing on what the extra work should cost - sounds reasonable, but unless D agreed I'm not sure it's enforceable........ yep, listening to MM she's not accepting his personal unwritten rate change, he's not getting that unless the Internet out ship that runs the bidding has a contract that D agreed to which allows this upcharge...... ah ha, but before P arrives with car he texts D about the upcharge, and instead of saying 'what upcharge!?!' D answers, OK. ...... even worse for D, without prompting P lowers the upcharge from $200 to $150..... when MM asks why he responded 'OK' D starts dancing all over....... when P arrives D signs treceipt of vehicle, noting no additional damage, and releases the funds for the original agreed upon amount (which had already been paid to the Internet company) - then they start fighting about the additional charge - big kerfuffle - cops called etc......... ah, during the unloading (after D agreed no new damage) P asked D to get in car and get ready to apply brakes as car came off trailer - D refused to help, P released last strap and car rolled back off trailer - D even testifying it was no biggy, but isn't this where his counterclaim  for additional damage comes from?...... uh, no, he wants $600 for scratches caused by straps that were there and readily visible before he signed the release saying there was no damage....... ok, even though D didn't fight the upcharge in texts, he still didn't agree beforehand - there was no contractual basis for the upcharge - nobody gets anything

[AZChristian]

23 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

TPC used to film in NYC, but it hasn't for years - it has moved to a newer media center in CT ('Judge Jerry' is filmed in the same complex, in his own studio). I believe Milian has a home near Greenwich, CT if I remember correctly.  Many celebs have moved out of NY and into CT over the past 50 years or so - its close enough to NY but taxes and cost of living are not as expensive (still very pricey, though, for the average American).

JM lives in Miami, and travels to CT for filming.  They do a LOT of cases in a fairly short time period, and then everything goes to editing.  I get the feeling (based on fingernail polish and earrings) that the ugly living room corner is - as I think someone mentioned above - in a room of her house in Miami, with the faux bench and backdrop in one corner and the chairs and justice scales jammed into another.   She tapes a bunch of cases, and then - probably several days later - she and Judge John cram themselves into the corner to discuss multiple cases, and then the editing gnomes splice everything together.

I like Harvey better without the groupies on the Santa Monica street corner.  It would be helpful if he could read the questions that people are tweeting in before giving the answers, but I don't mind him in the role of "provider of free legal advice."  

[BigBingerBro]

Wow, I wouldn't have ever know that lady in the first case was suffering from a tramatic brain injury.  Most other healthy litigants aren't as well-spoken and sharp as she is!

[Taeolas]

I don't mind the after the case interview with Doug, but they should make better use of the screen space. They have the big Peoples Court logo which is probably somewhat mandatory, but after showing it, they should use that space to insert the litigant Doug is talking to post-case, so both he and the litigant are on screen at once. 

Similarly, they should have someone, whether the question submitter or some random writer/intern or Harvey himself, read Harvey's question, just so they don't have 30 seconds of dead air for each segment. 

 

It's a bit strange, TPC was one of the first shows to be affected by COVID, considering Harvey had to go solo towards the end of last season. You'd think they would have been better prepared for the restrictions by the new season. While some parts are very polished and well handled (JMM's background matching up with the set for example), other parts feel thrown together. I get the impression that they were hoping they could get back into the studios in time for the new season, and by the time they realized they couldn't, they only had a short time to start putting the new format together. 

[DoctorK]

47 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

there was no contractual basis for the upcharge - nobody gets anything

I don't think there was any way to avoid this based on contract law. However I despised the defendant, he was a chiseling jerk. He was dishonest when he commissioned the job; when he was contacted, he agreed to the extra charges (but not ahead of time) but I am convinced he had no intention of paying but figured that once he was in Florida and the car was there he could weasel out and the transport guy would just give up rather than hold on to the car and try to collect later. Plus, I was not impressed by the crucifix around his neck, and he seemed pretty stoned to me with his pauses, hesitations and evasions.

Edited September 17, 2020 by DoctorK
grammar

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Any reason why that idiot is still standing in the 'hallway' when no one is there to meet with him ?

Hey! Them's fightin' words! 😄Our Hallway Doug is not an idiot and I for one love his snarking on litigants.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

older divorced couple feuding: 

If the P isn't cruising around with a pocketful of viagra, then I salute him, having all these women at his age.

