The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

I got different cases than SRTouch. I didn't get all of the first case before it was butted in to, but it was boring and stupid anyway. The def's "Aren't I adorable?" attitude, huge fake lashes, huge, grotesque fake talons, huge fake hair and dizzying multitude of tats which she seemed to dress specifically to display to JM and to the world had my head spinning. Lovebirds, who cohabited for 12 years, wanted JM to dissect the pots and pans and tangled up funds of their lives. I don't know if she was able to do that and don't care at all.

Then we had a SS(of course)M who planned a year in advance for her daughter's "epic" (her word) high school prom in an extravagant manner usually seen by those planning a "Cinderella" wedding, with a 1,000$ dress and over 100 guests, all of which had to be canceled due to the Plague. Def party planner refuses to return to her the money she paid him. He lies and says he bought a bunch of stuff for this particular "epic" party but that's not true and he has no proof. He sits there with his brand-new, dollar store "NO REFUNDS OR EXCHANGES" sign behind him, but his contract mentions nothing about that. It comes down to his business hurting for the same reason everyone else is hurting, so he has to give the 1,575$ dollars back.

JM heavily sympathizes with SSM since her own youngest, perfect daughter was also deprived of a huge, blow-out event to celebrate in grand style the fact that she managed to get through high school. I tell you, these girls will be scarred for life!

[AZChristian]

Football here.  No PC.  Grrrr.

[Taeolas]

Well if you missed the new ep, then you missed the "good"? news. Harvey's now reading the Viewer questions before he answers them. So there isn't 30 seconds of dead air with the text on the screen any more. 

My TPC feed (and most of my court show feeds) are from My38 Boston, and I think I get the same cases as @AngelaHunter gets. 

[Maverick]

 I don't think MM was saying her HS kid was special at all.   Senior year is a big deal for any kid and the experience of those last few months isn't something you can make up.  The grads of 2020 will never experience something nearly every other American has or will.   It's kind of a big deal.  

[VartanFan]

Monday's episode showed a marked difference in the setup for me.  MM's video feed is poorer and it doesn't match the old 'bench' look exactly anymore (doesn't line up).  Oh, those eyelashes on both mom and daughter...yowza.  

I really thought that cell phones are paid in advance.  As in, you pay early September for the month of September.  

Also, Judge John is dressed down but looks more uncomfortable somehow. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's rerun is a new episode with the remotes, and Judge John.   Loser film actor borrows a lot of money from his new girlfriend, and was in the midst of a custody battle.     Another woman who's so desperate for a boyfriend, that she'll pay for the privilege.  

Then there are the plaintiffs suing their former mover over damages to their previous rental, however the plaintiffs can't prove anything against the defendant.    I find it hard to sympathize with two people doing their remote from some gigantic modern home in Malibu.    I find the plaintiffs case ridiculous.    The door frame that's cracked didn't happen from someone opening the dead bolt, and slamming the door.    That's frame damages from a door that was kicked in.  The movers admit to one scratched door.     How nice,  rich plaintiffs get a ton more than they deserve, and plaintiff man also tried to screw movers out of extra overtime, and items moved he signed to authorize.     Movers get $196 after damages that can't be proven are deducted from movers' shortfall.    

Both of the plaintiffs look familiar, maybe actors?   

Edited October 6, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AZChristian]

That second case sounds familiar.  My cable guide isn't showing this one.

[SRTouch]

short time relationship comes with a loan: not only were these two newly dating, but it's a long distance relationship - apparently they only dated when the woman came to town - after a few weeks, he's moaning about not having money to pay his lawyer in a custody battle, so she forks over $2500 - he admits he received the money - problem is he says it was an open ended loan - another one of those 'she offered, I didn't ask' so he thinks of it as gift or a loan he'll start repaying someday - oh, she thought they were exclusive - him, not so much, just casual not really even dating...... for whatever reason, once he got the money he says he wasn'the in contact with miss money bags - question, since this was open ended and both sides it was a loan he would pay back someday, what does MM consider a reasonable time frame for him to start paying it back (been over a year)...... new excuse, he says she wanted it back in 1 lump sum and he never had $2500 - nope, MM ain't buying it, says he could have been squirrel ing away money over the past year and paid it back in a lu,P sum if he tried......... ah, MM asks when the lovebirds broke up - if i have the timeline right, she give him money on day week - sends birthday gifts and plans a surprise birthday the next weekend - which he cancels as he's busy - they get together the next weekend, 'the chemistry is gone' and 2 weeks after she hands over money the relationship is over........ oh, and she  disputes his lump sum excuse, and seems to have text evidence - his next attempt to weave and dodge is to claim P turned into crazy stalker mode, driving the hour plus drive and popping out of the shadows in his parking lot - MM not that interested and obviously not impressed with anything going this guy is selling - MM ruling against dude, but takes time to issue stern bashing to woman who foolishly gave dude she barely knew $2500 with no real set plan - ONLY reason she's getting money back is that D admits to loan and has repeatedly been caught in lies with evidence from texts....... P gets her $2500

Movers damaged walls: this is apparently the third move this company has done for P - few years ago he hired them to move him into his old place, now wants to move into a new place with his gf, and hires them to move him and the gf from their old separate places to the new common place - according to P when the movers were mover stuff into the new place the dinged the entry door and the wall pretty good - he says he pointed out the damage to the movers at the time - of course D isn't the one who was told and denies everything - says P just after a money grab - ah, but one of the actual movers is ready to slide into the chair........ actually, mover backs up P about the exchange, but says at time P pointed it out P said not to worry well, he admits to dinging wall, but denies the door damage - door turns out to be metal garage door and picture shows a BIG ding - talking smash/dent/money - he denies it would be possible to damage the metal door, but this isn'the old days when the frame would have been built to last, this is more lightweight pretty metal that seems to bend if you look at it too hard........ sooooooo I missed how much he wants, but sounds like he deserves something - how much he gets to be determined - on P side is fact that he has the walk through inspection listing damage at the new place, and this VERY noticeable damage was not seen prior to movers moving - ah, but it appears the early estimate for repair has ballooned from under a grand to 4 grand - Judges don't like to see estimate quadruple as case goes to court (remembering get it could be legit - it might look at it as a lay person and quesstimate a figure only to have professional come in and say they need to replace whole frame........ oh dear - this big estimate is type written estimate with no signature - then there is door damage at gf's old apartment - yeah, I see the damage, but this time movers don't admit to anything, and the old landlord apparently kept over 2 grand for a new door?....... rough justice - well, turns out P still owes over a grand for the move - MM tosses most of the damages as either unproven or inflated - net result, D gets a couple hundred bucks........

[BigBingerBro]

Hmm in my area we had Dog Park Dodger and Tenants from Hell.  Seemed like a new one.

[SRTouch]

37 minutes ago, BigBingerBro said:

Hmm in my area we had Dog Park Dodger and Tenants from Hell.  Seemed like a new one.

