The People's Court - General Discussion

[Ashforth]

17 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

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).

I think she looks great. She's there for her legal expertise and intelligence, not to be a hand model.

[LetsStartTalking]

44 minutes ago, Ashforth said:

She's there for her legal expertise and intelligence, not to be a hand model.

I don't think anyone has told her that for the past 20 years she's been part of the show. She's very vain about her appearance and her looks - that's more than obvious. At 59, she's been trying too hard to look the same age as her college-age daughters.

[AZChristian]

14 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

The stupidity 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.

I had the feeling that it wasn't the first time he bribed the civil servant.  He admitted to knowing her, "not friends," but he has worked with her before.

What he probably meant to say was, "I gave the case worker $1,000 because - as she has done before - that gets her to file the paperwork to get the tenant out in less than 30 days."

[cujokay]

On 9/8/2020 at 1:54 PM, Taeolas said:

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

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

Judge Matthis lives in LA but I agree his production is much better than The People's Court.

[SRTouch]

16 hours ago, Maverick said:

 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.   

And teenagers and old folks - especially teenage girls. We have seen her laughing with teenagers over 'pranks' which ended up causing property damage. I remember a case where teenage girls trashed a place they rented for a party. IIRC MM laughed at the games they came up with that trashed the place, then downplayed the damage and awarded bare minimum for damages. Also has a soft spot for the old folks - especially old women. 

Edited September 18, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, DoctorK said:

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

And really, what was she so furious about? He's single and allowed to date. Maybe, unlike her, celibacy isn't his thing. She doesn't want to have sex with him, so what's her beef? If what she demands is a loyal companion who has no life outside of being her escort and needs no one but her, she should get a service dog.

7 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

IIRC MM laughed at the games they can do up with that trashed the place, then downplayed the awarded bare minimum for damages.

Yes, and there was also that nasty, lying, smart-mouthed amoral girl who didn't give a shit that she damaged someone's car(?) and JM said, "I'd love to hang out with you."

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

And teenagers and old folks - especially teenage girls.

I sometimes suspect she had inclinations to be a party girl in her youth, but that this got thwarted by her family and she is still frustrated at never being able to be the bad girl, something she certainly cannot do now as a judge, except by vicariously living through the misbehaviours of some litigants, of various ages. That might explain why her moral compass is sometimes off in situations like this one (I am a practicing member of the Lucy Van Pelt school of booth psychiatry).

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

but there sat the beans in the sink

That can happen to any of us at any age. I remember putting an upside-down pineapple cake in the oven and then as soon as I closed the door finding the pineapple slices still on the counter. I simply pushed them down immediately through the batter; I liked the results because the fruit was a little deeper into the cake than usual and have been aiming for it ever since each time I make an upside-down cake with any fruit; it is important to learn from one's mistakes.

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

And teenagers and old folks - especially teenage girls. We have seen her laughing with teenagers over 'pranks' which ended up causing property damage. I remember a case where teenage girls trashed a place they rented for a party. IIRC MM laughed at the games they can do up with that trashed the place, then downplayed the awarded bare minimum for damages. Also has a soft spot for the old folks - especially old women. 

I have been shocked occasionally when she breaks into a "blackcent" when speaking with African Americans, including a head bob.

[Carolina Girl]

On 9/10/2020 at 12:27 PM, AngelaHunter said:

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."

Apparently, one statistic the actuaries have missed is the increased risk of getting into an accident while driving to your insurance agent to renew your canceled insurance. 

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

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.

I wish I had thought of it. As it was, the sugarless cookies crumbled into dust when I took them out of the oven. I hate baking and seldom do it and boy, was I mad at myself.

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I sometimes suspect she had inclinations to be a party girl in her youth, but that this got thwarted by her family and she is still frustrated at never being able to be the bad girl

Possibly, but it seems her idea of a cool "bad girl" is some nasty, mouthy, lying little skank who can't even speak English properly. Not someone I'd want to "hang out" with, not even when I was in high school. Now? The mere thought bores me into a stupor.

[Maverick]

I haven't seen her low key praise the bad girls, but usually when she says she wants to hang out with someone it sounds sarcastic, as in "you are a barely functioning hot mess of a human and I'd like a front row seat for the train wreck."

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

Apparently, one statistic the actuaries have missed is the increased risk of getting into an accident while driving to your insurance agent to renew your canceled insurance. 

I used to work for a non-standard auto insurance company (aka "Geico doesn't want you, but our standards are lower although our premiums are higher").  It was always interesting to see how many people whose policies had "lapped" came running in to renew one day, only to file a claim the next day for an accident that happened "right after" they left the agent's office.  What they didn't know is that the date and TIME of the renewal is on the application.  And we would VERY carefully gather data FROM OTHERS as to when the accident happened in those cases.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

Is the barbershop rental case the most boring ever?      I was hoping we would see the video of the older tenant going after the plaintiff, but we didn't.    Also, if you leave items behind when you vacate, why should the defendant return that property to the plaintiff?      Why should the defendant, or the next tenant pay the plaintiff for what he left behind?       With homes, if it's built in, it stays, so why would a barber shop be any different?   I can see taking chairs that are portable, but not mirrors, stations attached to walls, or other items.   The drywall work at the barber shop is poor quality.   Defendant landlord wins the security deposit, and $1,000 more.  

So plaintiff buys a $500 Nordic Track treadmill from the defendant on Offer Up.  When plaintiff went to pick up the treadmill, defendant says he doesn't have the correct tool to take it apart.   Then there are many texts between the litigants, with defendant cancelling, or missing when plaintiff goes to pick up the treadmill, but most of these visits were not arranged in advance.    The final outcome is defendant said he would have a friend disassemble the treadmill, and leave it in his garage for easier pick up.     After a month defendant stopped responding.     

Defendant says they agreed to sell the treadmill for $500, and plaintiff paid that.   Then defendant claims a friend of plaintiff came with a copy of the paid receipt, and picked the treadmill up.     Judge Marilyn asks if the defendant sold the treadmill twice.   Defendant claims the man who picked up the treadmill had the receipt copy with him, and claimed he was picking it up for the plaintiff, and used his name.   Plaintiff denies he sent anyone else to pick up the treadmill, and doesn't know how another person would get his receipt copy.  Defendant's phone with the text is gone, guess who I think is guilty now?   

$500 to plaintiff

Edited September 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  I was hoping we would see the video of the older tenant going after the plaintiff, but we didn't.   