I did giggle like a little girl when JM read def's texts (in which D didn't sound nearly as proper and demure as she presented herself her) and slowly read each word "...go and screw your sluts..." They are not married and don't live together so why can't Grampa Casanova screw as many sluts as he likes or as he is able? Def  seems to feel that since she has no romance (or screwing) in her life, he shouldn't either and should just remain her faithful companion? Was def's witness there just as decoration? I was kind of puzzled at JM praising Def for her mean-spirited, petty, nasty act of paying P 500$ in small coins. I didn't find it cute or amusing in the least.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

rental kerfuffle: 

P seemed to be rather affronted that Social Services (with taxpayer's money) allowed her only 1500$/month for rent. The nerve of them! Hardly seems fair when she, her husband and their kids need a 2000$/mnth place. I guess I wondered why both of them couldn't get jobs and pay their own rent, but I do agree a place worth 2K/mnth would be a lot nicer. I wish I had known about all this crap when I was renting my uber-cheap apartment, but I was working and although I was earning poverty wages I guess I wouldn't have qualified for any gov. assistance to get me into a 2K place.

It was kind of jaw-dropping when shifty, shady def. admits he bribed a government worker  to get P and her entourage out of the place and she accepted the bribe. Someone truly needs to look into this. I wish P had raised the camera, since the view was up her nostrils nearly to her brain.

OH, hell - forgot about the 3rd case. Do NOT drink every time P says "vehicle". Def is a dorky hipster type with douchebag facial hair and a big cross around his scrawny neck. Good thing he turned off the lights because I had a feeling his lair wouldn't be looking very pleasant. Why he wanted his totaled heap towed to FL I have no idea, but then he blames the scratches on said totalled heap on the P. Plaintiff needs to learn that when dealing with clients, nothing in the contract should be "unspoken."

Edited September 17, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was kind of puzzled at JM praising Def for her mean-spirited, petty, nasty act of paying P 500$ in small coins. I didn't find it cute or amusing in the least.

I also thought this was quite improper for a judge, even a TV court show one. It could be seeen as approving of the defendant's resentful and vindictive attitude towards her ex-husband, who apparently gets much more action than she does, something she feels he must be pubished for. 

I think her witness was there just to elicit sympathy by giving credence to her story of having a cognitive impairment because of an accident.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

he says gave the case worker a grand - but not P - to expedite the move - which has MM questioning a government employee accepting a bribe and MM advising P to file a complaint with social services using tape of D's testimony as evidence.

The supidity of some people knows no bounds: admitting on TV to bribing a civil servant is such an obvious no-no that he must be totally oblivious to do it so readily.

[AngelaHunter]

14 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I think her witness was there just to elicit sympathy by giving credence to her story of having a cognitive impairment because of an accident.

I think I may be more cognitively impaired than she is, but I guess it comes in handy for sympathy bids.

15 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

admitting on TV to bribing a civil servant is such an obvious no-no that he must be totally oblivious to do it so readily.

No way is plaintiff going to report this - there's no money in it for her.

[SRTouch]

32 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think I may be more cognitively impaired than she is, but I guess it comes in handy for sympathy bids.

No way is plaintiff going to report this - there's no money in it for her.

Well, don't know about "cognitively impaired," but a couple days ago I was making some instapot refried beans - washed the dried beans and had them sitting in a bowl in the sink - sliced an onion, threw in some jalapeños and spices, added the water and a little oil - put on the lid and set the timer and started to wash the knife and cut board.......... but there sat the beans in the sink 😕😕😕

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

but a couple days ago I was making some instapot refried beans - washed the dried beans and had them sitting in a bowl in the sink - sliced an onion, threw in some jalapeños and spices, added the water and a little oil - put on the lid and set the timer and started to wash the knife and cut board.......... but there sat the beans in the sink 😕😕😕

Welcome to my world. I wasted an entire batch of peanut butter cookies I made. After I got them in the oven I looked up and there sat the sugar in the measuring cup. Oh, well.

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was kind of puzzled at JM praising Def for her mean-spirited, petty, nasty act of paying P 500$ in small coins. I didn't find it cute or amusing in the least.

Yep, that is a juvenile gotcha that is only used by scorned women, 11 year olds and sovereign citizens.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

After I got them in the oven I looked up and there sat the sugar in the measuring cup.

Been there, done that. You may be able to salvage the batch by sprinkling a generous amount of granulated sugar over the cookies before or while they are baking. Trust me, this usually works.

[Maverick]

 As a judge, MM is pretty good at being impartial but the one bias that she tends to exhibit is against men in relation to their wife/GF/side piece.  Sometimes it's deserved, sometimes it's not.   Yesterday when she snapped at the husband not to mansplain I thought was uncalled for.  Say you want to hear it in her own words, fine.  But don't assume he's some horrible male chauvinist.   Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.  I get that MM is a strong personality and wouldn't want her husband correcting her but not every couple interacts the same way.   She tends to project her personality on others.