Hmmm apparently my provider is out of sync -  I'll stop recaps until it looks like we've caught up

[CrazyInAlabama]

SRTouch-that's the recent rerun I had this morning (I have a rerun at 10 a.m., and 3 p.m. is the new one).    The rerun is a remote one, probably from the beginning of the season, because Judge John was still wearing a suit, and looking uncomfortable.  

 

That's the one I'm watching now.   The Lying Dog  Owner, and the Tenants from Hell, and it's new.   Judge John looks so comfortable on camera now.    The dog attack at the dog park case defendant is such a liar.   

The landlady in the tenant case certainly bought a building with a lot of problems.     So the tenants want the leak fixed, keep putting it off at their own request, , and are mad the landlady didn't fix the leak requiring the wall getting ripped out?    The texts from the tenants are horrible.   I'm guessing the tenants have the same issues everywhere they live.     The air conditioning filter issue is ridiculous.    The tenant's threat to turn everyone's electricity off is despicable.   The tenants are absolutely liars, and housing inspectors say that the tenants did complain exactly as the landlady says.    

Tenants get no rent back, but get their security deposit back $1250 (minus $250). 

Edited October 6, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[BigBingerBro]

Those tenants/defendants seemed like they probably had a long history of creating stress and sueing landlords.

[seacliffsal]

Ok, it's probably just me, but I liked Judge John wearing a suit-kind of implies the importance of court.  Oh well.  I over all enjoy these segments.  And, dare I say it?  I enjoy Harvey answering legal questions.

I was really surprised in the no-prom party case that JM asked the mom if she was buying champagne for the party.  She was probably kidding, but the mom answered it seriously (no, my child is autistic so she doesn't drink and we didn't serve alcohol...).  I guess that I didn't like JM promoting the idea of serving alcohol at a prom party.  Yes, I know that a LOT of teens drink-especially on prom night (high school teacher for over 30 years...) but that doesn't mean that someone in a seemingly powerful position (albeit a t.v. judge, not a "real" judge) should be seen as advocating or supporting parents supplying alcohol (which is a HUGE issue as many parents state that they would rather the kids drink at their home rather than elsewhere [of course, every kid there other than their own are drinking "elsewhere"]).  Okay, I'm off of my soapbox now...

[AngelaHunter]

Saw the word "dog". Skipped that case. I did watch the Tenants from Hell - two big beastly bullies who practiced petty tyranny over the other tenants - denying them use of the laundry facilities and gloating that they were able to shut off the power to the others, but out of their largesse and benevolence would not do it - for now. Apparently the utility bills they were supposed to pay were for everyone in the building and not separate. When JM asked them if it was true they threatened to turn off the power to the other tenants, both of them adamantly and with expressions of shock and outrage insisted they did not! JM reads to them from an email which proves they absolutely did that. JM wants an explanation. "OH, well... maybe, uh, err, I was confused, or ahh..." I wish JM had let her continue stumbling and stammering along and making an utter fool of herself with her lies after being caught but alas, she was cut off.

Unfortunately, they had the perfect victim in the naive landlord, who had never landlorded(?) before and of course, would never think or dream of finding out the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants and did no background checks. JM zeroed in pretty quickly that the nasty plaintiffs have probably done this before to get free housing. There's no hot water = place is uninhabitable therefore they won't pay. Except there was hot water.There's a leak in the kitchen = place is unhabitable so why should they pay? Landlord puts off fixing the leak at their request so they could have a Holly Jolly Christmas, then they complain when the work is being done in January. Landlord was just as silly. She orders them out but still wants rent for them breaking the lease. Yeah, sure. The nasty liars also want back their security deposit. Oh, but they left damage and filth behind for which landlord had to pay. Pictures? Why, no - she never thought about that. I guess she just uses her phone for nasty pics. Plaintiffs brought pics of the place looking s*** 'n span. Did they take them when they left, or when they moved in? Who knows?

JM told def, "What you don't know about being a landlord could fill a book." Well, this is normally the case with all the landlords we see here. Why do people want to be landlords, again? There must be a good reason but I forget what it is.

JM acknowledges how unbearable these scamming brutes were, but lets landlord keep only 200$ of the 1500$ deposit since def didn't think to bring a single shred of proof, other than a 100$ cleaning bill, of her claims.

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

SRTouch-that's the recent rerun I had this morning (I have a rerun at 10 a.m., and 3 p.m. is the new one).    The rerun is a remote one, probably from the beginning of the season, because Judge John was still wearing a suit, and looking uncomfortable.  

Ah ha - as I recall my provider started showing new cases after every one else this season. Just went and flipped through my channel guide. Lo and behold it says I now get two episodes a day. Says  a new episode tomorrow at my normal time (11), and a recent rerun at 4. I had DVR set to only record new episodes, so the afternoon showings have been skipped. The guide just says the new episode is "Fireworks over fence" and I wonder if that is the fence feud I recapped when I THOUGHT season started. Betting they swapped the new and old, and since they skipped the first few new episodes this season is didn't realise I was watching a rerun yesterday and today. Going to record both and see what tomorrow brings.

[Schnickelfritz]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM told def, "What you don't know about being a landlord could fill a book."

I thought she said "could fill a library". Guess I was projecting. LOL

[CrazyInAlabama]

It used to be that TPC played here at 8 am, with a rerun, and then if there was a new one or a recent rerun, that one was at 10 a.m..    Then the local station showed the new one at 8, and older one at 10 a.m., but they didn't show the description at the right times.    Then they switched the new one to 3 p.m., and the rerun was 10 a.m.     Keeping up with my local station is not easy.    

With a lot of filming (the remodeling shows, etc), the air conditioning, heat has to be turned off during filming, so if Judge Marilyn, and Judge John are just sitting in the end of a room, without air conditioning, then I bet Judge John was too hot with the suit coat.     He certainly seemed more relaxed on camera, and seems to be enjoying himself to.  

I would love to see the look on the new landlord's face when they saw the tenants from hell case, and realized they would be the next target. 

This afternoon's new one is called Fireworks Over a Fence.  

This morning's rerun was the Log Cabin case, where the defendant claims he's been building for 20 years, and ever client was happy.     Then there's the strange case of the woman suing her neighbor after her fence, and garage burned, and plaintiff is claiming the neighbor did it, or the roofers working on the neighbor's house did it, but no proof of anything. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[aemom]

On 10/5/2020 at 6:39 PM, AngelaHunter said:

The def's "Aren't I adorable?" attitude, huge fake lashes, huge, grotesque fake talons, huge fake hair and dizzying multitude of tats which she seemed to dress specifically to display to JM and to the world had my head spinning. Lovebirds, who cohabited for 12 years, wanted JM to dissect the pots and pans and tangled up funds of their lives. I don't know if she was able to do that and don't care at all.

She said that she was a hairdresser.  Seriously, how do you cut hair (not to mention tend to other personal needs) when you have fingernails like that?  There was some serious whining on both sides.