I would have loved that. That smug, prissy P didn't want to call the cops on the poor 65-year-old man who punched him. More likely it was a lie or he didn't want to admit this "old guy" decked him, and probably with very good reason. Lazy slob P also has the universal excuse for why rental properties are left looking like condemned buildings; "Oh, I was going to fix all that extensive damage I did and the filth I left, but he never gave me a chance!" Hey, he was busy. They're all going to go back to some place they are no longer renting and spend time and money to clean up/repair their disgusting messes. Yeah, sure. I disliked both litigants but was glad the slimy P ended up owing def.

Zippy the Pinhead (Mr.Ross) was so despicable he made this hard to watch. From his lame excuses and lies - "I had the tools to take apart the treadmill/I didn't have the tools. I was sick in bed for two weeks with the flu. I was in the hospital with a bad case of pneumonia. I was sick so I turned my phone off. I always turn off the phone when I'm not feeling well. Some guy came over and had Mr. Adams receipt so I gave him the treadmill. I don't have that phone anymore so can't show the texts", etc etc. The shamelessness, or maybe just abject stupidity of this petty, low-down, lying, bottom-feeding, scammer POS were astonishing.

[VartanFan]

Nordictrack defendant was an odious little man.  He was like the contractor from the other day whose wife had tons of “pregnancy problems”.  He totally sold that thing twice.  I’m glad the P followed up with a case because it was obvious to me that he was trying to take advantage of someone he thought he could.  

[SRTouch]

On 9/18/2020 at 4:34 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Zippy the Pinhead (Mr.Ross) was so despicable he made this hard to watch. From his lame excuses and lies - "I had the tools to take apart the treadmill/I didn't have the tools. I was sick in bed for two weeks with the flu. I was in the hospital with a bad case of pneumonia. I was sick so I turned my phone off. I always turn off the phone when I'm not feeling well. Some guy came over and had Mr. Adams receipt so I gave him the treadmill. I don't have that phone anymore so can't show the texts", etc etc. The shamelessness, or maybe just abject stupidity of this petty, low-down, lying, bottom-feeding, scammer POS were astonishing.

Ok, you convinced me to go back and watch this one........ but barbershop case - nope, started to watch it twice and just couldn't stand those two

[aemom]

On 9/17/2020 at 3:17 PM, AZChristian said:

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."  

I was thinking the same thing myself.  He is almost tolerable, and some of the questions that are being asked are quite good.

But then again, the other day, a question was: "What is the most memorable case that was ever on TPC?" Levin's answer was that one of his most memorable cases was something about a bachelor party that went bad and they sued the stripper.  Of course it was.  I would expect nothing different from Levin...

 

On 9/17/2020 at 5:28 PM, 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 think that whenever we have a man that cheats on a woman and the woman finds a petty, but perfectly legal way to stick it to him, she admires that - maybe because she sees one case after another where the women are complete doormats.

However, in this case, it was somewhat murky whether or not they were exclusive or not.  She says yes, he says no.  We hear that story a lot too.

 

On 9/17/2020 at 7:15 PM, AngelaHunter said:

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

The P seemed stunned.  I think she might do it strictly out of revenge for hustling her out of that place so quickly when she didn't want to leave.

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, aemom said:

However, in this case, it was somewhat murky whether or not they were exclusive or not.  She says yes, he says no.  We hear that story a lot too.

According to both of them they were now just friends who went out to events and did things together. She didn't want to be married to him or have an intimate relationship with him. How could he be "cheating'? IMO, he was free to whoop it up with his sluts! 😆 I think she just wanted him to sit around alone until she required his escort services.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Another rerun of the woman who bought the horse, As Is, and wants her money back, plus everything else she ever spent on anything in her life. 

The woman who had a horse 40 years ago, and now she wanted a horse.   So she finds one, rides it over three days, buys it without a PPE (pre-purchase exam), and then claims the horse is defective.     It's just like buying a boat without checking it out, or putting it in the water, buying a car without taking it to a mechanic or checking CarFax.     I feel sorry for the horse having Miss Clueless for a rider, or owner.   The best part is the defendants/sellers have a video of the woman riding the horse, and she's smiling.     

I wonder if the woman every had the feet filed, or new shoes?    I wonder if she followed the feed, and turnout recommendations?     Many times a horse can sense a beginning rider who is afraid of them, and ignore what the rider says.     When a vet came out, buyer claims the horse has a neurological disease (some can show up very quickly).  The horse is claimed to have EPM (which can develop very quickly).    Bill of Sale says "As Is", no returns or refunds, horse not guaranteed.    The buyer traded Tank to some man, bought another horse, and  claims Tank is still with the man (bet Tank isn't there either, but you don't want to know what I think happened). 

EPM is usually like that, horse is fine, then they suddenly show the neurological effects, and they're very ill all of a sudden.   It mostly is carried by possums, some other creatures carry it too, but it's mostly possums.    I had to laugh at the buyer's reasons for not getting a vet exam, that the buyers being local would know all of the local vets, and a PPE would be useless.   No, only a vet who had treated the horse would be ineligible to examine the horse pre-purchase.   Either the vet would decline to do the exam, citing conflict of interest, or the vet would be someone who was impartial.   It's called professional ethics.   I've known people who had EPM horses, they were fine at breakfast, and put down by afternoon, with no symptoms before that day.    

The buyer saying she paid extra because the horse had special training was ridiculous.  She was talking about training to stand when you're mounting, and getting the horse used to a lot of scary items.       A lot of well trained horses don't like to work for someone who is a nervous beginner who was probably giving all kinds of unintentional signals to move forward.   Or someone who tries to mount while they're standing still, and accidentally urges the horse to move.   I hope the poor horse really is turned out to pasture, or recovered, but they can have the same disease come back too.    So the buyer says the horse came off of the trailer sick, but she still rode him?    My guess is that since the man she dumped the horse on claimed the horse would get treatment, or a home for life, and I bet it was all verbal, nothing in writing.   My guess is poor Tank was on his way to the auction, and on the truck to Mexico as soon as the next auction occurred.     

Buyer gets nothing.  

The rerun of the woman who lost an earrings, and wants a jeweler to make a replica, after finding out the original earrings are no longer sold.     It would cost $500 to make a matching earring from scratch, and the original was hollow, so the replica is much heavier.     There's something seriously off with the plaintiff.    The jeweler made the replica, and it would cost her $600 total, so instead of paying she brings the police with her, and starts ranting about her deceased father.    Judge Marilyn is returning the $150 the woman claims she paid, and gets her earring back.   and the jeweler gets the replica back.    (So the answer to winning is acting irrational, and denying everything you said to the other party?)     

