Florinaldo January 22, 2021 Share January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: 'nother covid cancellation case I hope someone quickly put the defendant straight and made it clear to him that the verdict did not order him to return any money to the unpleasant and grating plaintiff. She should be left with her share of the award kitty and not a penny more. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: not the cops best hour, but more and more I think know this guy is/was an ass......... One of those people who think that getting around with a camera gives them an inalienable right to take pictures of anyone and then post it as they wish. I can well understand the restaurant's employees being taken off-guard and agreeing because they are trained to please the customer, and then having second thoughts about that creep. He did not even draw the necessary and obvious lessons from what happened during his first visit to the place. 6 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 22, 2021 Share January 22, 2021 (edited) Picture taker's story didn't add up. Google Street Views are made from the street, with an old style VW bug with a round camera thing (it looks like it's from Mars) driving by. Yelp and Google let you upload pictures, but it's not a street view inside the store. the second visit with the camera on the counter is really strange. The man was trespassed by the police apparently, and that means you're warned if you come back on the property the police are called, and you get arrested. This guy is creepy. Edited January 23, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 22, 2021 Share January 22, 2021 The first case had a kind of stunning turn-around, for me anyway. I like surprises like this. My first take was that the P, who although annoying with his slow rambling and inability to get to the point, seemed rational and in the right as we hear about the coffee shop employees being "uncomfortable" (the latest all-purpose excuse for just about anything )with P's behavior in the shop. But really, since when does Google Streets have portraits of anyone? Granted I don't use it much, so I'm not sure about that. Anyway, whatever he was doing caused the manager to ask to him to leave. He does, and manager calls the cops to report him. This is where things start looking very different. P says he's a truck driver and ended up back on the street where the coffee shop is. I guess there are no other places to eat in the whole town. He'd been asked to leave last time, but the lure, the draw of this shop's sandwiches was too much to resist so he goes in again! Like JM, I would not return to a business where I'd gotten the boot previously. But, oh those sandwiches are worth it. The employees give him the food, but he starts acting like a major creeper this time, putting some camera on the counter because he wanted a picture of the Danish (?!). Well, no. He was thinking of taking a pic of the Danish with his 360-degree camera. The girls are creeped out and the police are called again. They want his ID, which he refuses to give them. He knows his rights. Seriously? People think arguing with the cops is a good move? Apparently whatever he was doing caused them to take him to the floor and arrest him for disturbing the peace, intimidating a witness, and other stuff. I wish we had a video. What a total weirdo. His strange, flat demeanor and monotone as he excuses all this made him look like some kind of sociopathic stalker. He thinks the coffee shop should pay him 7K because that's how much gas he used travelling to defend himself against the charges. Don't think so. The manager was within her rights to have him removed from private property. JM likewise gives him the boot, empty-handed. Then we get the Momma who wanted a major blow-out party of the century for her daughter reaching the incredible milestone of her 16th birthday. How many guests? JM wants to know. "One hundred and fifty" is the answer which prompts JM to mutter "Like a wedding". There's also the 1,000$ (!!) dress bought for the girl which now can't be used. Damn. My wedding dress was way less than that. I honestly think these parties mean much more to the dragon mommies than to the girls. Oh, well - maybe she can use the dress when her daughter actually gets married. It was the usual, "I should get my deposit back because COVID ruined my splashy, show-off party". Does the daughter really know - outside of her family - 150 people? Def, Jeremy, did offer her 1/2 back - 800$ - but that wasn't enough for her, even though she knows the D could not perform and even if he wanted to she could not have had her massive amount of guests. A ten-person party in her yard would not have been sufficient for this momentous occasion of a girl turning 16. That everyone is suffering, hurting, and even dying - much worse than the pain of a cancelled B-day ridiculous extravaganza - and needs to compromise during this plague is not her problem. Anyway, JM does the best she can and I kind of lost interest. 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: I hope someone quickly put the defendant straight and made it clear to him that the verdict did not order him to return any money to the unpleasant and grating plaintiff. She should be left with her share of the award kitty and not a penny more. Agree. I hope he retracted his 800$ offer and told her to pound sand. 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 23, 2021 Share January 23, 2021 (edited) The creepy stalker case would only have been better if we did have a video of him being cuffed and arrested by the police. Tasering him would have been enjoyable to see also. I hate the mommies who are living vicariously through their kid's wedding or Sweet 16, or Quinceanera (spelling?). Like the woman who wanted to have a 600 person wedding for her kid that was on TPC a month or two ago. You know that her son or daughter would probably know very few of the people that mom invited, and I bet the other fiance's family would get major pushback on inviting people for their side. Like the woman today, they just want to show off, and make people jealous of how much they spend, and it's all about what the mother wants. Edited January 23, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 23, 2021 Share January 23, 2021 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The creepy stalker case would only have been better if we did have a video of him being cuffed and arrested by the police. Tasering him would have been enjoyable to see also. Yes, a real shame, but I truly liked this case mostly because it was such a refreshing change from the usual "I picked up a loser on FB and gave him 1,000$", "my roommate owes me for utility bills", "she keyed my car/wanted me to fight her", "my security deposit", "I bought a '97 Oldsmobile with a million miles... it conked out and I want my money back", and mangled English and all that other dreary crap. 6 Link to comment
NYGirl January 26, 2021 Share January 26, 2021 (edited) WTF was going on with the 2 brothers and the hoopdy today? I got a phone call and pressed pause and when I went back I just FFd to the next case. The Judge looked like she was having a grand old time with them. insert eye roll here The room in the trailer rental had 2 old biddies but the defendant biddy's house looked pretty nice for a trailer. Plaintiff was quick to say that her probation was irrelevant.. which makes me laugh when they do that. I wanted to know though!!! I guess the ruling was right. I can't concentrate lately so I took it at face value. If there was another case I don't remember it...lol In the interest of transparency I'm 72 years old so I'm older then the 2 biddies! I AM NOT A BIDDY!!! LOL Edited January 26, 2021 by NYGirl 3 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 26, 2021 Share January 26, 2021 (edited) I don't see why Judge Marilyn kept harping on the previous tenant not being approved by the park was relevant. If I understood correctly, it was the landlady's grandson, he wasn't 19 or whatever the age for approval for the park were, and he didn't pay rent. The reason the prospective tenant was on probation certainly was relevant. The part was going to do a background check, and depending on what the tenant did to get on probation, she might not have passed a background check. (I don't care how sweet and innocent someone looks, I would do a real criminal record check, and credit check. We have a sex offender registry you can look at by zip code, and some of the ones in my area are older women). The first case with the brothers and the old car was ridiculous, so I really wasn't paying attention to it. I don't know what the other case was. Edited January 27, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 26, 2021 Share January 26, 2021 46 minutes ago, NYGirl said: The room in the trailer rental had 2 old biddies but the defendant biddy's house looked pretty nice for a trailer. Plaintiff was quick to say that her probation was irrelevant.. which makes me laugh when they do that. I wanted to know though!!! Litigants can still surprise me. I expected the plaintiff, who looked like everyone's cookie-baking auntie, to be highly indignant when def said she was on probation. Well, damn - turns out she was and maybe still is. She blames her stroke for the fact that even though she went to visit this room in a trailer that she didn't notice it was in a terrible, crime-ridden area. She gives hearsay as proof that it is. "Someone told me..." I'm sure someone on probation (and yes, NYGirl, I too wanted to know what got her arrested - Drugs? Prostitution? Assault? Theft? Stalking? We need to know!) was horrified at a less-than-upscale residence. Of course people can't just invite anyone to come live with them. The managers or owners of the park have to know that these tenants aren't felons. Def abides by the rules, except when she doesn't, and asks P - who has committed some kind of crime - to just move in without getting approval. Hardly fair to the other residents. Def insisted a couple times she doesn't want any "drama". Well, IMO, inviting strangers to live with you - who are on probation, yet - just might create some of that. With the "who-car", I just couldn't. 3 Link to comment