 

On 10/5/2020 at 6:39 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Then we had a SS(of course)M who planned a year in advance for her daughter's "epic" (her word) high school prom in an extravagant manner usually seen by those planning a "Cinderella" wedding, with a 1,000$ dress and over 100 guests, all of which had to be canceled due to the Plague.

Normally, these litigants are a PITA, but she wasn't trying to use that designation to take advantage of anyone here.  She mentioned that because she needed to start saving early for the party because she was paying for it on her own.  I think it is ridiculous to spend that kind of money of a prom, but if she's earning all that money on her own, then she has a right to spend it the way she wants I guess.

 

On 10/5/2020 at 6:39 PM, AngelaHunter said:

JM heavily sympathizes with SSM since her own youngest, perfect daughter was also deprived of a huge, blow-out event to celebrate in grand style the fact that she managed to get through high school. I tell you, these girls will be scarred for life!

Actually JM's daughter also graduated from college as well, so they had two in this position. 

To be honest, I think it is hard.  It's not just the proms, but graduation ceremonies as well.  Both my sons graduated last year - one from high school and the other from junior college.  My eldest won a top academic award and did not tell us so it was a complete and utter shock when we found out at the ceremony.  My son had many issues in school for many years for a litany of reasons and some days were very hard and dark in our house.  I can't begin to tell you how incredible it was to be able to sit there and watch him receive that award after everything we had all gone through for so many years.  If he had graduated this year, we would have never had that special moment.

These proms and graduation ceremonies.  You really never get those back again.  It's sad...

 

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Unfortunately, they had the perfect victim in the naive landlord, who had never landlorded(?) before and of course, would never think or dream of finding out the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants and did no background checks. JM zeroed in pretty quickly that the nasty plaintiffs have probably done this before to get free housing.

Landlorded works for me!

Seriously, how do you spend that much money on real estate, and then rent out units without really doing your research.  Most people wouldn't lend their car out to a stranger and your car is worth much less that any sort of house you would buy, but you blindly rent it out without knowing all the rules? I don't get it!

 

Judge John has ditched his jacket and tie starting this week.  I am sad, I was enjoying them.  And they've moved their chairs closer together and now he sits ramrod straight in that chair making him look very uncomfortable.  It was a better setup before.

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by aemom
Forgot my Judge John comment

[Katy M]

3 hours ago, aemom said:

Actually JM's daughter also graduated from college as well, so they had two in this position. 

To be honest, I think it is hard.  It's not just the proms, but graduation ceremonies as well.  Both my sons graduated last year - one from high school and the other from junior college.  My eldest won a top academic award and did not tell us so it was a complete and utter shock when we found out at the ceremony.  My son had many issues in school for many years for a litany of reasons and some days were very hard and dark in our house.  I can't begin to tell you how incredible it was to be able to sit there and watch him receive that award after everything we had all gone through for so many years.  If he had graduated this year, we would have never had that special moment.

These proms and graduation ceremonies.  You really never get those back again.  It's sad...

I didn't go to my prom and didn't much care bout the graduation ceremony.  However, I have had other once in a lifetime things that were important.  It's nobody's fault that these things can't happen right now, but it kind of annoys me when people act like others dont' have the right to feel sad about it.  Are proms as important as the death tolls racking up?  Of course not. But, that doesn't mean that they're not important at all, and it doesn't mean that people don't get to regret missing out on them.

[SRTouch]

May or may not be a recent rerun - pretty sure my provider is back in sync since this matches what @CrazyInAlabama says his channel guide has - I'm also seeing the adjustments to the after verdict set and Harvey reading questions as others have mentioned

fireworks over fence: this case is actually a hoot - P hires D to install a fence and gives him $1600 cash deposit - by Sunday she's texting that her plans have changed and she no longer wants the fence - problem is, not only is this Sunday, this is EASTER Sunday - D doesn't respond - 10:30-11pm that night she goes to his house to ask why he didn't answer her texts and demand a refund - whoa! MM says this Lady be crazy! - anyway, D says he has already purchased some materials, they go back and forth a little - D agrees to dig out the order and see how much money he spent to determine amount of refund - P eventually agrees fence project back on and leaves - next Friday P has changed her mind again and as D starts to leave his house P is back with her hubby - big kerfuffle - P wants D to come with them to bank to get out cash for full receipt - D refuses to get it in car with strangers - says P hubby pulled a knife and started walking towards D's truck saying he'd fix it so D can't drive until he accompanies P to bank for a full refund -  D runs and grabs his shotgun, tells his partner to call cops and come video the lunatics - dealing videos - no knife in sight but we see D holding the shotgun (not pointed at P) - at this point D looks like the sane one, but now he starts lying - MM asks for the proof he spent any money, but D 'doesn't have the receipt/purchase order at this time' - dude works out of home, so MM highly skeptical he bought anything - D lying to keep part of deposit without proof brings into question his whole knife story, so waiting this see if cops found a knife when/if they arrive and check - until the receipt story I was thinking D has good cause to keep part of deposit but not looking so kindly toward D now.......... ah, MM now showing us texts - they have the kerfuffle on Friday, but guess the project isn't canceled and D going to start building next week - Saturday she's sending a series of texts hoping to get the fence done RIGHT AWAY - talking like a text every few minutes on a Saturday morning going asking to meet at Home Depot to pick the vinyl for the vinyl fence - after a number of texts D finally answers saying he's busy and will work on her project Monday - oh, and apparently between time she sent first text on Saturday and hiSunday answer 2 hours later she went FB sleuth and started sending messages to his friends/sisters ranting that they needed to get him started on her job - sounds like D not only should have good case for keeping part of deposit (even without materials receipts) he should get something for harrassment........ hoboy - as if everything else wasn't far enough over the top, P proceeds to post scathing review, written Monday morning at 9am of day he was supposed to start work, review starts out "Scammer!!!!!" Goes on to claim D was paid but did not work, oh and "drugs play a big part on why he can'take get a job done." Getting to see why MM has obviously been against P from outset........... next part has me ROFLMAO - MM ready to announce decision, and I learn not only is P wanting full $1600 deposit refunded, but wants additional $5000 for emotional distress - yeah, right, she doesn't get anything for her upset....... countersuit and again with D not having any evidence "at this time" part of his claim is for slashed tires, says he called cops twice after P and hubby showed up at his home - but has no police reports......... MM not exactly happy with Mer Not at this time Defendant, either. I was leaning towards letting him keep the whole deposit as a wash for her defaming him in the review, but MM only let's him keep half - P gets $800 - both judges feel P would have deserved full refund had she not gone nuclear and posted review - neither believe much of anything D testified 