The apartment case, where the place was fine, including periodic weed smell in the hallways, until plaintiff finds another place to move to.     The plaintiff wife claims the stairs bothered her, because of a C-section she had three years before.   So when another apartment turns up, plaintiffs move without notice, and want double the security deposit back.    The apartment (a 3 flat that's been rented for years) wasn't with a certificate of occupancy, but the city inspected and issued a certificate.    However, the fire marshal visited every year and cleared the building.    I wouldn't give the plaintiffs a penny.   The wife is Filipina, and the husband claimed she didn't talk to the landlord (landlord, and his relatives occupy the first and second floor apartments) because of language issues, but her English is excellent.    Plaintiff also interjects, without any reason, that he was in the Marines.   At least Judge Marilyn skipped the "Thank you for your service" routine she usually does.    Because of the occupancy certificate, the plaintiff gets it back, even though plaintiff lied throughout the case.      

Edited September 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

1. won't pay after breakup: thought at first this was one of those cases AH loves to hate where woman throws money at loser on probation to get her man - but no, turns out loser was actually hooked up with P's fiancè's sister. Close enough, though, some loser already on probation who 'breaks up' with the sister when he violates probation with dirty urine test. Not sure from intro what defense he's going with - either he never borrowed $600, or he's entitled to the money because she lost his car keys. Once testimony begins I see P may have a problem sticking D with this loan. Quickly becomes apparent the the money was to go towards rent for D and the sister - and it was fiancée that first asked for the loan. So P needs to establish that the loan, that was for both sister and dirty pisser, is now solely responsibility of D. Turns out the fiancée was asking for loan for her sister and D, and money was given to sister when D wasn't there. Oops, I have this wrong - now I'm hearing it wasn't D who pissed dirty, it was the sister - and sister was violated and thrown in hoosegow. P wants us to know it wasn't just the $600 rent money, she had loaned the couple other money for sister's legal fees - but she stresses that was a seperate loan and she only went after the sister for that money. Over to D, who says he wasn't even part of the rent money loan - that was between the sisters and he didn't even know about it until later....... so, yeah he benefited from the loan, but never asked for the loan, never even knew about it beforehand, so why should he pay....... well, seems P has a text exchange where D says money is tight, but he's trying to pay......... uh, but seems they broke up when sis went away to the highest house - oh, and his 13 year daughter came home from school and found stuff (car keys, fob, smart watch, family pictures of jailbreak sis) missing from house and P's fiancée had a spare key - oh oh, not only does circumstances point to P and fiancée, but she admits jailbreak sis asked fiancée  to retrieve some of her stuff,  but Fiancée did enter the place after the breakup to retrieve stuff without D being home - but insists fiancée only took sis's stuff, not everything D says is missing........ not sure that even matters - D says 13yo noticed door not locked when she got home, so whether fiancée took the stuff or left house unsecured doesn't matter - fiancée would be responsible if he can show value of missing stuff....... but that's a whole other matter separate from the $600 rent loan - from what I'm hearing D would need to go after Fiancee, not P, anyway....... huh! now D says fiancée told him she'd return the big ticket items if he made up with jailbreak sis - oops, D caught lieing to Judge twice - first he says he has a text where fiancèe says she'll return his keys - he insists car keys while P is saying house keys - D didn't submit text to court, but reads it off his phone while conveniently omitting 'house' from passage about keys...... ok, D lieing and caught twice in 30 seconds - but does that make the rent money his loan - nope........ Crayon toilet paper story - no formal loan to D - D off hook......... 
2. collectible card case: P says he gave some valuable cards to D to sell, but after a month D tells him the cards were stolen from his house - I hate these cases, as I always wonder about the actual value of the collectibles, and question how many and what arrangement was..... did they agree on the value, or was this just speculative 'get what you can' type deal........ not sure what actual deal was, or how P came up with numbers, but today he's asking for over 3 grand. ......... D admits some of these things are worth big money - problem us he says he doedn'the know who stole them........ ok, as we go to commercial we watch as they talk about housing valuable these cards can be and we see Douglas flabbergasted when he hears about 1 rare card that sold for a quarter million bucks - like I said, I don't know much about these cards, but I do know condition is everything in collectibles - unless they agree on value we could be talking about a card worth a dime or thousands of bucks - even after they agree on value MM will have to decide who is responsible for the cards going missing........ ok, yakkedy yak about these cards which mean nothing to me and I end up FF through a lot of this - I gather they set a minimum value ($2,500), and  P says anything above that would be D's fee for selling had cards....... hmmmmm so wouldn't maximum P can collect be $2500....... FF..... ok, skipped ahead and MM still trying to figure out what their deal was - part of this is because D says yeah, that was the deal, then seconds later, no he would never agree to do business that way......... yawn, this is all boring astuff can be - one thing before I just zip to decision - difference between what P is suing for and what he says the value was at time is a rise in value since he gave cards to be sold - that explains his amount - but don't see him getting that as damages......... so, to recap what I skipped - they DO agree that at time P gave the D the cards they agreed the value was a total of $2500 - since that time value went up - long after D took procession he took cards with him to a comic book store in a paper bag, left the bag unattended while he was smoking, and they were stolen - I say P should get $2500 minus any amount D gave him as he was making sales....... ah, but this is a time where MM is pissed at cavalier attitude of a litigant - actually, both litigants help out opposing side by trying to be honest - D admits he was at fault, but made no effort to pay - he admits responsibilty today, but tried to shift blame in statement - oh, and admits he never filed a police report over the theft of 3 grand worth of P's property - says cops would just laugh at theft of cards..... there are actually a couple Big Bang episodes which deal with collectibles and collectible theft, one where cop is laughing at genius Sheldon for being upset someone stole his collectibles - MM goes ahead and awards P the increased value instead (MM even went online with their list and awards today's market value)

Edited September 21, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the "Won't Pay After Break Up" case, what kind of idiot gets a call from the 13 year-old about the front door being wide open, and tell them to go into the house, and see if it's been burglarized?     It could have been anyone that burglarized the house, and what if the daughter had walked in on a few people burglarizing the house?     

I'm glad Doug mentioned to the defendant how stupid telling the daughter to go into the house was.   

Edited September 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Ok, stretching the boundaries of being off topic - took a picture of my Furby this morning. Immediately thought of litigant the other day who was forever looking down  her nose at the camera 

Edited September 21, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

49 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the "Won't Pay After Break Up" case, what kind of idiot gets a call from the 13 year-old about the front door being wide open, and tell them to go into the house, and see if it's been burglarized?     It could have been anyone that burglarized the house, and what if the daughter had walked in on a few people burglarizing the house?     

I'm glad Doug mentioned to the defendant how stupid telling the daughter to go into the house was.   