AZChristian January 26, 2021 Share January 26, 2021 11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Of course people can't just invite anyone to come live with them. The managers or owners of the park have to know that these tenants aren't felons. Def abides by the rules, except when she doesn't, and asks P - who has committed some kind of crime - to just move in without getting approval. Hardly fair to the other residents. Def insisted a couple times she doesn't want any "drama". Well, IMO, inviting strangers to live with you - who are on probation, yet - just might create some of that. I heard plaintiff say, "She told me not to tell the office that I was moving in." Defendant is going to get herself evicted if she doesn't watch it. We live in a park like hers; we rent the space, but own the mobile home. One of the zillion documents we signed when moving in even asked whether we were on probation for anything, and the question applied to us, our guests, etc. It also prohibits subletting with prior approval of the park management and an opportunity to run a credit check, criminal background check, etc. Even with all our rules and regulations, one of the neighbors about 7 spaces down from us was taken away in handcuffs for selling drugs. And this is a 55+ community. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 26, 2021 Share January 26, 2021 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: Defendant is going to get herself evicted if she doesn't watch it. She may own her mobile home but as you say, the park owns the land it's sitting on. She might not just be evicted either. If she sneaks some thief, druggie, or even a sex offender in to live with her and that person does harm to someone else in the park, she could find herself being prosecuted and end up broke and homeless. That she doesn't care that she may put other people at risk so she can have a few extra bucks makes me hope she does get the heave-ho. I wonder if she asked P why she was on probation. Maybe she likes to get roaring drunk and run around screaming obscenitites and busting out car windshields or set fires or get high and parade around in the nude. Who knows? 5 Link to comment
SRTouch January 26, 2021 Share January 26, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: She may own her mobile home but as you say, the park owns the land it's sitting on. She might not just be evicted either. If she sneaks some thief, druggie, or even a sex offender in to live with her and that person does harm to someone else in the park, she could find herself being prosecuted and end up broke and homeless. That she doesn't care that she may put other people at risk so she can have a few extra bucks makes me hope she does get the heave-ho. I wonder if she asked P why she was on probation. Maybe she likes to get roaring drunk and run around screaming obscenitites and busting out car windshields or set fires or get high and parade around in the nude. Who knows? Back when I rented out a room I was lucky to find a good tenant. Yes he left owing me a lot of money, but that was due to health issues and losing his job. When Social Security finally decided he should get disability he received a big lump sum of back pay and I was one of the first people he paid. As I said, extremely lucky, and I was one of those people who had nothing in writing......... when he left after several years to move into handicapped/low cost housing I started looking for a new tenant. Second time around I knew I might not be so lucky, so wrote out a rental agreement with a detailed House Rules Addendum and wanted references and a background check........ as some of you may remember I had an inquiry from out of state which turned out to be a scam (sent me a phony check for WAY above deposit/first month rent - which I did NOT cash and ended up with the FBI in a case that went no-where). That scammer was when I decided to forget being a landlord and I came out of retirement and started working part time. Edited January 26, 2021 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
AZChristian January 26, 2021 Share January 26, 2021 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I wonder if she asked P why she was on probation. Maybe she likes to get roaring drunk and run around screaming obscenitites and busting out car windshields or set fires or get high and parade around in the nude. Who knows? Judge Milian asked, and the innocent-looking plaintiff told her that it had nothing to do with this case. Um, do we really want someone who has been convicted and sentenced to make the decision as to whether HER illegal activity is relevant??? 5 Link to comment
SRTouch January 26, 2021 Share January 26, 2021 car deal gone wrong: lonely old lady spends birthday boozing, then next day, while she's still "under the weather," her friendly neighborhood shows up with 15 crisp $100 bills - she says he had been after her for awhile trying to buy her car, but she didn't want to sell as it was her only transportation - ah, but when she sees the cash she agrees and gives him the title - the problem is she claims $1500 was just a down payment, she says he was to pay off in installments........ first impression is she's not the sharpest tool in the shed - isn't sure if she's 78 or 87 when MM asks - and I'm hoping she has texts or something or her friendly neighborhood scammer may end up with her car.......... she's suing for $2535.50........... D intro paints him as something of a lowlife scammer taking advantage of old lady - tells us she drinks alot and maybe she just can't remember the details of sale - strange part of D intro is that he's suing for $1000 that is supposed to be an overpayment - if his claim is he bought car for $1500 cash, why did he pay another grand? I'm still not sure how much P says she wanted for the car - and did D pay $1500 or $2500?............ MM has her work cut out for her trying to get anything that makes sense from P - she admits she accepted money for car, signed paperwork and gave dude her keys, but then regrets her decision and wants to unwind D the sale......... over to D - not liking this guy the least bit, not just his grammar, and I'm thinking he did take advantage - he says she gave him a break on the purchase price because she felt sorry for way his wife treated him (guess when he and wifey-boo had tiffs he went down and whined to old lady)......... not sure if this defense is designed to help him - but just lowering my opinion of the dude........... ah, but his story does make more sense than hers - there are differences, though, like it was three days after he gave her the money before she signed over the car and signed a bill of sale which says the price was $1500........ seems later when P started having second thoughts she accepted another $500 (so still $500 less than she says car was worth)......... thing is she admits selling car, but says in her complaint she shouldn't have and now she wants the car or $2500 even though D has given her 2 grand - D not much better, he wants back the $500 he gave her over the $1500 on the bill of sale plus and additional $500 for the hassle of her changing her mind and trying to unwind deal......... both cases dismissed tenant wants rest of deposit: simple case where tenants think ghee should get whole deposit while landlord says she kept money because they left furniture behind and damages - case will be settled on whether or not landlord provided the all important itemized list of damages and if she has proof of any damages, and can tenants show how they left place damage-free......... ok, once testimony begins we learn intro might have well been talking about a different case - first off, looking at way Ps were sitting with wife in background behind hubby is expected him to present case - nope, she begins talking and is presenting a well reasoned argument that landlord wrongfully withheld money......... ok the problem with their tenancy began with a problem in the bathroom caused by incorrectly installed tile and a long time leak - says problem dates all the way back to 2018 when they first reported it to landlord - they say Landlord's contractor said bathroom would be out of commission for 2 weeks and suggested they use a porta potty during the repairs.......... really, 2 weeks? Even ripping everything out and putting in a new subfloor shouldn't take that long - unless of course contractor had to deal with permitting and inspection delays......... anyway, no way were tenants going to use a porta potty, and I guess landlord wasn't going to spring for a hotel stay......... ah, except MM tells us that's not what was happening - forget 2 weeks (did just I imagine that) as MM tells us the contractor was going to do it over the weekend - oh, and landlord agreed to put them up in a hotel while work was being done.......... really, why did P waste all that time talking about a porta potty and 2 weeks when it was really a long weekend and landlord was offering to put them up in hotel - their credibility took a major hit just now, and then we learn landlord wanted work done right away as it was causing further damage downstairs and these tenants refused to all is the work as scheduled because 'it didn't work' for their schedule......... apparently tenants felt that since apartment sat empty for 13 months before they moved in that any repairs should have been taken care of before they moved in, not taking into account the leak may not have been apparent until someone started using the bathroom......... ok, landlord hasn't said much of anything yet, but tenants are losing case all on their own - I'm ready to get to actual damage claims....... apparently tenants claimed they couldn't move into the hotel that weekend because they were self isolating due to covid - yet landlord, who lived in downstairs apartment, saw hubby coming and going all weekend - meanwhile she had water dripping from upstairs........ over to D (landlord) who explains some of the inconsistencies in what we'really hearing - seems she shopped around for contractors and, yes, 1 guy wanted 2 weeks to do job - she was happy to find the guy who agreed to long days over the weekend, and frustrated when tenants nixed the idea and after going back and forth tenants decided they'd move........ finally, maybe we're about to hear the damages and whether tenants really left behind furniture........... landlord kept $700+ and MM ready to hear why........ first bone of contention is $100 for a repair visit from the DirectTv - seems when P disconnected their tv suddenly D also lost service, but D can't prove the act of P unplugging their tv upstairs caused loss of service downstairs (need something from repairman to show P did something wrong?)....... ok, quickly going through pix of damages without much comment because MM knows that landlord failed to meet deadline for sending the itemized list of damages (their jurisdiction only allows 14 days)........ and what's this? Seems once tensions began developing between tenant and landlord, landlord cut their WiFi and sent them a letter that rent was going up $300, yet when apartment was advertised after they were moving rent increase decreased to attract new tenant.......... plaintiffs win ok, a three case day - but #3 is Pitt bull attack........ skipping this one 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 26, 2021 Share January 26, 2021 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: car deal gone wrong: lonely old lady spends birthday boozing, Can you believe that? She's 78, no, 87, 78, 87! Eighty-seven and still drinking to the point of getting piss-drunk. Well, good for her but I don't think she should be driving considering her age and imbibing habits. She can drink all she wants if that's what she enjoys - I get it - but no driving, please. Def, "Walter" is a repulsive slug who likes to hang out with the old lady. I just got the feeling he felt she might leave him some kind of sum in her will - nothing too rich, but maybe a nice, solid 10K. But she sold the car to him while drunk and now she wants it back. I think it's best she does not get it. Yes, D took advantage but the P made the deal. "I was so drunk I didn't know what I was doing and when I sobered up I knew I made a mistake," shouldn't be an excuse. The oily slug has the gall to countersue for his severe emotional distress for being harassed by great-grandma. I wonder how often he dusts off that exercise equipment in the background? Out of curiousity I looked up 2010 Hyundai Sonatas. The lowest price I saw was 2500$ but it had 168,000miles, which I doubt the old lady's car had. 3400$ - 6K seemed to be the more average prices. The slug wins. There is a woman who pledged herself to him in holy matrimony, believe it or not. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant wants rest of deposit: I always find it interesting when we see someone like landlord def, who starts out sounding so reasonable and normal, then turns into kind of a kook before our very eyes. It was pretty cute listening to plaintiff proudly proclaim, "We even paid April's rent!" when both of them had their butts parked in the apartment for the entire month. They act as though they were doing the landlord a favour. But two weeks to fix a leak? Must be the slowest plumber on the planet. More litigants using COVID as an excuse to do whatever they want to do. Landlord feels that them unplugging and removing their TV caused her DirecTV to conk out. What, did she get herself hooked up to their service? I don't understand. I can unplug my tv downstairs and the upstairs one still works. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 27, 2021 Share January 27, 2021 On 1/25/2021 at 8:48 PM, NYGirl said: If there was another case I don't remember it...lol I suddenly remembered it! I kind of liked it, even. Old college professor encounters one of his former students, who he says did very well in school. As we soon find out, he may do well at memorizing and book-learnin' but he's not that great at figuring out real life quandaries. Student tells the Prof he now makes furniture as a hobby, so prof asks if he can make him a wooden gun case. Def says he can, and he does so for the agreed-upon price of 1500$ with an 800$ down payment(IIRC). Def is supposed to deliver the piece to the plaintiff. He does try, but he can't figure out how to get it into his truck, so he says "Oh, well", and leaves it outside. JM asks what his plan was. "Uhh...I dunno...it was raining..." *shrug* He did put some plastic over it though and then kind of gave it all up as a hopeless job. I'm struggling to imagine him doing well in any school at all. It was outside for 5 days and by the time the Prof got it, it was all warped to hell, of course. The plastic didn't really help because Florida is very humid, as Def informs JM. She asks him, "And what does humidity and rain do to wood?" She seems rather dazzled by his incompetence and dumbness. His dull expression never changes all during the case and his whole defense is, "I dunno..." Prof has a video of the piece. The degree of warping was amazing. Def seems to have also pounded some random nails into it for some reason. The Prof gets his money back and if D doesn't pick up the hunk of junk within a week, it will go into the trash heap. In the hall, D just excuses this debacle by saying, "This is just a hobby," as though that makes it okay to keep 800$ for an unusable, wrecked item. 3 Link to comment
NYGirl January 27, 2021 Share January 27, 2021 That's right!! The idiot woodworking defendant! You had him pegged with the fact that his expression never changed. The judge was amazed at his stupidity about leaving the cabinet outside in the rain and humidity! I completely forgot this one. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 27, 2021 Share January 27, 2021 (edited) Today's new episode has a case with a woman suing for her kid's ruined party. She had the man set up a bouncy castle, pop corn machine, a slushie machine, cotton candy machine, plus face painting and a clown in a public park. They also needed a big, noisy generator to power everything. Then the police showed up, and wanted to see her permit to use the park, and she didn't have a permit. Police gave her a warning to stop, she turned the machines back on, and police gave her a ticket (she says she wasn't there), and then she didn't show up for court, so her fine went up by 50%. (I missed that so thanks to SRTouch for that). Maybe it wasn't a permit, but the number of people at the gathering? Who thinks the proper way to celebrate the end of lockdown for a pandemic is to have a huge party? Defendant is the person who furnished the bouncy castle, etc. and said he never gets permits, the party giver has to. At last Judge Marilyn sees who was supposed to get the permits, and the defendant wins. Apparently the party happened right after lockdown ended, and since it was New York, it should never have been allowed, and everyone over 18 should have had a citation. Edited January 28, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 8 Link to comment