covid canceled wedding - want back venue deposit: one of those special circumstances where maybe the contract isn't the final word - neither of these parties breached their written contract - the State stepped in and covid precautions prevented the ceremony - P rescheduled and did ceremony elsewhere - D says, despite "no refund" clause they offered to reschedule once restrictions were lifted, which sounds reasonable....... sort of tough for me to decide before testimony - if State mandates canceled wedding neither side purposely breached, and D isn't out anything since they weren't reserving the venue that they could have rented to someone else  - we'll see what testimony reveals........ about a month out covid really started shutting things down and D tells wedding planner maybe they should cancel/delay - after a talk with bride (P) they cancel and D sends partial refund with rest to be refunded later (maybe, D wife needed to talk with hubby about whether to refund whole deposit) - meanwhile, wedding planner finds a venue still willing to hold ceremony - of course lawsuit is for other 3 grand that D decided not to refund - oh, and P says when D heard about the venue switch to wedding planner's new choice D not only wouldn'the refund money but threatened to report wedding planner, new venue owners, and any vendors and all face 10 grand fines for participating in an illegally held event....... over D - dude acting pretty dense - MM asks in a couple different ways, could D have fulfilled the contract as written - uh no, but not my fault, your honor - uh, but they paid you for something good yhey didn'the get - but we offered to reschedule - they are under no obligation to reschedule, and bottom line you were paid for services you did not provide........ D admits they were willing to refund the money, but seek to have gotten backs up when P found the alternate venue and held an "illegal" wedding.......... sounds like she's saying she wants the other three grand as sort of a fine for holding an illegal wedding - nope, not how it works....... sounds like MM is saying refund would be going to P based on fact D could not provide the service - D originally agreed to return the money, as they should have, but then changed their minds because wedding planner find someone willing to break covid restrictions - problem is, not D's place to enforce State mandates and collect a $3200 fine...... ok, case pretty much over, but a few minutes are spent on the kerfuffle following the discovery of wedding being held by D's competitor -seems someone showed up at date/time of original wedding site and D followed them to discover where the wedding is taking place - not relevant to case, but makes good tv as D took video at the new (illegal) venue......... ah ha - as MM is ruling P interrupts to argue the she no longer agrees to accept $3200 when she actually paid $4200 - says she was willing to forgive that extra grand when D agreed to refund $3200, but now that she had to sue to get the 3 grand she ought to get the whole $4200...... MM agrees, tells P has has an excellent point, and orders D to refund the full amount $4355.05 (thinking we were talking 4200 but see on scene actually 4300)....... hallterview has D agreeing and saying decision was as expected - guess they're here because of principles

Edited October 7, 2020 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

8 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

covid canceled wedding - want back venue deposit:

Predictably, JM agreed with the whiny bride and rewarded her for ignoring and violating her State's COVID guidelines.

[CrazyInAlabama]

 

I wouldn't have given the fence plaintiff a dime.    

I think the decision to reward the bridezilla for breaking the law, and endangering people was ridiculous.     The contract said no refunds, so bridezilla shouldn't have received anything.      Events like that are how superspreads happen, and it's not as if the bride didn't have her big day, endangering a lot of people.   

In my view, everyone at the second venue site at the Covid restriction breaking should have had a citation (here they are $500 per adult for attending, you don't want to know what the event venue would have been fined, but it would be more than the event costs the bride to hold).    The bride was not coming to court with clean hands, and I'm wondering how many people got sick from her wedding? 

 I think this is a simple contract case, where the venue offered to reschedule, and had no obligation to do that.    The big issue a lot of people have with rescheduling, or canceling  a wedding is they lose the venue payments, and deposits to many of the other providers.   So no refunds is pretty standard for venues.  Bridezilla was only being given a refund because the venue owners felt sorry that she could only have a tiny wedding, in a relative's yard.   I wouldn't have given her a penny either.     At least I know the venue owners aren't out any money on this, because the show pays the awards.    The bride did violate the quarantine rules, and I don't care about her feelings about having a 60 person wedding.    

I understand being disappointed over not having your dream wedding, but not endangering people so you have nice pictures.   Since the money comes from the show, I think Judge M should have refused to give anything back to the bride, and instead donated that to a charity supporting food pantries or something.     I just don't get the brides that want everyone to put their life on hold, and ignore their safety to have a one day event.    

Edited October 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

fireworks over fence: 

That customer (and her aggressive husband) is one major reason I would never get into that kind of business; the risk of encountering such determined kooks is too high. On the other hand, I was annoyed with the defendant coming up with the lame excuse he did not have some of the alleged evidence with him "at this time". That is not even excusable when you have to get your keister over to a real courtroom, but he was at home, which is also his place of business!

I though JM was overly generous with the plaintiff; considering her relentless pursuit of the defendant, her lies on various Web sites and her going into overdrive because he did not respond immediately to her texts on Easter Sunday, she got too much money as a refund. I was also surprised that JM did not pursue the "My husband decided not to allow me to open up a daycare". She did allude to the husband being a contributing factor to the escalation.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I understand being disappointed over not having your dream wedding, but not endangering people so you have nice pictures.   Since the money comes from the show, I think Judge M should have refused to give anything back to the bride, and instead donated that to a charity supporting food pantries or something.     I just don't get the brides that want everyone to put their life on hold, and ignore their safety to have a one day event.    

It's the idea of the grandiose wedding that happens only once in your life that has been sold (to brides especially) by the media and popular culture; you have to pursue it no matter the risks and the costs. Fines for everyone should have happened, I agree. I understand the fustration of the defendants who abided by the public health rules and then saw a competitor violating them, with their former customer as an accomplice.

And I like your idea of JM awarding the money to a charity, but I do not know if she has the latitude to do that since that would be a third party with no standing in the case.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, aemom said:

To be honest, I think it is hard.  It's not just the proms, but graduation ceremonies as well.

I concede! I'm wrong to look askance at high school graduations conducted like weddings with limos, 1K dresses, etc. Mea culpa! I'm obviously a relic of a bygone age when I attended my graduation in the high school gym wearing a 12$ dress, and I need to get with the new program. Hey, I'm the person whose brother offered to give more of his "obsolete technology" so I should shut up about today's trends. I know nothing!

So, today's wild 'n wacky fence fight again made me ever so glad I never dealt with the public in my career. P wants a fence for a daycare, but then boyfriend/husband tells her she can't have it so she wants her deposit back. I wouldn't have appreciated some maniac pounding on my door at 11p.m (or even at 10:45pm), psycho-texting me, ordering me to follow them to the bank, or looking up my family members on FB to tell them they need to kick my ass. D claimed he felt fear at P and her boyfriend showing up at his house, but instead of calling the cops he goes inside to grab his shotgun. Def was the usual contracting liar who claims he purchased a bunch of materials the day after obtaining the contract (deposit of 1600$ paid all in cash, of course) but when JM asks him for proof, says "I can't show you that at this time", even though he's at home. Did he think this was her first rodeo with liars? He also called the police, but again can't show a police report "at this time."  Maybe he could show it at another time. He also lied about the slashed tires. However, the crazy P stalking him and telling the world he's a drug addict because she's a lunatic who just couldn't control herself cost her half the refund she wanted and I was sorry she got anything. "You all are crazy", JM opines. I agree. I had a fence put in. The contractor came over with a contract, outlining everything I wanted. He gave a price. I gave him a cheque as a deposit, he came a week so later and did the fence. I paid the balance. The end. No guns, knives or FB stalking. It's like some people just enjoy high drama.