Ugh. At least things are a little more equal in this. We had the "Sainted Single Father of Two" as a pity device and as an excuse to avoid paying back a loan. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Thirteen year old calls this brain-dead slug to tell him the door is open. Does 'Father of the Year' call the police and tell the girl to run to a neighbour and stay there til he gets home? Nope, he tells her to go in, go upstairs and check around to see if any of his precious belongings are missing. If he was awarded custody of these two poor children, I shudder to think of what kind of miscreant bore them. He also has some criminal burglar g/f around the kids. At least she's in the slammer where she belongs. Disgusting. I missed Doug reading him the riot act because by then I couldn't stand the sight of either of these litigants and skipped ahead.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

 thought at first this was one of those cases AH loves to hate where woman throws money at loser on probation to get her man - but no, turns out loser was actually hooked up with P's fiancè's sister.

I didn't think that because I FF all the intros and I only learned when the case started that P was female. Car keys and house keys and some game or other  - and no one seemed to give a shit about a child being sent into a house where thieves might still be present and who might murder, kidnap and/or rape her. Oh, but those keys to his old beaters... Important!

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

collectible card case:

The Case of the Two Major Gaming Nudniks who are obsessed with some Magic Cards which D claims are the starting point for collectible cards: JM informs him that could be baseball cards (which I believe have been around since circa 1930?) and D seems taken aback by that. Anyway, boring except for the def, who cannot grow a beard and needs to shave that patchy mess off, telling JM a long, convoluted lie implying that P's useless witness was a con artist/thief, and then being forced to recant  without breaking stride when JM reads to him from his complaint which contained nothing of that. Couldn't stand any of them. A grown man crying, "It's not my fault I left this bag with the P's property so I could go have a smoke, and someone stole it." Another lie, no doubt. He probably sold all the cards and kept all the money, since we already know he's a big dumb liar who can't keep his lies straight. I was just surprised at JM awarding P the book value of the cards today instead of the value - which P himself placed at 2500$ - at the time when they were supposed to be sold. 

This crayon/toilet paper thing: I have no crayons but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to use them to write on toilet paper. Like, basically, if you tried it wouldn't the TP just rip to pieces? Maybe if you slightly melted the crayons first? I don't know but I'm tempted to try it.

[AZChristian]

7 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

This crayon/toilet paper thing: I have no crayons but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to use them to write on toilet paper. Like, basically, if you tried it wouldn't the TP just rip to pieces? Maybe if you slightly melted the crayons first? I don't know but I'm tempted to try it.

We don't have a crayon in the house, so we'll have to depend on you to run the test.  I do know that if they tried it with a marker, it would probably bleed and become unreadable before it even dried.  

[TresGatos]

My spouse and I were discussing the changes COVID has brought to The People's Court and he said, "I don't care for the part where Judge Milian and her husband discuss the case but then I didn't like him much on Hot Bench either."

I had to explain to him that they were different people. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

We don't have a crayon in the house, so we'll have to depend on you to run the test.

I'm going to do it! I'll get some crayons when I make my next visit to the dollar store this week.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was just surprised at JM awarding P the book value of the cards today instead of the value - which P himself placed at 2500$ - at the time when they were supposed to be sold. 

So if the judge awarded the plaintiff $3,300 (ish), shouldn't she have deducted 10% from the award, as that's what the plaintiff and defendant both agreed would be the seller's fee?

[SRTouch]

Wouldn't you just know it? The Big Bang episode I referenced when recapping the collectibles just showed up on my TV......... 

[VartanFan]

Quote

Nope, he tells her to go in, go upstairs and check around to see if any of his precious belongings are missing. If he was awarded custody of these two poor children, I shudder to think of what kind of miscreant bore them. He also has some criminal burglar g/f around the kids. At least she's in the slammer where she belongs. Disgusting

This guy...I immediately thought he had the kid run in there to check that either his drugs or drug money weren’t missing (sorry but the fact of who his girlfriend was, the dentures at his age, and then encouraging his kid to go into a house that had been broken into...). I wanted her to pin the money on him because of the fact that he responded to texts that said he’d pay.  He totally knew that the two of them had borrowed that money for rent.  And what a moron to think the judge would just have him READ the text instead of take a look at it.  

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, AZChristian said:

So if the judge awarded the plaintiff $3,300 (ish), shouldn't she have deducted 10% from the award, as that's what the plaintiff and defendant both agreed would be the seller's fee?

I really didn't get it. Back when the incident happened, the P was hoping to get 2500$, which by no means guarantees that price. These card collectors are very picky about their stuff they want it pristine if they are going to pay top dollar. JM had no way of knowing if all his little cards were in mint condition. You can ask any price you want, but that has nothing to do with what a buyer is willing to pay. I think it would have been extremely generous if JM had taken his word and awarded him the 2500$. But maybe she was so disgusted at the lying D she wanted to punish him.

1 hour ago, VartanFan said:

This guy...I immediately thought he had the kid run in there to check that either his drugs or drug money weren’t missing (sorry but the fact of who his girlfriend was, the dentures at his age, and then encouraging his kid to go into a house that had been broken into...)

I didn't think of that, but yeah - could have been the case. I doubt he had anything of great value in his crib when he can't even pay his own rent, and certainly nothing so urgent he needed to send his own child into a potentially deadly situation. What a pig.

[VartanFan]

OK, so, I tried the toilet paper with 4 different writing instruments.  See picture.  I used a Crayola because it is probably the highest quality of crayon.  The easiest one was the pencil - it glided across the TP without any pulling.  The most difficult was the crayon.  From easiest to write to hardest went:  pencil, pen, Sharpie, crayon.  It wasn’t even close and you can see how light the crayon writing is.  That’s because if I pushed any harder, it would tear the paper.  Take notice, Judge Milan.  ETA - I believe the TP is Angel Soft - middle range brand.

Edited September 22, 2020 by VartanFan

[AZChristian]

41 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

OK, so, I tried the toilet paper with 4 different writing instruments.  See picture.  I used a Crayola because it is probably the highest quality of crayon.  The easiest one was the pencil - it glided across the TP without any pulling.  The most difficult was the crayon.  From easiest to write to hardest went:  pencil, pen, Sharpie, crayon.  It wasn’t even close and you can see how light the crayon writing is.  That’s because if I pushed any harder, it would tear the paper.  Take notice, Judge Milan.  ETA - I believe the TP is Angel Soft - middle range brand.

You are beyond awesome.  

[bref]

@VartanFan is the hero we need in these difficult times.