SRTouch January 27, 2021 Share January 27, 2021 (edited) Messy parting of ways: P says when she canned long time friend/handyman he kept her valuable handyman tools - and she wants $1676.70....... I gather she's holding onto his final paycheck until he surrenders the tools........... her claim is that she is a bigwig realty agent and property manager and she was steering alot of work to D from not only her properties, but several realtor friends using him as well - or at least she did until she heard that he was badmouthing her to her clients, when she not only canned his a$$, but told all her realtor buddies to quit using her as well........ D, the handman, says they were longtime friends - doesn't deny he has her tools, but refuses to return them until he gets paid for work he did - he has a 4 grand plus counterclaim for his pay plus pain and suffering, wasted time, hassle, etc........ both sides employing some illegal self help here and it will be up to MM and rough justice to wade through their crappola - I suspect a bunch of petty nonsense and may end up using FF button.......... handman losing major points with his dodging around - admits he has property belonging to P, but says he couldn't bring it to her because his truck broke down and it wouldn't fit in his car - oh, and he's sold some of her stuff (not sure what job he needed a kayak on)........... as suspected, I'm quickly getting fed up here and ready to zip ahead as MM starts to dive into this mess............. oops, maybe MM is fed up with them too, she starts yelling at them to cut the crap and wants to talk about the actual case - nah, now MM wants to talk about whatever he said to he clients that she fired him over - something about the owner of a property she managed who paid for work that wasn't done and maybe P might have been stashing the money instead of hiring people to do work.......... not sure why D would have said anything, but not interested - zip zip - oh look, as I zip through, it looks like both litigants are getting all teary eyed - gag - and now MM starts counseling the couple combatants litigants......... how the heck did this non case last half the episode......... kumbaya moment as both cry and apologize........... P ordered to pay the man, D ordered to return what tools he has and pay for others - oh, and part of his claim is that because she didn't pay what he was owed he ended up getting evicted and surrendered his dog and cat when he became homeless - he wants money for that, but P interrupts and says he was able to make his boat payments but stopped paying rent........ so, forget the tearful apologies.......... MM disgusted with both sides........... 7 yo's bouncey house was party no-show: mommy contracted with D for the BD bouncey house, but D couldn't deliver because they needed a permit - P wants her $1505 back.......... D says he provided the bouncey house, but cops shut the party down because P didn't get the required permit.......... from preview clip as we go to commercial I gather D is basing his defense on hearsay from the party clown - so MM gets to ask, "So you're basing this on hearsay from a clown?"............ something tells me D should have a clause in his contract about who should get any needed permits - but not sure why cops were even called unless party was being held where it shouldn't have been............. uh huh, as I thought, P was holding party at a public park without getting prior permission - which pretty much ends case for me.......... anyway, during party mommy has left party and is off getting party supplies while D is setting up the bouncey house, cotton candy machine, etc all of which needs a generator - Parks Police show up and say no generator without a permit - I sometimes like to go to a park, sit under a tree and read in the peace and quiet........ idea of a pack of 7 year olds running around at a mini carnival would ruin my day........ mommy gets ticketed and blames D - D says, even though cops shut down some of his equipment, he still provided a service (clown, magic show, face paint, etc and other equipment was set up and needs to be cleaned even if it was shut down early).......... mommy on pretty weak ground with me, and now that ground is being washed away from under her - she tries to fast talk MM, but MM slows her down - seems mommy was essentially a no-show at party while she was running around getting last minute supplies - Park Rangers show up and tell an adult party guest they can't have all this without a permit, equipment was turned off, Rangers leave after issuing a warning - guests call mommy, but she doesn't arrive until Rangers are back a second time after everything is turned back on - Rangers were writing a ticket to one of guests - she provides Ranger with her name and gets the summons rewritten in her name, but doesn't bother to appear at the hearing - so initial fine gets bumped up 50%........... part of P's case is wanting D to pay the fine - which MM says isn't happening because either P or one of her guests ignored Rangers after receiving the warning........ now MM wants to hear from D about who normally gets needed permits - I agree with D, he was contracted to supply party supplies, not act as event planner/organizer......... MM suggests that in future D bring up possible permit issue and inform future clients that's THEIR job, not his.......... case dismissed............ I did some zipping, so never caught when this event was to take place, but kept wondering about covid, face painting, etc Edited January 28, 2021 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 27, 2021 Share January 27, 2021 (edited) 39 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Today's new episode has a case with a woman suing for her kid's ruined party. I liked our cases today. This was kind of amazing. This woman decides to throw a private kid's party in a public park, COVID be damned. She's running around looking for balloons and doesn't know nothing, according to her. She might plan a party, but for some reason it's up to someone else, the defendant, who merely rented the equipment, generator and clown to her, to inform her she needed permits. Why is that his job? Every time I got something done to my house, i.e. a tree taken down/kitchen reno/fence put up, etc., the companies I hired didn't go get my permits. I managed to figure out that was up to me. Def was annoying as well. His witness is the clown, but the clown isn't here. I love the invisible witnesses. JM is quite rightly affronted that def expects her to take hearsay from a clown as evidence. Well, to be fair a lot of clowns who do appear here in person are equally as useless. She did have good advice for the def and that is to include in his contract that anyone hiring him needs to obtain all necessary permits. So, while P is at the precinct (this after the cops were nice enough to just issue a warning to the party) someone else starts up the generator again which now results in a fine. P thinks D should pay that fine. P needs to learn that saying she doesn't know anything will never be an excuse to break the law. And Levin? "Bouncing your way into a court case"? Fuck you. Then we had the realtor who has known the def for over 20 years. She gives him lots of work from her and other realtors, doing handyman jobs on all the properties. Whiny, gossipy, bitchy def hears other people discussing how the P is shady, taking money for jobs, getting them done for less and pocketing the surplus. Of course D can't keep his piehole shut and has to stick his horn in and agree on his employer's shadiness. He says he didn't, but then says "it got back to her." Duh. Someone else present related this to P who fires D's ass. He had a bunch of her tools and her kayak. He admits he sold the kayak for 150$ to "put food on my table". I guess it worked since he doesn't look like he missed many meals. Why did he not return her power washer, tools, ladder, etc? Well, his truck broke down, the stuff won't fit in his Camaro and he couldn't possibly figure out how to get her belongings to her any other way. As JM noted he could have rented a small truck for 19$. He says he's living in his car now, yet still has the power washer, ladder, etc. Are they in his Camaro? He weeps. Plaintiff weeps. P needs a Kleenex, yet calls D a shyster. Oh, Def also has pictures of his dumped animals, which he claims he had to unload because P kept his final checks, which she did. This made me dislike him even more. Both parties are extremely unsympathetic. JM tries the counselling stuff, but eventually gives it up. Judge John has a good observation, and that is "Don't trash the people who are paying your salary." I hope the weeping wimp has learned that lesson and that P has learned she can't withhold wages because she's pissed off. JM orders the return of the property and payment of the wages. I was still typing as SRTouch posted, so forgive repetitions! Edited January 27, 2021 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 27, 2021 Share January 27, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: 7 yo's bouncey house was party no-show: Who in their right mind is arrogant enough to believe they have an inalienable right to not only to organise a birthday party in a public park but also to set up a bouncy castle in that space? Well, the plaintiff is such a person. And she obviously thinks it is beneath her to check such vulgar things as permits and city by-laws. Or to abide by public health guidelines and lockdown orders. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Messy parting of ways: D was trying to paint himself as a righteous person who feels duty bound to have "adult conversations" with people regarding P's business. He said he now lives in his car, so where was he keeping all the equipment he was holding on to? At least he found a decent room from which to take part in the hearing. P was no better: witholding duly earned paychecks is truly low. I believed none of the tears and sniffles they both tried to summon. Edited January 27, 2021 by Florinaldo 5 Link to comment
SRTouch January 28, 2021 Share January 28, 2021 (edited) nother family squabble over an inheritance: if I have this right, P in case is a grandson, 1 of maybe 17 people claiming an interest in the grandparents' home, apparently an uncle had control of the property for years and may have lived there or rented it out, not sure - uncle has decided he wants to get rid of it - but uncle may have been pulling a fast one as he ends up buying house at bargain basement price at auction (grandson wanted to buy buy at auction but didn't have the money) - P inherited his interest in house through father who died a couple years ago, and wants to convert house into income/rental property - says he bought out sister's interest for 2 grand, but sister argues he was supposed to pay $2500 for her interest and still owes her money........... none of these people seem sure of terms of grandparents' will, P didn't even know he had a claim to property until fairly recently, isn't sure how many other people might have a claim, but thinks 17, and of course has nothing in writing about purchasing sister's share........ wouldn't that be considered as sale of "real property" requiring a written contract - also wonder how long uncle was treating it as though it was his property and whether or not he could claim it after years where no one else in family put forth a claim....... anyway, both sides agree P gave D, sister, 2 grand for her share - and P is here wanting the money back since sister ended up with a share when house sold at auction even though she 'sold' her share to him............. lots of yakkety yak and stupid folks talking back and forth (it's a hoot when neither P or wife seem to remember what is in their written complaint).......... I suppose, if sis is to believed, these siblings never got along even before this kerfuffle, though it sounds like D's daughter, who she claims was witness to this "buying her share for $2500," refused to testify against her Uncle cuz maybe she's his tenant....... I didn't try to recap as case went along as I was grilling up cheese sandwiches to go with my a bowl of chili for lunch - I had trouble following the litigants' convoluted reasoning while only half listening and not interested enough to rewind........ anyway, as I suspected, MM informs these fools the transaction HAD to be in writing for a real estate sale, so legally there was no sale, so P gets his 2 grand back - D keeps arguing throughout the ruling and after ruling insists she's not returning the money after the verdict has hubby saying best thing going may be to leave nothing going and for last check deceased writes to bounce ex-roomie wants security: talk about wild partiers had me expecting teenagers/young 20 somethings, so who are these old folks - most likely more Harvey made up stuff which had little to do with actual case......... P (not a young 20 somethings party animal) was renting month to month from D and moved out because of the frequent parties......... well within her rights - assuming she gave proper notice landlord owes deposit unless he proves she caused damages and/or tenant owed back rent........ if I have this right, there were room mates who stayed when she left, and landlord doesn't want to settle up until place is vacant - so we need to find out who she paid deposit to, was deposit amount to divided up between tenants each each paying a share - can she prove amount she gave landlord - who owes her her share, her stay behind roomies or the landlord?........ from questions MM asks in preview clip seems landlord has her deposit and wants to keep it until there are no tenants - a position MM won't accept........ seems she had a signed lease in the beginning back in 2017, but the lease expired and automatically switched to month to month.......... am I hearing her roomies were her sub leasees and landlord doesn't have a contract with the stay behind D tenants? How is that HER problem? Dude needs to get new lease signed with new security and return her money (since he failed to inspect property when she left landlord won't be able to prove damages against her) - heck, back when I was a renter it was standard for a new lease to be signed once old lease expired.......... landlord's case not looking good - don't you just love it when they try to teach the judge the law by saying "in 'this jurisdiction' (Connecticut)" this is the law and we now know it was P who handed him the whole deposit - as MM points out, landlord owes P the deposit and it would be up to left behind tenants to demand money from her if they had given her money towards deposit......... can landlord really be so dense he doesn't understand what MM is saying? Or could there be a switcheroo coming ing once he explains his position better?............ oh, and turns out she lived there alone 3 1/2 - 4 months before the roomies moved in (another strike against landlord is he's arguing case without a copy of the original lease, but MM has a copy)........ more yakkety yak with landlord arguing nonsense and getting nowhere - finally MM cuts him off and rules for P to get back deposit........ whew, I was afraid she was going to stretch case rest of episode....... hallterview has landlord still spouting nonsense anc he apparently learned nothing from what MM told him........ hmmmmmm wonder when this case occurred and whether present tenants CAN be evicted for refusing to sign new lease and pay deposit in these covid days?.......... used car sale gone wrong: sounds like buyer bought a used range rover - took it to dealer and was surprised when told vehicle needed 5 thousand to repair suspension - seller says car was fine for him, and dealer just trying to jack up price - unless seller provided some type of warranty the buyer is just another fool who thinks a used car comes with a warranty........... P bought vehicle for over 16 thousand, but then sold it at a $3500 loss when told it needed extension repairs........ sooooooo another person who bought car without a mechanic inspection based on the trustworthy seller she found online - but at least she test drove it 😆.......... ah, but did seller not reveal problems he knew vehicle had - seems he had recently had it serviced and he declined repairing 7 items which were identified as needing service.......... personal story - I bought a brand new 4x4 Ranger and first time I took it in for oil change I was told all the belts and hoses needed to be replaced because they were 'discolored' - uh, yeah, SW Oklahoma is known for our red clay soil and that red dirt discolored rubber - that was first and last time I went to that shop......... so, are we talking major maintenance issues with this Range Rover - kind of doubt it as seller told her where he took vehicle to be serviced shortly before sale and gave the place the ok to show buyer the service history.......... still, MM has a copy of the recommended repairs from when vehicle was serviced a week before D sold it, and she's going to make a judgement call whether he was required to share the report before the sale........ I'm thinking P failed in due diligence, but let's wait for da'Judge......... seems service inspection days before the sale noted multiple major safety issues - like fuel pump leaking gas - MM isn't happy with seller not warning the buyer.......... seller says he never noticed gas smell which buyer says is why she took it in to be inspected after the purchase......... ok, might have been close call - buyer trusted the stranger's assurance vehicle was good rather than getting it checked out and MM not ready to conclude seller knowingly sold her a bad car - as I said, D felt it was a good car and dealer was just jacking up price - too bad buyer didn't check things before purchase, as well as taking it to other shops when confronted with dealers 5 grand estimate for repairs, before selling car to CarMax at a big loss....... but I agree with MM that's on the buyer........ ah, but she does ding the seller for not revealing the gas leak and charges him cost of the estimate for that repair ($930.22) Edited January 28, 2021 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 28, 2021 Share January 28, 2021 34 minutes ago, SRTouch said: nother family squabble over an inheritance: I had trouble with this. I could not concentrate on the 17 people owning a house, the 787$, the 2K, and not even on the 260K house which sold at auction for 32K. I spent most of the time trying to figure out the rest of P's shirt, which said, "I'm just one big..." What? I can come up with a few things, but I really wanted to know what it said. So this is what happens when the shallow end of the gene pool is dredged. The dental situations, the lip thing, the " I dunno what I'm suing for" from plaintiff as she turns to her hubby(?) who is just one big something or other, the heaving breathlessness created by just sitting there all threw me off so badly I have no idea what anyone wanted. Def goes into belligerent, violent head-shaking and screeching when she finally figures out where the verdict is heading and that's it for me. Immense respect to JM for figuring out this lunacy. 45 minutes ago, SRTouch said: I had trouble following the litigants' convoluted reasoning You're not the only one. 45 minutes ago, SRTouch said: ex-roomie wants security: The landlord sounded utterly idiotic. I know, I know - we shouldn't expect landlords to know anything about their business, but his level of cluelessness and dogged insistence that he was right when he was dead wrong was awe-inspiring. I watched this all and spent most of the time mentally yelling at the plaintiff, "Lean back from the camera, please!" 49 minutes ago, SRTouch said: used car sale gone wrong: I spent most of this case taking a drink every time we heard the word "vee-hickle", so yeah - I'm drunk. If there are typos, IT'S NOT MY FAULT, OKAY?? Def seems to believe (we know he doesn't believe it and he's just a skeevy petty scammer) that a gas tank that leaks like a sieve, spewing gasoline all over the place, isn't really a problem but one might "recommend" replacing it just as replacing bald tires and other catastrophic "fails" might be just a suggestion. 1 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 28, 2021 Share January 28, 2021 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: used car sale gone wrong I have less and less patience with plaintiffs who buy a used car without getting an inspection first, and then go against the seller when (surprise, surprise!) problems arise. I thought that even the gas tank leak should have been on her because a competent mechanic would have detected it. An inspection would have cost her so little in proportion to what she paid for the car. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: another person who bought car without a mechanic inspection based on the trustworthy seller she found online Oh, did she buy it privately from some scamming, lowlife character on CL or some other online peddling site? I missed that part with my FF'ing to escape Levin and thought, from the picture, that def. was a dealer. In that case she was lucky she got anything, and only did so because D knew about the gas leak. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Oh, did she buy it privately from some scamming, lowlife character on CL or some other online peddling site? I missed that part with my FF'ing to escape Levin and thought, from the picture, that def. was a dealer. In that case she was lucky she got anything, and only did so because D knew about the gas leak. My impression was a private sale - didn't D said he had something good like 4-5 other vee-hickles.... could be wrong as I was still in kitchen for part of this 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 (edited) I think that's what the car seller said. Judge Marilyn certainly was happy to indulge the car buyer's issues with a car she didn't get inspected by a mechanic. I think giving the buyer the repair money for the one thing she fixed, and who promptly dumped the car at a Car Max location for resale, was very generous. The seller has four or five other cars, so I think he's an small time car flipper, but the plaintiff should have gone to a mechanic before buying. I think the plaintiff in the house inheritance/sale case should have received nothing. The grandparent's house was sold at auction, and that means that whoever buys it owns it, and the estate heirs have no right to anything but to split the money house was sold for, apparently split 17 ways. The auction house percentage would also be deducted from the sales price too. That is part of settling the estate, not some agreement from before the estate was settled. The entire issue could have been avoided if the grandparents' will said that house would be sold on the open market, and heirs weren't eligible to buy it, unless they bought at full market value. When you sell a house at an auction, you might come out ahead on the sale price, or you might not. Edited January 29, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 56 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: the estate heirs have no right to anything but to split the money house was sold for, apparently split 17 ways. So, using my handy-dandy calculator (and I could still be wrong) 32K split 17 ways comes to around 1,882$? And if the house sold at 32K it was probably worth that and not the 260K the "One Big____" says it was. I could say my house is worth 1 million, but if the only offer I get is 450K, then that's what it's worth. Was the D renting the house out? If so it was probably trashed. They should invest their shares into fixing their grills. That was nasty. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: My impression was a private sale - didn't D said he had something good like 4-5 other vee-hickles.... Thanks! 1 Link to comment
VartanFan January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 I’ve come to really like the discussions with Judge Spouse, except those godawful blue/grey socks he has so he’s monochromatic with his pants. They seem to have debriefed on a lot of cases that day. 3 Link to comment
Carolina Girl January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 18 hours ago, Florinaldo said: I have less and less patience with plaintiffs who buy a used car without getting an inspection first, and then go against the seller when (surprise, surprise!) problems arise. In fact, after hearing the case, the plaintiff would have probably fared better before Judge Milian if she had had the FAILED items that most definitely required repair fixed and THEN taking the defendant to court for reimbursement of the problems that he KNEW were wrong with the car, since he failed to disclose a material defect he knew existed (especially that fix required to keep the car from leaking gasoline). That way she would not have had to take the appreciable loss taking the car to CarMax. But really people - HAVE THE DAMN CAR INSPECTED!!!!! A test drive more often than not tells you nothing. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 46 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said: In fact, after hearing the case, the plaintiff would have probably fared better before Judge Milian if she had had the FAILED items that most definitely required repair fixed and THEN taking the defendant to court for reimbursement of the problems that he KNEW were wrong with the car I do not believe so. If the inspection shows probems and then she buys the car anyway, one could well argue that she accepted it in that condition and therefore has no recourse against the seller. An inspection is not an open ticket to bill any needed repair to the seller, unless that person agrees to do so. If not, she is getting into the deal with eyes open and must live by the consequences. Or she can simply walk away. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 (edited) Lotto money for illegal eviction: P in case was nightmare tenant who announced that she was going to stop paying rent and landlord couldn't do anything because of covid - guess she had furniture stacked on top of each other as she says she had 3 couches, 2 twin beds and who knows what else crammed into a bedroom - she wants 5 grand......... D was renting house and subletting rooms - claims she knows nothing about how to legally evict a tenant (if she even could evict P during height of pandemic) - not to be outdone, she also wants 5 grand......... D, landlord, all kinds of wrong even without considering covid - apparently, when P told her she wasn't going to pay rent she demanded P leave immediately (even though tenant had paid rent through end of month - 1 or 3 days depending on whose talking) and they have kerfuffle, cops called and advise P to leave and let things calm down....... oops, after P and cops leave D throws tenants property outside and maybe does a number on the furniture warehouses in the bedroom........ lots of nonsense which is mildly entertaining train wreck sort of way, but before intro is over I know tenant will be getting something unless there's a major switch in the works (though probably nowhere near 5 grand).......... obvious MM not happy with tenant - tenant tries to claim she paid $1000 rent and $600 deposit but only has receipts for the rent - do you have proof of the other $600 which D denies receiving? - yes, I have proof - uh, where is it? - but still gives her time to go look for the missing receipt, but P comes back trying to show same receipts but nothing for $600......... I suspect MM already suspects P of wearing flaming pants from reading the statement and submitted evidence........... lots of yakkety yak - tenant didn't even last a month before they clash over the living arrangement - loud music, etc - and tenant's hours are cut and she informs D she won't be able to pay rent - as I already said, major brouhaha, cops, video, Landlord tossing property and taking door off hinges......... more general nonsense and I start zipping when they start with the video........ after commercial more nonsense.......... geez, I know they said this was California, but a grand for 1 room? did D just say that room is now the living room? WHAT A DUMP? with stuff throw everywhere........... zip zip - more nonsense - zip zip....... cops came multiple times - door taken off hinges - geez, I'm going to leave this to MM......... ok, MM doesn't believe much of anything tenant says, but is really upset with landlord who almost proudly asserts she did not wrong even though just just keeps telling us everything going she did do - which was wrong and illegal for a landlord to do......... MM awards P a grand, more to punish D than to compensate P for damage property and the illegal eviction - guess I agree, I would have awarded more had P not been such a liar....... oh, and D tries the old teary eyed look as MM is verbally spanking her for her illegal deeds.......... dyed wig catastrophe: P claims she needed a wig dyed for an upcoming photo shoot, paid the D, hair stylist dude, he screwed up royally and she got fired - her claim is kind of refreshing, instead of asking for big bucks she wants $1000 ($700 odd for expenses rounded up to a grand for whatever) ......... D denies messing up - and he IS AFTER those big bucks - he wants 5 grand for lost business and defamation............ not sure what P wanted wig to look like, but judging from her look today I probably wouldn't have liked it - good grief! Those lashes - the talons - and someone should tell her to stop checking for spiders in the corners of the ceiling and look at the camera. - ah, what to I do about 'style?' I'm an old dude who cuts my own hair and am usually wearing bib overalls.......... she's apparently an ambassador for some hair company, which MM has her explain (I skipped her explanation)........... D was hired to color two wigs - P says one was beautiful, but second all kinds of wrong and she provides pix of what it was supposed to look like versus what D did - quite the difference even to my eyes.......... she texted her friend complaining about job D did, and friend posts P's message on her timeline for the world to see......... D gets in a huff and calls and screams at P on phone, but texts that he fix it and deliver it.......... P's friend or BF or friend's bf or something confronts D and tries to get wig and money back, but P supposedly told friend to let D try to fix it, but never actually talks to D - D in a huff and decides he wants nothing to do with P and her wig and, instead of talking to customer or the helpful friend who was anything but helpful just blocks P and her friends and doesn't deliver wig to photoshoot as promised - of course this meant photoshoot is canceled and P out is money........... wellllllll D really had no defense - he acknowledges he screwed up and promised to fix/deliver it, but didn't when because he felt disrespected by P and her friends........ MM points out that what hairdresser dude is complaining about and made him decide to NOT fix his mistake as promised (just ghost/block customer after promising to fix/deliver wig) were actions by other people, not his customer........... yada yada and let's get to damage claim......... first 5 grand counterclaim quickly dismissed since P wasn't the one who posted bad stuff on FB......... ah, one thing that might have got P in trouble was she went online and filled his appointment scheduled with bogus appointments - which P giggles about - but D quickly canceled the her bogus appointments and it didn't cost him any business (dude reportedly even posted online that her childish/bogus appointments didn't cost him any money) and, just like childish giggles from P now it's D who is laughing in court. - heck, both litigants think this is funny and even MM has a laugh or two......... so - no 5 grand to D - time to look at P's damages - she's out the wig, what she paid D, the fancy talons she had applied for the photoshoot which got canceled, and I guess a few hundred 'just because'.......... most of P's claim is tossed - she ends up with little over $400 (nothing for the nails which I MIGHT have given if she could show she only had done for the shoot)........ Edited January 30, 2021 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 (edited) 19 hours ago, Florinaldo said: I do not believe so. If the inspection shows probems and then she buys the car anyway, one could well argue that she accepted it in that condition and therefore has no recourse against the seller. An inspection is not an open ticket to bill any needed repair to the seller, unless that person agrees to do so. If not, she is getting into the deal with eyes open and must live by the consequences. Or she can simply walk away. I think key is that seller should have given the maintenance records to buyer. Not that there was any legal requirement to provide the service history. I see no reason why he would take car to be serviced right before selling vee-hickle and not give paperwork to buyer unless he was trying to hide something.......... OTOH, he apparently gave shop ok to show buyer the records when he could have said no Still, as we all routinely point out, GET A MECHANIC TO INSPECT THE USED CAR BEFORE the purchase......... even more so when we're talking about such a high priced purchase Edited January 30, 2021 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 When I traded in my car a few years ago, I had all of the maintenance records, but had ripped my name and address off of all of them. The person who did the trade in told me not to leave them in the car, and if anyone needed to verify the recalls (it had the killer airbags replaced) they could check online easily. He said they had people leave information in cars, that went to auction, (the dealership sends older vehicles to auction, and their newer used cars are detailed, and everything removed from them before sale), and then the new owner would show up at the previous owner's house. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 29, 2021 Share January 29, 2021 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: dyed wig catastrophe I stopped watching and only listened from afar because her eyelashes were frightening; it looked like they were about to mutate and fly away at any moment. But that did not protect me from hearing her stupid giggles. I usually hate wig cases and this was no exception. 1 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama January 30, 2021 Share January 30, 2021 I watched the wig case (I didn't want to turn TPC off, and miss the start of Judge Judy), and I wanted to slap the giggle right out of the plaintiff's mouth. Those fake eyelashes of hers were hideous. My guess is that the case was just to get publicity for the plaintiff, and her influencer scheme, and no a real case. 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 30, 2021 Share January 30, 2021 I wonder if perhaps she misunderstood the talk about doubling up on face coverings because of the variants now circulating and decided that doing the same with her eyelashes would afford her more protection. Naaaah! This is just her usual ugly and stupid looks. 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 30, 2021 Share January 30, 2021 I'm sitting here at 1:00a.m., just wondering what would be the duties and obligations of a Hair Ambassador. I'm sure many of you were pondering this question as well. I knew I couldn't sleep until I found out, so here it is, fresh from Google: Quote A hair ambassador is someone who believes in your business, loves your hair, and is willing to rock different styles and colors. They are your walking billboard, and those word-of-mouth referrals will take your coins, influence, clientele, relationships, and business to the next level. Now you know. 2 4 1 Link to comment