The bride started speaking and I thought, "Oh, no. Another droner who is giving her rehearsed autobiography" because JM really needed to know where she and her groom were "born and raised". Shut up. JM doesn't give a rat's ass about that. The wedding of the decade must go on but defs aren't willing to have more than 10 for so guests,  so bride finds a venue that doesn't care about the spread of this disease and lets her have 52 guests. Defs are mighty pissed, to the point of tailing some guests to find out where the wedding was being held (at a competitor's venue), tresspassing and they video the affair. P offered to let them keep 1,000$ of the 4K+ that she paid them ( why do litigants think it's necesssary to include the 00.05cents? Can't they just round it off?) but that wasn't good enough for defs. Of course we know the show will pay the bride the full amount she paid and the defs get to keep that full amount for doing nothing so not sure why they were still bitching to Doug in the Hall.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I agree. I had a fence put in. The contractor came over with a contract, outlining everything I wanted. He gave a price. I gave him a cheque as a deposit, he came a week so later and did the fence. I paid the balance. The end. No guns, knives or FB stalking. It's like some people just enjoy high drama.

Where's the fun in that? That was actually one thing in her review rant that was true - if you want a fence hire a real contractor - may cost a bit more, but you probably won't have to chase them for a receipt

《Ever read one of your own posts and wonder it means because of auto correct or that pesky function where your tablet finishes your word》

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by SRTouch

[aemom]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I concede! I'm wrong to look askance at high school graduations conducted like weddings with limos, 1K dresses, etc. Mea culpa! I'm obviously a relic of a bygone age when I attended my graduation in the high school gym wearing a 12$ dress, and I need to get with the new program. Hey, I'm the person whose brother offered to give more of his "obsolete technology" so I should shut up about today's trends. I know nothing!

I agree with you 100% about spending insane money on these events. I joked with my son when buying his prom suit: "I love you dear, but not that much. Let's find another one that fits." 😀

[aemom]

For the wedding case, I was trying to see on that video if people were spaced out appropriately. 

I have seen some photos of weddings where people did a good job of arranging the seating and whatnot.

Nobody actually pulled out what the rules were in that area on that day. Was she allowed 10 people? 50 people? There was a lot of talk that people should have been fined, but it was never clarified. 

I would not have been comfortable having or attending even a socially distant wedding these days, but that's just me. I haven't even eaten inside a restaurant since January. 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, aemom said:

For the wedding case, I was trying to see on that video if people were spaced out appropriately. 

I have seen some photos of weddings where people did a good job of arranging the seating and whatnot.

Nobody actually pulled out what the rules were in that area on that day. Was she allowed 10 people? 50 people? There was a lot of talk that people should have been fined, but it was never clarified. 

I would not have been comfortable having or attending even a socially distant wedding these days, but that's just me. I haven't even eaten inside a restaurant since January. 

Yes, it looked like a fairly large outdoor area with room for 50 people to maintain distancing....... OTOH, it looked like several clumps of people - the clumps may have been distancing, but the people within the clumps were not - also did not see masks - who knows, maybe the clumps were individual households? ....... still, MM missed a chance to at least slap bride on wrist about ignoring guidelines

[DoctorK]

First new case today, wow what a nasty defendant! I think JM got it exactly correct, the vile defendant was just stiffing the plaintiff. I wish JM would have slapped down the defendant really hard for not shutting up and yelling over the judge. I would have turned off her audio and let us watch her ranting into a dead microphone, and making sure the defendant knew it. Also, points for the plaintiff, he made the bed before going on camera.

Edited October 8, 2020 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

What a nasty defendant in the $1090 payment owed case.   I bet the defendant tries to cheap every person that works on her house.   If you take down a wall, and door, you are going to end up with a hole in the flooring, and tile.   

Defendant needs a tile and flooring specialist to see if they can match the tile, and a transition to match the wood.    The plaintiff worked for defendant quite a few times over the years.  

I'm so happy that Judge Marilyn gave plaintiff the money he earned, $1090.    Everyone who ever worked for the defendant should refuse to work for her after this.    

Another parking lot door assault on an innocent car.   Do you think the defendant said she is a mom enough times?   Cheap bid for Judge Marilyn's sympathy.   Also, what relevance does the fact the defendant's car was hit by a drunk driver, and spent months in the repair shop?

Another accident that the defendant claims she is at fault, but it shouldn't really be her fault because she doesn't want to pay.   Defendant's insurance company said defendant didn't have enough coverage to pay the damage to plaintiff's car.    Plaintiff gets $648, and court costs.   Plaintiffs' insurance company will pay him, and then go after defendant's insurance company for all of the shortages. 

 

[Florinaldo]

We have seen many despicable litigants trying to stiff workers who worked on their homes (often older women), but this one may well be the most loathsome ever.

She kept insisting how admirable it was that she did not sue him; as if it is more objectionable from a moral standpoint to sue someone than to deny them payment which they legitimately earned for work they performed, just because she has a problem with someone else entirely but decided to take it out on the plaintiff. I hope she gets a well deserved bad reputation among contractors in her area.

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Another accident that the defendant claims she is at fault, but it shouldn't really be her fault because she doesn't want to pay. 

A perfect encapsulation of so many litigants on court shows.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

First new case today, wow what a nasty defendant!

I love contract cases! I loved this! I adored the shrieking witch, Sondra Schneider, who as she screeched over JM sounded like someone put a microphone in a henhouse just as the fox was breaking in.  Okay, first of all: What kind of nitwit hires a contractor by the hour (75$ an hour at that) and not by the job!? Oh, Sondra does that. If it's hourly, you can pretty well count on him (generic "him". Not implying that Willy is anything but honest) taking an hour to install a new switchplate on the wall. And then Sondra thinks Willy is somehow responsible because there are no tiles under the wall she wanted removed and he should pay for a complete new tile job in her kitchen? Are you nuts, Schneider? But she paid Adam, because he was so big and so scary she felt she had no choice. She couldn't call the cops for some reason, but she was just so intimidated. Sure she was and she also decided it would be easier to stiff def Willy.  She was wrong. I had to skip the hallterview because by then I'd had all of Sondra's motormouthed screeching I could take.

Then we had the annoying case of the guy suing for a paltry 100$ to fix his car after Mom of the Year opened her car door and hit his car. But, she had a BABY GROWING IN HER! TMI, lady. I'm sure she'll be a fine example to her offspring as in this shameful display she lies and tries to weasel her way out of taking responsibility for what she did. She never touched his car! When he came looking for her in her office, she only went out to look at the damage and told him to send her an estimate because she's just a really nice person. Who wouldn't offer to pay for damage they didn't do? I do that all the time. Just pay the 100$, you slug.