[CrazyInAlabama]

A woman sees a rental townhouse, or house, puts down $800, and changes her mind.    Landlady felt sorry for woman, and gave $500 back, and ungrateful plaintiff wants the other $300.     I was pleased to see Judge Marilyn let the landlady keep the $300, and said even the money that was returned was a nice gesture, but wasn't required.   The plaintiff had a very strange story about her father, both of their vouchers for housing, and applying for several apartments, and then getting one.    I really didn't like the plaintiff at all.     

The next case is another used car lemon case, but the funny thing is the plaintiff looks like she's being held captive in the plaintiff's table.     So the car was a 2003 model, and if it's entire life was in Massachusetts (where the sale happened), where road salt is a fact of life, then I'm shocked the axles and motor mounts lasted for at least 15 years.  So she bought a car as is, never has a mechanic look at it, and then the motor mount breaks a month later, and engine falls out.    If she would have taken it to a good mechanic, then she would have been shocked at the cost for the mounts, but it would probably still be her car, instead of junk.  

Since when is wearing t-shirts showing the relationship to the deceased a thing?   And who is having a huge funeral now, and to be followed by another huge gathering later?      They should have sued Dior, not the defendant.    Since plaintiff has a long time before the second gathering, then order t-shirts from a national company, with good online reviews, or a real company that does custom tees all of the time.  Plaintiff just wanted a bargain.    However, defendant was incompetent. 

The ads for this week look good, with attempted murder charges, and shooting a car up.   

Edited September 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Hmmmm, running late - so it may be a race to see who posts recap first - 3 cases today

1. Tenant wants deposit: P story is when she saw apartment/house wouldn't be ready on time she backed out of tenancy - says when she asked for deposit back D only gave back $500 of the $800 deposit - she's asking for the rest....... D says she was on schedule for having good work completed when P pulled out - says she returned a part of deposit - even though she didn't have to - out of the goodness of her heart - says she lost a potential renter because of P's flip flop........ ok, all about timing - was apartment ready on time - when did P back out - when did D lose this potential tenant......... ok, sort of bidding war - P spotted place as she was driving by, spotted and D showed her around - nice and friendly with kids having gone to school together - place wasn't ready, but D said work would be done in about a week - when P expressed interest D told her she already had a section 8 tenant expressing interest, but whoever showed up with $800 deposit would get the house - P made arrangement to stay with family for the week, got a money order and went back next day and paid the $800 - ah, but P tells her now it won't be a week - at this point this guy looking good for P, with D changing date - ah, but now P tells us she had put in other applications before making this deal and paying the deposit - not good if D relied on her and turned away the section 8 tenant........ yep, after putting down the deposit with D, one of the other places she had looked at and filled out an application for called to tell her she had been approved - this was why she backed out of deal with D, not the made up story of not being ready....... over to D, who denies the ready in a week story - she says deal was always 2 weeks and it was ready on time - and yes, she had turned away the other potential tenant - oh, and turns out she's an actual realord who also owns/rents and unlike some, knows the laws......... unless we have a switcheroo coming P was actually being nice to give anything and D deserves nothing........ yep, MM agrees, D was nice to give anything and keeps the $300........ 2 nice polite litigants
2. as is car sale gone wrong: 2003 rustbucket Volkswagen Jetta and P wants full $1800+ refund ($1500 plus wants expenses)..... D agrees car had an implied warranty - but it was a limited 7 day warranty and P had car a month before she wanted a refund....... ah, red flag! When she goes to look at car it's not registered - no plates - so no test drive or pesky mechanic check before purchase..... on day she bought clunker it dies twice getting home - she immediately complains and is sent to D's mechanic - his mechanic diagnoses bad gas, but when she takes to different mechanic she's told transmission going out - says she and her Dad try to contact D and return car 1st day she has it, but seems D wasn't answering........ ok, if her story checks out it won't turn out good for D (assuming there really was a 7 day warranty)...... oops, no proof - in fact P submitted texts from that fateful day with complaints about the trunk not opening but nothing about the transmission - like D intro said, she didn't complain about how car ran for a month........ ok, this thing really was a rust bucket - seems she was driving it when suddenly the freeking engine falls to the ground....... over to D and they immediately start arguing about what happened, but the main part checks out - he admits she complained on day 1 about car not running right, and his mechanic telling her it's just bad gas and we get an explanation about how gas can be bad......ok, now we're getting to the implied warranty upon which D is depending - in their State, when someone buys a car with more than 125,000 miles on it they're required to have it inspected and if it fails buyer can back out of sell - D says it's buyer's responsibility to get that inspection and notify seller about a failure - if she doesn't get the inspection done within 7 days she sale becomes binding....... uh oh, did sounds like he knows what he's talking about, we'll have to see if MM agrees......... yep, D is interpreting law correctly according to MM - when MM asks about that all important inspection P starts dancing, she doesn't have the official form required for inspection failure by her State - she couldn't contact her mechanism to get it because of covid, etc, but MM isn't buying it - she gets the form when car is inspected, it's not something she goes back for for the case......... MM eventually waves off P's ramblings - she had no case - car probably was a lemon that should have never been sold, but she loves in a State with excellent consumer protections had she followed the law and gotten the inspection......... ok, great joke from judge hubby, who during comment time refers to case as 'Return of the Jetta'
3. not happy with custom t-shirts: P ordered customers t-shirts from D to be worn by those attending her son's funeral....... have to say, custom T's are not first thing I think of as proper funeral attire - but then different strokes for different folks........ anyway, momma ordered these custom shirts and they were delivered last minute - half day before funeral where D says momma had chance to make any changes, rest delivered day of funeral........ don't like that it sounds like D is making excuses for last minute delivery, saying covid slowed her down - but sounds so far like momma accepted the product and now wants a second set of shirts for a memorial to be held when covid restrictions ease, either of course, D paying for the second set........ ok, mom shows us some of these shirts - they look like crapola - they have pictures and writing already coming off fresh out of package........ thing is, was it mom's responsibility to make sure someone inspected them upon delivery - nope, I say whoever was paid for these should return money since some couldn't be used - so, how much should refund be? Are some usable, or are they all trash - they weren't all designed to match, there are at least 2 colors and some have different wording,  but we're all meant to go together......... ok, delivery was supposed to be 4 days prior to funeral, not afternoon of funeral - mom suing for full replacement cost, even though some shirts mat be good and she was given an $80 friends and family discount (oops, seems the go between that arranged with D to order the shirts pocketed the discount)...... D's explanation of the fiasco is that she couldn't get the proper material delivered because of covid convenient excuse, but could be true - I know when covid hit and threw everything for a loop my normal 2-3 turnaround for cat food order from chewy was taking 2 weeks........ I feel for both these litigants, but wonder where the heck Diora is (these two have never talked, everything was done through this missing Dior person (the one who supposedly pocketed the friends and family discount )........ I'm wondering if D can prove what she's saying - if she can I might say dismiss this case and tell mom to sue Dior - nah, D admits she received $620 for useless product when she should have canceled because she couldn't get right materials....... yep Mom gets $620 and is told to send back trashy shirts if D wants them 