Then we had an even more annoying def. Ms. Hernandez disputes the P's claim that she crossed 4 lanes of traffic because she decided at the last minute to turn from the left lane into a gas station on the right and hit P's car. She only crossed in front of TWO lanes of traffic, so what's his beef? May as well give a driver's license to a frickin' kangaroo as to many of the litigants we see her.

Little side note: JM was all ready to jump on P for referring to women as "girls" when he said D had "two girls" in her car. "Little girls?" JM asks. "Teenagers", P replies. JM withdrew her horns.😄

11 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

but this one may well be the most loathsome ever.

Yes! Ms. Schneider was absolutely loathsome.

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then we had an even more annoying def. Ms. Hernandez disputes the P's claim that she crossed 4 lanes of traffic because she decided at the last minute to turn from the left lane into a gas station on the right and hit P's car. She only crossed in front of TWO lanes of traffic, so what's his beef? May as well give a driver's license to a frickin' kangaroo as to many of the litigants we see her.

Mr. AZC and I were on a road that sounds a lot like the one in this case.  We were in the position of the defendant in this case.  We realized we were going the wrong direction.  No big deal.  I THOUGHT Mr. AZC was going to just turn left onto a quieter cross street, then u-turn there and come back out so he could turn right - MUCH more safely - onto the busier street.  Nope.  He u-turned right there on the larger street, where the speed limit was 45, and way-too-close oncoming cars (who appeared to be going over 50) would have hit MY side of the car if our car didn't have enough time to safely complete the turn.  Nothing like seeing cars in two lanes coming straight at you . . . WAY too close.

After I stopped screaming some very decidedly NOT Christian words at him, I asked him how close he thought those oncoming vehicles were.  He gave me a number.  Then I googled on my trusty smartphone to find out how long it would take a car going 50 MPH to come to a full stop (as in, if our car hadn't cleared the lanes of traffic).  Suffice it to say . . . the actual stopping distance was much farther than he thought they were from us at the time he started his turn.  His jaw dropped and he immediately understood why I was so frightened.

So as soon as this case started, I made him stop reading his book and pay attention to the judge's ruling about who was responsible for the accident.  Yep.  The person turning in front of a person going straight is the guilty party.

The good news is, he has NEVER done that again.  We are in agreement that it's better to wait 15 seconds for the oncoming traffic to clear.  

[VartanFan]

Quote

hough JM was overly generous with the plaintiff; considering her relentless pursuit of the defendant, her lies on various Web sites and her going into overdrive because he did not respond immediately to her texts on Easter Sunday, she got too much money as a refund. I was also surprised that JM did not pursue the "My husband decided not to allow me to open up a daycare". She did allude to the husband being a contributing factor to the escalation.

Agree, totally.  I think both of them were badasses in their own minds and so they had to do ‘Quien es mas macho?’.  HOWEVER - the defamation had me tip over to the D side and I would not only have not had him return anything but I would have awarded him additional damages.  

Edited October 9, 2020 by VartanFan

[CrazyInAlabama]

Two more exes who thought they would be friends.    The Bemer that was supposed to oxygenate the body?   Sounds scammy to me.   $2300+ for that? 

They supposedly bought together, and he claims that she was going to pay half for it.    Sounds like the placebo effect to me, and a total scam.   Is the defendant wearing a bathrobe?   Another relationship that ends, and everything is now a loan, and no longer a gift.    No proof of the debt, no payment.   Case dismissed.    Totally boring too. 

So arborist suing for money, over trees defendant wanted removed, but some couldn't be cut down because they were on wetlands.  So he only cut down and billed for the trees he could remove.   He also worked for her before, and she paid him on those occasions.       Defendant claims she never hired him, just asked for an estimate, and claims plaintiff applied for permits, and cut the trees while she was on vacation.    However, defendant signature is on paperwork submitted by arborist.   Defendant claims she just signed the permit application, but she still denies that she hired the plaintiff.   There is a contract signed by the defendant too.  

Plaintiff says that you can't remove any trees in the wetlands area, and it's written on the bottom of the permit by the permit office.    Judge Marilyn keeps claiming she doesn't believe the state law about wetlands, Google it Judge Marilyn.   However, texts between the litigants specifically mention that he was hired to do the work.   Plaintiff was allowed to fell the trees, but not remove the wood, or the stumps.

When work is done, and defendant ghosts plaintiff, and refuses to pay.   Plaintiff says he tried to call her, and he went by her house repeatedly, and defendant wouldn't answer his calls, or come to the door.   The only interesting part is plaintiff claims  defendant was hiding inside the house to avoid the plaintiff, and his requests for payment.   

Defendant claims plaintiff and wife came to her house, and threw a rock through her storm door, and had to go to the ER for stress after this.    Defendant claims she saw plaintiff, and wife driving away from her house after the broken glass.    Now defendant is suing for more than plaintiff, because she wants to hire someone to take away the fallen trees, and grind the stump.     If she already had the wood removed, and stumps ground, then her state will go after her big time, and probably the federal government, for the wetlands violations.  Defendant actually took a picture of the ambulance, on her way to the ER.   Defendant also claims the plaintiff and five other people came to her house, and vandalized her storm door, and the regular (almost all glass) door.  (I'm guessing an alien space ship attacked right after this?)    (My guess is defendant wanted new doors, and smashed them herself). 

Defendant claims she has a police report, but doesn't have it handy.   

$2,000 to plaintiff.  Defendant is a total liar. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[TresGatos]

Thank you to everybody who weighed in on the scales of justice issue. I didn't know if it was something sitting on a clear pedestal or maybe a nuvo retro light fixtures - one from when when the Deco period was redone in the 1980s - but then the ceiling would have been very, very low. It was driving me nuts! I do say though, justice seems to be tilting toward Judge John. I don't like the overall lack of color in their set design and the shininess of the stripes in the curtains is off-putting to me. It may look fine in person put the sheen is intense through the television and a think the clear pedestal may be distorting it as well. I find myself wishing for some color in the chairs.

I like seeing the different settings in the remote cases. It reminds me of an old court show called, I think, Street Justice, where the "Judge", an Italian guy from New Your/Long Island/ Staten Island somewhere around there would go to the litigants houses or the scene of the complaint. The best set design, I think, was part of a landlord tenant dispute. The landlord was flanked by white bookcases and everything was so well done - the books were wrapped in paper so that they formed a pleasing pattern, one side yellow the other green. There were books and objects but not at all cluttered. I found myself wondering if the landlord had arranged it himself, if maybe a partner had done it or if he'd hired a professional. Just beautifully and tastefully done.