Edited September 22, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Tenant wants deposit: 

Ho hum. Another SSM (are there any other kind on this show? Where are the baby daddies?) who thinks her exhalted status resulting from her bad decisions entitles her to accommodation from everyone, including getting her deposit back on an apartment because she changed her mind = got a cheaper place? She tried to ramble on about how she and her kids were living with her daddy and he got accepted for Sec8 so he had to move and blah blah. Def actually returned 500$ out of 800$ to her - and didn't have to return a penny - but that's not enough. She wants every cent and feels there should be zero consequences to her for backing out of an agreement, I guess due her to SSM status. I'm sorry Def gave her a dime. More nerve than a sore tooth P had. And JM "feels sorry" for her? I didn't, but then I"m a horrible person.

38 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

as is car sale gone wrong:

That was kind of light entertainment. Nothing new but still, I sort of enjoyed it. P, who is no young girl, needs a car or she'll lose her job. She takes Daddy to check out the old heap VW with 150,000 miles on it because he knows about cars, except apparently he doesn't. P couldn't test drive it because it had no plates, but Daddy says it looks good. I guess it had no major body damage and it had Daddy Endorsement, so silly twit buys it for 1500$. Did she take it for inspection? If it failed she was entitled to get her money back. She launches into a monolgue about why she didn't and couldn't afford it and all that nonsense. JM has to interrupt her because nothing she said made a damned bit of sense. Engine falls out, etc. Tough. And we get the tired old, "I don't have those texts where I told seller about the problems immediately because I got a new phone." Yeah, JM has never heard that before. I was expecting D to be some raving lunatic judging by his appearance and background, but he was actually quite coherent and totally right. Why should he have to coddle Daddy's Girl? I wonder if he was a lawyer? Anyway, P can keep her bucket of bolts. Maybe Daddy can get her a new one.

45 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

not happy with custom t-shirts: 

I started to listen to this, but couldn't continue.

3 hours ago, VartanFan said:

OK, so, I tried the toilet paper with 4 different writing instruments.

You're my hero! That is beyond awesome. Someone needs to drop a line to JM to tell her she might want to say, "Nearest roll of toilet paper and nearest pencil" in the future!

[Taeolas]

On 9/21/2020 at 4:00 PM, SRTouch said:

collectible card case

I play Magic the Gathering, so that case is something I know a bit about. 

Those cards listed are some high priced cards. Not Black lotus level, but those are some original dual land cards which are hundreds of dollars (so about 800$ for the lands). The others are probably about a hundred or so each give or take a bit since they are more recent cards and/or have been reprinted recently. 

Quality does matter, but even at "played" quality as they probably were the prices are still going to be quite valuable.

I'm not sure why this guy was sending the cards to the other guy to sell; he probably could've found a local seller (or even a national buyer) to handle the cards and get as much value for it. 

I can understand how things could have happened, since players in the store will often have many decks (to play a game while waiting for a different game) often with those cards in the decks; and soemtimes you do duck outside for a smoke and ask a friend to watch your stuff. For me, I only play "Standard" (a format with only the most recent cards) and I usually only have a single deck, and I don't smoke, so my decks aren't really at risk as much. 

That all said, I disagree with JMM's ruling; he should only have gotten the 2500$ agreed to when the cards changed hands. The guy in Florida lost the cards while they were under his control, so he ultimately gets all the responsibility. 

 

I do sort've wonder if the guy had lent the cards to the Florida guy to play in a tournament and they were stolen, so they made the "selling the cards " story as an explanation. Really if they had been lent, the plaintif would've deserved the current value of the cards I think. 

 

FYI, this is the story from 4 years ago of a store I know that was robbed. The thief grabbed 15,000$ worth of Magic cards, including a 6,700$ Black Lotus card. The police certainly investigated (and I think many of the cards were recovered ultimately). Funnily enough, the store is located literally across the street from the city's main police station. 

[zillabreeze]

Quoteth AngelHunter on 9/15 :

"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. "

Ding. Ding. Ding.  You asked & answered your own question 😁

Enthusiastic chewing is not some big mystery "Canine Anxiety".   It's F-ing Doggy Boredom 101.

Tiny & frail...appeared to be an apartment.  Crates in the background.  I'm sure the P means well, but that's just damned cruel.  Two big ol' waggly labs need a backyard in the 'burbs and a few kids to chase around.

There's oodles of little 15# rescues that would be the perfect fit for P.

Edited September 23, 2020 by zillabreeze
Credit quote to poster

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

Crates in the background.  I'm sure the P means well, but that's just damned cruel.  Two big ol' waggly labs need a backyard in the 'burbs and a few kids to chase around.

Seriously. These are dogs built to plunge into freezing water all day long to retrieve birds. There's an elderly man in my area who is not in very good shape, so he goes and gets two Labs as well, to put in his backyard I guess. A friend of mine knows this man so offered to take the dogs out and asked me if I want to go and take one. The owner cautioned my friend to not take them too far!? We walked them for nearly two hours on a very cold January day and couldn't even take the edge off their energy. I adopted my last dog when she was 9 years old. Her personality and energy level matched mine perfectly, with both of us very happy with two good walks a day.  Getting a breed of dog without regard to its needs, just because it's  "I want!" isn't fair. This is how shelters end up overflowing. "I got this border collie, I work 10 hrs a day and he tore up my house!" Duh. Oh, and dogs aren't cage pets.

3 hours ago, Taeolas said:

I play Magic the Gathering, so that case is something I know a bit about. 

Very interesting! I still think def might have sold the cards and kept the money, or did indeed walk away and leave them there. So he's either dishonest or incredibly careless with someone else's property and then refuses to take any responsibility like a big boy should.

[zillabreeze]

12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Seriously. These are dogs built to plunge into freezing water all day long to retrieve birds. There's an elderly man in my area who is not in very good shape, so he goes and gets two Labs as well, to put in his backyard I guess. A friend of mine knows this man so offered to take the dogs out and asked me if I want to go and take one. The owner cautioned my friend to not take them too far!? We walked them for nearly two hours on a very cold January day and couldn't even take the edge off their energy. I adopted my last dog when she was 9 years old. Her personality and energy level matched mine perfectly, with both of us very happy with two good walks a day.  Getting a breed of dog without regard to its needs, just because it's  "I want!" isn't fair. This is how shelters end up overflowing. "I got this border collie, I work 10 hrs a day and he tore up my house!" Duh. Oh, and dogs aren't cage pets.