I don't know how I feel about Judge John going so casual especially with Judge M in her robes but it has awoken a strange desire within me - I now want Judge M and Judge John to have a good old-fashioned talk show like Dinah Shore or Merv Griffith (or maybe George and Ashley Hamilton). I want them to have a guest segment and a cooking segment a "Rough Justice" segment where they discuss cases in the news or some other item of legal interest, a home improvement segment, musical guests - maybe the girls could start a band! I am tired of bad/sad news and I really enjoy hearing Judge J & Judge M talk about when they were young marrieds. I loved when they were talking about the neighbor who shot a pellet gun through their bathroom window and Judge Ms growing outrage when Judge John brought up that they later took their cat to the vet for a totally different reason and the vet said, "Hey, did you know somebody shot your cat?" I only wish they had shown a picture of the cat!

I also enjoyed their story about their recent quarantine experience and how they arranged a playdate with their dog who was being quarantined with their daughters. Once again, I really wish they would have shown a photo of the dog! I remember how Judge M used to be such a cat person and how a dog had killed one of her cats in front of her kids. I remember when she talked about how Judge John brought home a dog and how she was really against it but ended up falling in love with the dog. I wonder if they have the same dog and if she still has cats? She talks about the dog but never mentions a cat any longer. In any case, I also want a pet segment as part of their talk show. They could take over Ellen's slot! 

[AngelaHunter]

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Beamer (spelling?) that was supposed to oxygenate the body? 

I find it both appalling and fascinating that in 2020, where information about everything under the sun is at our fingertips, snake oil salesmen still have no problem finding guillible marks. A magic contraption that "puts oxygen in your body...and stuff like that" for thousands of dollars? Sold! Reminds me of all the old-timey miracle cures (in which the main ingredient was alcohol or cocaine) for everything. I had a hard time picturing these two as lovebirds, but oh, well.

Then we had the flakey, lying, tree-hating def in a truly bad wig and with the scary eyes who truly seemed delusional. Laws vary, of course, but I was kind of shocked that someone would be allowed to clear-cut all the trees or otherwise destroy habitat in a wetland. I felt JM's frustration as she tried in vain to get any kind of coherent answer from def. Yes, I'm sure P had nothing better to do than go get city permits for D for no reason at all. The "Here's the ambulance that came for me because P stressed me so much with his demands for payment for services rendered, and here are my hospital selfies. Poor me" was kind of funny. And of course, the tired ol' "I have evidence, but it's not in front of me!" nonsense.  IF you're suing for being hospitalized by the actions of another, you might stir your stumps to get the police report out of a drawer. The P may have smashed her window, but no way did she call the police. She seemed cracked enough to have broken her own window.

6 minutes ago, TresGatos said:

They could take over Ellen's slot! 

Please!

[Florinaldo]

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge Marilyn keeps claiming she doesn't believe the state law about wetlands, Google it Judge Marilyn. 

I think the plaintiff should have done that research beforehand himself in order to be ready to produce it; it was predictable that some scribbled notes at the bottom of a form would be challenged. Redundancy of evidence is always an asset when you come to a hearing.

Another homeowner trying to weasel out of paying for work performed as contracted for. And another example of a litigant ready to come up at a moment's notice with outrageous lies and unbelievable claims, with no qualms about exposing herself to a national audience as the dishonest customer she truly is. Did she really believe that shots of her on a hospital bed would be be convincing proof of causality for her (probably imaginary) health complaints and of the plaintiff's culpability in attacking her house?

5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

She seemed cracked enough to have broken her own window.

Absolutely.

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Beamer (spelling?) that was supposed to oxygenate the body?   Sounds scammy to me. 

It's "Bemer" and it is indeed not very credible. You can find videos on the Web where the manufacturer or inventor purports to provide sound scientific explanations and they appear to be mostly correct and detailed as far as the physiology of blood circulation through capillaries; however they are very sketchy as to the exact mechanism of their process and that what they say about how the electromagnetic waves generated are supposedly propagated through the body and have an effect contradicts most of what I have learned while studying physics.

But they are expensive devices, which makes them credible in the eyes of the gullible, including the two litigants. I think that she very probably agreed to pay half, but he did not have proof, so he was left holding the bag for believing this hookum.

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

But they are expensive devices, which makes them credible in the eyes of the gullible, including the two litigants.

The "Bemer":

Quote

BEMER devices use a pulsed electromagnetic field – abbreviated as PEMF – to deliver a patented therapeutic signal. The BEMER signal helps improve the impaired pumping movements of small and very small vessels to promote needs-based distribution of blood.*

And in teeny, tiny letters:

Quote

*These statements have not been evaluated by Health Canada. This device is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

OH, well - PEMF! Sounds official and as credible as such things did in 1900. 

This former couple want might to invest in  something I saw on late-night TV last night - a lit-up cap guaranteed to regrow hair. Looks very scientific and only about 1000$ for the base model. If you want the "Plus" it's 2K.

It really works! I'm sure it does.

https://www.capillus.com/collections/all

[Pepper the Cat]

The best part of the hour was during After the Verdict with Judge John petting their dog. 

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Two more exes who thought they would be friends.    The Bemer that was supposed to oxygenate the body?   Sounds scammy to me.   $2300+ for that? 

They supposedly bought together, and he claims that she was going to pay half for it.    Sounds like the placebo effect to me, and a total scam.   

But it can't be fake.  It's recommended by chiropractors!!!  LOL.

ETA:  This is MY opinion, and not meant to demean anyone who differs.

Edited October 10, 2020 by AZChristian

[Silver Raven]

That contractor being sued by the lady who claimed they didn't have a contract had the weirdest mustache.  It was so black right below his nose, that I thought his nose was black.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today, both episodes were older reruns, probably from 2019, and it's so strange to see a full courtroom, and everyone in the courtroom.

Judge John and Judge Marilyn were on FB, and talking about the virtual courtroom.   It's in part of their living room, and always set up.   Unfortunately, that's their dog's favorite place to sleep, and hang out, and she's literally pissed over it.    Judge Marilyn says it's very strange to have the cameras there all of the time, so she unplugs them when they're not filming.  

[TresGatos]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 It's in part of their living room, and always set up.   Unfortunately, that's their dog's favorite place to sleep, and hang out, and she's literally pissed over it. 

The dog made an appearance! That made me so happy. Now we need an update on the feline situation. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

They reran the distanced version this morning, and this afternoon's older episode with the piano consignment case with the woman who wants the money for the piano, but doesn't want the piano back, so it's interesting.     Plaintiff had to pay to ship piano to store, it didn't sell, even though he paid her the $2,000 down payment for the failed sale.   Plaintiff will either have to pay to ship the piano back to her home, or keep letting the defendant try to sell the piano.     Plaintiff opts to leave the piano with the consignment sale shop.    $5,000 plaintiff claim is dismissed without prejudice, if the piano never sells.   Defendant gave the deposit back to the failed buyer, so he's out $2,000.      