"Picking the wrong breed" is the root of the sorry state of shelters, also for the  boom of marauding dogs (mostly pits) & their irresponsible owners.

I blather with other kindred souls on reddit about the subject.  Breeds have DNA that drives behaviour.  You can't love or beat it out of them.  Trying to only ends badly or sadly.   

I walk the walk!  20 years ago, after much research, I found out that greyhounds are lazy as hell, with very short bursts of energy and love to eat.   Oh! oh!  Me too!!!!  🤗🥰Six of six perfect matches.

[VartanFan]

Quote

Another SSM (are there any other kind on this show? Where are the baby daddies?) who thinks her exhalted status resulting from her bad decisions entitles her to accommodation from everyone, including getting her deposit back on an apartment because she changed her mind = got a cheaper place? 

OK - so we hear this all the time - "I'm a single mother. " "I'm a single father." - but I have doubts about if that's true.  I've actually gotten into arguments with my sisters about this.  Just because you're not with the father of your kids any more, doesn't make you a single parent, in my view.  If you share custody, get child support, etc...I dont' consider you a single parent.  If you have kids and the other parent is never around, doesn't contribute time/energy or money, you're not a single parent.  End rant.    I would have liked if the D countersued for the $500 back on the rent deposit. 

[AZChristian]

@VartanFan

Just posted this on The People's Court official Facebook page.  No identities were divulged in my post or in my clip here.  Hope you don't mind.  Your research needed to be shared with the world.

[SRTouch]

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Seriously. These are dogs built to plunge into freezing water all day long to retrieve birds. There's an elderly man in my area who is not in very good shape, so he goes and gets two Labs as well, to put in his backyard I guess. A friend of mine knows this man so offered to take the dogs out and asked me if I want to go and take one. The owner cautioned my friend to not take them too far!? We walked them for nearly two hours on a very cold January day and couldn't even take the edge off their energy. I adopted my last dog when she was 9 years old. Her personality and energy level matched mine perfectly, with both of us very happy with two good walks a day.  Getting a breed of dog without regard to its needs, just because it's  "I want!" isn't fair. This is how shelters end up overflowing. "I got this border collie, I work 10 hrs a day and he tore up my house!" Duh. Oh, and dogs aren't cage pets.

Yes - so often when you hear someone complain their dog is crazy, destruction, aggressive and you find they are providing exactly the wrong environment. Some breeds are made to run, to work, to hunt, etc and will go nuts left alone all day in an apartment. Some want - and need - a job to be happy...... either the human provides the job or the dog will. Chances are the human won't like the dog's choice. If you get a breed bred to hunt and kill small furry critters don't leave them alone with the hamster/kitten/bunny.

Oh, and even many 'cage animals' will go nuts, or get sick and die, because the human bought them as a decoration without a clue for what they need. How many birds are bought as decorations only for the human to learn they are very social (and often messy) critters. Most birds are social and need their 'flock' to be with them - when they're separated from the flock the call - and some parrots are LOUD and can shout the house down.  Soooo, human  sticks them in the back room in the dark to hide the mess around the cage - parrot screams - human gets rid of bird....... some of these birds in print on a single human and live 60 or more years (my cockatiel, Sunny, lived into her 20s)

Edited September 23, 2020 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

1. neighbor feud: D had someone working on his yard cutting down trees. Wouldn't know, a gust a wind caught a tree and it ended up smashing down on P's chain link fence. P wants over $1700 for new fence and cleanup of mess, but D says only a section of the 20 year old fence was damaged and P is overreaching....... yeah, sounds like D's worker was at fault and now P wants to bank......  ok, another aspect - D is contractor who bought vacant lot to develop,  so P was unhappy to see the neighbor trees chopped down and new construction next door - D finished construction and has since sold new house...... my oh my, isn't P a drama queen - I don't blame her for getting upset, especially if she's right about construction going on for a year and she wasn't given a heads up before trees were felled, I mean, just friendly knock on door saying guy will be cutting trees next day, don't worry about big crashes as they fall..... ok, pic of smashed fence, with texts from lumberjacks apologizing and asking for chance to fix it - yeah, she doesn't have to let them do repairs,  but she doesn't get whole new fence, either...... seems both Tree subcontractor and D, general contractor, offered to repair fence, but P not hearing it - she has right to chose the fence contractor - oh, and forget earlier '20 year old fence' comment, her choice was contractor who built fence 2 years ago - what she's saying goes is that when she got the estimate she was told that whole fence line was 'compromised'......... not sure why a tree smashing a section would require a whole new fence line, but maybe she has expert testimony....... after commercial D's case takes another hit - he claims he's a nice guy and was going above and beyond by fixing even more fence then he had to, but now we find out P found out about the repair effort when she looked out the window to see workers ripping out her fence - yep, fence fell, fence guy calls D, they go get what they need to 'fix' it and start repairs without first contacting P....... hmmmmm sort of side note, this was only time D needed a tree contractor - we're talking BIG trees and a small area (80 foot trees and 60 foot wide lot)......... yep, like g D's case less and less - especially now as he seems to be suggesting P should go after the tree contractor - after all he says, the have their own insurance - and MM has to school him on what being a general Contractor means to case - yeah, tree guy's insurance may end up paying him after he pays P......... ok, MM is ready to talk about damage claim - when talking about ghe fence she says 'estimates' with an 's' so I guess more than one. Now that I hear just how big these tress are I can buy it being more involved than just new wire and a couple posts/rails. Could this big tree and cracked all the concrete the posts were set in requiring a much bigger job than I first thought. I f fence WAS only 2 years old I'd say she deserves a new fence on that side - maybe $1400 for matetials/ reward isn't out of line - MM does ask about the extra $300 for cleanup and some of her garden and smashed little trees - MM cuts the cleanup and only awards $100 for cleanup....... ah, now D really steps in it as he wants to keep arguing after the verdict - what he's wanting to add doesn'g help him defense in my eyes - seems P didn't put fence on the property line, but 15 feet onto her property - how does that help? Something to effect that P refused access to cross property line to fix fence. Uh, didn't judge already say P didn't have to let him repair fence? Really, what guy is saying is that instead of falling on the property line the tree (and his construction crew) crossed onto to her property - hearing this I'm ready to bump up clean up award as more of that mess she paid to clean up was caused by his crew trespassing. MM doesn't up the award........ 

No more recap - realized I need to run errands...... oh this is funny - 2 hours  later I come back and see I never save the recap -  but it's still here...... before I go to second case just want to add the two judges' explanation of where P is supposed to sue the defendant was kind D of interesting

Second case was nonsense about some woman felon who supposedly turned her life around after prison and she was going to be featured in a BET documentary - which didn't happen. I missed  out of this as I was feeding the cats and myself dinner. I think the jailbird (JB) was actually was a repeat felon, but not sure. If I heard right, she had a job  at a college helping students get student aid - but she was also did eating money to herself. She was caught and sentenced to prison - this may have happened twice as MM questions how she got ghe job if she was already a convicted felon, and JB explains the college didn't do a background check. Anyway, BET comes a-knocking and JB grabs for her 15 minutes of fame. She hires D who 8x supposed to set up her 'brand' with interviews photo shoots etc. They start out ok, but then somebody ghosts 1 each says the other one stopped answering calls/texts/emails...... what probably happened us BET crossed her off the .use of stories and the money dried up (their deal was 2 grand a month based on what they figured BET MIGHT pay). Sooooooo months after no contract D finally gets an answer to an email - seems this was about time to be doing more publicity as time for supposed filling is coming up. Instead of answering and asking for interview dates etc, P replies with news that BET deal isn't happening,  and, oh by the way, she wants back every penny she paid D for the most the ofmonths of work - to which D replies no refund & she wants to be paid for months of work she never did. Nope, nobody gets anything....... well, the cats ate beef catfood and I hate spaghetti

Edited September 23, 2020 by SRTouch

[VartanFan]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

@VartanFan

Just posted this on The People's Court official Facebook page.  No identities were divulged in my post or in my clip here.  Hope you don't mind.  Your research needed to be shared with the world.

Love it!  If you happen to get a prize, I'll buy it from you.  Just send it to me with a check for $1000 and I'll pay you back when I get my taxes.  

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

The fence case is a total attempt at a bonanza.    To fix a fence that old, they cut the top poles out where they're damaged, and replace the support poles that are damaged, and might have to replace a pole or two.   Then they either restretch the fence or replace a few feet of it.   So the fence lady thinks she'll get notice about trees getting cut down?    Never had that in my life.    

Since the plaintiff claims she saw the tree fall, then why would the tree trimmers, or the builder have to notify her?  I bet that's $500 max for that section of the fence.  What does the woman think the animals, and kids would do with a flattened fence?    Why did Judge Marilyn give that woman so much?   She put the fence way inside the property line, and was going to need to move it anyway, to protect her property rights. 

On a tacky note, plaintiff's under eye liner is hideous.   

What kind of idiot steals student aid funds, serves over a year in Federal pen, and ten years before she did the same thing!     Tell me plaintiff isn't still working at a college, or anywhere with access to student funds?    I hope everyone that sees this will do a decent background check this time, and pick an employee that isn't a twice convicted criminal.   No written contract?     I'm thinking a bonanza for the plaintiff, or the defendant, and it's amazing that their dispute is over $5,000.      I'm guessing the defendant and plaintiff cooked this up together for publicity, and for the money.  

So the criminal plaintiff has her former friend/stylist testify against her, instead of lying to the judge.   I like the ruling, nothing for anyone, because they deserve exactly that, $0.

Edited September 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The fence case is a total attempt at a bonanza. 

Both of them were unlikable, but I detested the arrogant asshole D, Mr. Fisher. I thought P said she installed the fence 2 years ago? Did she really say 20 years and I misunderstood? Def tries to say a puff of wind blew that massive branch so it landed on the fence.  I also wouldn't want the guy who cuts and prunes my trees to repair my fence. "I have children and pets!" declares long-winded P. Oh, shut up. That has nothing to do with anything although it was lucky none of them were standing on that spot when the breeze flung a giant branch around like a matchstick.  Def tries to argue with JM after the decision. That's always a bad move that gets litigants a worse dressing-down and was so here.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What kind of idiot steals student aid funds, serves over a year in Federal pen, and ten years before she did the same thing!

That was hilarious, in a really bad way. P, who seems to having trouble lifting her eyelids with the massive fake lashes, sits telling JM about her being a thief as though it's some sort mark of distinction. The thieving was one thing, but the tale of how it happened quite another. A college give her a position of trust in dealing with student loans. She pays them back by stealing the students' money. (did she go to jail this time?) Anyway, another college where they don't believe in doing background checks for people to make sure they aren't hiring a rapist, a murderer or a thief also hire her in the same position of trust. Well, she just couldn't restrain herself and her sticky fingers and steals from them too! Gets her butt thrown in the slammer for a year and day, although she was careful to say that was her sentence. I'd be very suprised if she served even a small part of it. All of this qualifies her to get her own "branding"- whatever that is -  done by D and which costs a fortune. I wonder where the got 2k/mth to pay for these services? Is she working at another college? She appeared on some show called "Gangsters". Some gangster, stealing from two colleges and being stupid enough to get caught both times. Bad ass! By the time the def finished giving some 5-minute monologue and Gazelle was brought in, I gave this up.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

 

What kind of idiot steals student aid funds, serves over a year in Federal pen, and ten years before she did the same thing!     Tell me plaintiff isn't still working at a college?    I hope everyone that sees this will do a decent background check this time.    The federal pen time was for the second arrest for stealing student funds, she apparently didn't have jail time for the first offense. 

[BigBingerBro]

I wish we heard more about how the Gangster Plaintiff has changed her ways.  I really don't care to look her up.  If the way she treated the defendant is any indication of her new ways, it's not terribly impressive.  I also thought her photo shoot pictures were awful.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Both of them were unlikable, but I detested the arrogant asshole D, Mr. Fisher. I thought P said she installed the fence 2 years ago? Did she really say 20 years and I misunderstood? Def tries to say a puff of wind blew that massive branch so it landed on the fence. 

I heard her say 2 years, too.  I think Def was setting up to say the "puff of wind" was an act of God, but never got the chance.

12 minutes ago, BigBingerBro said:

I wish we heard more about how the Gangster Plaintiff has changed her ways.  I really don't care to look her up.  If the way she treated the defendant is any indication of her new ways, it's not terribly impressive.  I also thought her photo shoot pictures were awful.

I don't think she ever really said she had changed her ways.  She wanted to "brand" herself  as a person who has served time for a felony, convinced a new employer that they didn't need to do a background check on her, and brag about the fact that she was going to be on a TV show about crooks.  I don't get it.