Defendant tells Doug the piano resale market has been terrible for many years.   I wish people I know would realize that the chances of reselling a piano are very bad, and you're lucky if you can get someone to take it free and remove it.  

The next case is a woman who had two panes of one side of a sliding glass door shattered.  SOmetimes rocks fly from lawn mowers.    When I broke one (it was absolutely ridiculous, and careless of me), the glass people came out, took the slider out, replaced it, and put it back in.   Unfortunately, the door shattered totally (safety glass fortunately), so I had tiny beads of glass on the street for years after that.     

 They just need a mobile glass company, and they're all over the place here.   The plaintiff got a statement from a glass company that the glass panes couldn't be replaced, and it would take a total replacement of the slider for five times the basic $400 price agreed on by both litigants.    

Edited October 13, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/12/2020 at 4:10 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Unfortunately, that's their dog's favorite place to sleep, and hang out, and she's literally pissed over it. 

Oh, I get that. When our pets have a "spot" it should never be messed with!

We're back to reruns already, after what - two weeks? I know it's all very difficult logistically now, but if they are going to show reruns why do they always have to be such recent ones that even I (mostly) remember them? Is there a reason they can't show much older ones?

Having said all that I did enjoy rewatching the Christian Man of God trying to clean up for his 4-year old TV, versus the utterly dumb, incompetant, stupid lawyer and his silly accountant/expert witness on old TVs. The best part was Doug in the Hall telling the brain dead lawyer, "You sounded really stupid." Doug, never leave us. 😄

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess is that JJ, and The People's Court if they are filming are doing new episodes for November (November, February, and May are months where 24/7 on all channels viewership numbers are collected, so we get new episodes of almost everything for the month).  The strange thing is that my usual schedule here is 10 am rerun, and 3 pm either new or recent rerun, but lately it's been a recent Zoom rerun at 10, and the older kind with the audience at 3.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

Did anyone else see today's rerun about the parents (I missed the beginning, so there was some kind of guardianship or foster situation) where plaintiffs were suing defendants for letting their 14 year old foster daughter hide in their house, so their 17 year (almost 17) son could have free access?      For six days the police, SWAT teams, helicopters were looking for the missing 14 year old.    She was hidden the entire time in the boyfriend's house, the mother was hiding her, and supposedly, grinning idiot dad didn't find out until the police showed up and found her.   My guess is the father knew all along, but the fool finally figured out he could lose his job if he was involved. 

The texts from the girl and her boyfriend were chilling.    Sadly, with a child plotting against them, in the parents place I would call CPS and have her removed from my house.    It's an ID channel documentary waiting to happen. 

Since then, the defendants let the girl hang out with the son at their house.    When the police returned the girl one time, a few minutes later a mysterious CPS complaint was received.    I couldn't believe the plaintiffs couldn't get a restraining order or charges against the defendant parents.    It was infuriating to me that the defendant father kept smirking through the case too.    He actually seemed to think it was funny that when the son turns 17 the plaintiffs will file statutory rape charges.    It amazes me that the defendant mother is the only one still facing legal charges, and I hope they jail her.    

The defendant parents are still allowing the 14 and 16 year old to hang out together in his room because no judge has issued a restraining order yet.      The last time the girl was brought home from boyfriend's home, the girl called CPS from her phone claiming to be a neighbor, and saying she was being abused.   

Judge M advises the plaintiffs to get their own attorney and get restraining orders, against defendant parents.    The texts between the 14 year old to the 16 year old talking about torturing and killing the plaintiff parents are chilling. In their case, I would call CPS and get that girl out of the house before they end up dead. 

After the last airing of this, I believe someone found out on FB that the girl is now engaged to defendant's son.  

Claudia Vazquez of Greece, NY caused quite the problem for everyone involved, and apparently she's engaged to defendant's son, Tyler, and they both live in another town now.    I hope that means the plaintiffs finally realized they were going to end up in body bags from the daughter wanting to torture and kill them, and gave up on her.   

$5,000 to plaintiffs, nothing to disgusting defendants. 

I think it was right that this particular episode was on, and repeated.   The people who live near where this happened need to know that nothing is being done about the defendants by the courts, and the husband still works as a youth counselor of some kind.    

The people reminded me of the neighborhood parents where I grew up, who let kids stay in their basement apartment, until one turned out to be a fugitive, and was dealing out of their house.    Lots of kids stayed in that house, and the parents never knew where they were.   

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[readheaded]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Did anyone else see today's rerun about the parents (I missed the beginning, so there was some kind of guardianship or foster situation) where plaintiffs were suing defendants for letting their 14 year old foster daughter hide in their house, so their 17 year (almost 17) son could have free access?      For six days the police, SWAT teams, helicopters were looking for the missing 14 year old.    She was hidden the entire time in the boyfriend's house, the mother was hiding her, and supposedly, grinning idiot dad didn't find out until the police showed up and found her.   

The texts from the girl and her boyfriend were chilling.    Sadly, with a child plotting against them, in the parents place I would call CPS and have her removed from my house.    It's an ID channel documentary waiting to happen. 

Since then, the defendants let the girl hang out with the son at their house.    When the police returned the girl one time, a few minutes later a mysterious CPS complaint was received.    I couldn't believe the plaintiffs couldn't get a restraining order or charges against the defendant parents.    It was infuriating to me that the defendant father kept smirking through the case too.    He actually seemed to think it was funny that when the son turns 17 the plaintiffs will file statutory rape charges.    It amazes me that the defendant mother is the only one still facing legal charges, and I hope they jail her.    Claudia Vasquez of Greece, NY caused quite the problem for everyone involved, and 

 

The defendant parents are still allowing the 14 and 16 year old to hang out together in his room because no judge has issued a restraining order yet.      The last time the girl was brought home from boyfriend's home, the girl called CPS from her phone claiming to be a neighbor, and saying she was being abused.   

Judge M advises the plaintiffs to get their own attorney and get restraining orders, against defendant parents.    The texts between the 14 year old to the 16 year old talking about torturing and killing the plaintiff parents are chilling. In their case, I would call CPS and get that girl out of the house before they end up dead. 

After the last airing of this, I believe someone found out on FB that the girl is now engaged to defendant's son.  

$5,000 to plaintiffs, nothing to disgusting defendants. 

The people reminded me of the neighborhood parents where I grew up, who let kids stay in their basement apartment, until one turned out to be a fugitive, and was dealing out of their house.    Lots of kids stayed in that house, and the parents never knew where they were.   

(They just advertised new episodes for next week, but I don't know if they'll be at 3 pm or not).

We just watched this episode and there was something really wrong with the defendants.  Was the husband a transgender man?  Near the end, JM told the plaintiff mom that "the woman who left" isn't the mom.  My husband and I were seriously confused about that.

[NYGirl]

OMG I needed to take an hour shower after today's episode.  Not only was the repeat of the girl who ran away in which just as upsetting as the first time there was the guy who gave the young girl his credit card and a $1000 tip.