SRTouch February 1, 2021 Share February 1, 2021 Hmmmmmmm, think my provider is out of sync again. My tv guide says new cases, yet I'm seeing recent rerun. My first case is daycare suing factory working SSM for defamation and report to Child Services. Case takes place in jurisdiction where apparently you don't need a license no matter how many kids you're taking care of as long as they're relatives. SSM obviously not really concerned with number of kids, her real complaint was daycare refusing to let her drop off/pick up her 8 year whenever she wanted. Nobody gets anything. Second case was tenant suing landlord for deposit and overpayment of rent. Only noteworthy thing in case was this was one where somebody broke in to the apartment and only thing going stolen was sex toys. Landlord loses out based on not meeting time limit it for itemized list of things damages. Tenant gets back deposit, but not thenough prepaid last month rent since she was there part of month 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 1, 2021 Share February 1, 2021 (edited) That day care case was ridiculous. Another person who says a day care was awful, but after their child had been going there forever. Unless there's a huge market for used sex toys, I think we all know who broke into the apartment in the second case. Edited February 1, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 1, 2021 Share February 1, 2021 (edited) SRTouch, I think you need to sue someone for pain and suffering. I got three shiny, brand-new cases today. The first was a rather rough, loud woman with a horrible Prince Valiant hairdo, suing her tenant for rent, damages and all that crap. She invites this weirdo man to come and occupy a bedroom in her house and according to her, all was fine for a year or so. THEN, her evil bedsitter starts using all her stuff. She lists it: Sugar, salt, spices, ketchup, mustard, soap, etc etc. He was using the dishwashing liquid too, but that was a step too far and she put the "kibosh" on that! She has a camera in her living room and watched the def while she was out. He looked out windows, peeked into the backyard - it all made her feel he was spying on...something. BUT! She then got footage of him walking around naked and sitting his bare ass on her sofa. Gross. JM wants to know if she confronted him about this? Well, no. She did not. She was just too embarassed or intimidated maybe. She says he was bullying and intimidating her, just because she's a helpless little lady. AS IF! Trust me - not many people would have the courage to face off with this woman. Her timidity and fearfulness didn't stop her from rolling her eyes at JM (who until then seemed to be sympathetic to her for some reason) and sassing her sarcastically. This was brought on when P accused D of breaking her ceiling fan and JM wanted to know how he did that and told her to shut up about the fan. Sometimes ceiling fans just stop working, you know? P wanted D out when she got some boyfriend, Joe, who unfortunately we never saw. Too bad, because Joe has all kinds of pertinent info. Joe is the one who cleaned Def's revolting, disgusting bathroom after D left. D. has that old same song: "I was going to come back and clean it after I moved out". Sure he was. The carpet is stained so horrifically it looks like a crime scene and I can't even imagine how he did it? But it wasn't like that when he moved out, he says. Okay, then. He says "Joe" told him not to worry about it since he and his ladylove were going to rip it out and put tile there anyway. He also left a hat on some cheapo, faux-marble table in his room and when the hat was lifted there was some sort of candle burned into this table. JM wants to see it now, so P takes her phone and starts lumbering around the house with her camera because she can't find this precious table. It's either in the cat's room or the dog's room. She's not sure. We finally see it. JM deduces it's not so valuable. The cat is cute. Def says P started making conditions unbearable, like telling him he could no longer use the washer/dryer, turning off his cable and throwing all his food out. He says he wanted to grill something and the food was gone. "Joe" informed him it had been tossed. I can't see how D wanted to grill some meat, because he has a grand total of three teeth - the front bottom ones - and it would be impossible to eat meat, no? Watching him trying to talk made me turn away, since I was trying to eat my own grilled steak. P gives him a 3-day notice and says if he's not out she's going to throw all his junk out on the street. He leaves, one day late. P gets the money for the 2 1/2 week's rent he owes, plus 100$ for Joe cleaning up the D's filthy bathroom. Edited February 1, 2021 by AngelaHunter 3 Link to comment
seacliffsal February 2, 2021 Share February 2, 2021 In the landlord/tenant case summarized above I was really hoping that JM would award something to the defendant as this was yet another sterling example of what is illegal for landlords to do to force a tenant out. JM tells these landlords that what they did was wrong, but there aren't any consequences (or very many) for them. This landlord certainly tried to change her demeanor after getting called out about her attitude. I loved it when JM said "you do know that I can see you when you're rolling your eyes at me..." 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 2, 2021 Share February 2, 2021 The other two cases today were kind of boring. I zoned out on the skeevy, shifty def. who beat the P out of 288$ and told a bunch of dumb lies here. I was glad P got the money back. We had another bouncy house case. Plaintiff said she was holding a party for a bunch of 4-year-olds and was doing it in a "COVID-safe" way, with only people there that she just knew had no contact with anyone who had or has COVID. JM has difficulty trying to believe that. Yeah, we don't believe it either, but these kids must have their big show-off parties, pandemic be damned. Anyway, P ran out to buy something and when she came back she was told Def's kid took a paving brick and threw it at the bouncy house, which made a big hole in it. Def brought her kid over and made him apologize for doing that, but then when asked to pay for the damage changed her story. Now it was P's kid (who of course is named "Jayden")who threw the brick at D's kid, missed and it landed on the bouncy house. So why did D apologize? She looks very silly and maybe even a little ashamed but that may be wishful thinking on my part. Personally I'm surprised a 4-year-old could actually hurl the brick. Those things are heavy. P wins the cost of the thing. I don't know how much and don't care. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch February 2, 2021 Share February 2, 2021 (edited) family feud: out of state cousin relocates - P gives him a job and let's him live rent free in a house with her mom - P says D claimed to be a great salesman, but she starts him off as an entry level employee in her insurance agency - says he turned out to be a terrible employee, not only was he a bad worker who lost paperwork and took excessive breaks, he talked bad about her in front other employees - P gave him a credit card to purchase business office supplies and he used it for other stuff, as well as loaning him money for car repairs - finally he quits or she fires him, and P does a little self help by subtracting what he owes from his final check - lawsuit comes from her claim that D went on FB and ran her down, which hurt her business - wants $500.......... D doesn't deny his post, but says all he did was agree with another of P's former employees - seems this employee was one of those he befriended and gossiped about their boss (P), when this person complained she wasn't paid on time D chimed in saying he wasn't paid when he got canned - oh, later we learn this other employee is here as D's witness - and this employee is also involved in litigation with P in a different case so shouldn't say much here ......... soooooo this comes down to a slander case with P slinging a bunch of mud to make D look bad - slander cases are tough to prove, and from intro sounds like sour grapes from fired employees and not actionable in court......... so, a year after D gets canned P is working from home because of covid and is maybe late issuing employees checks (maybe because it's really a matter of hours, but Lynn, this other now ex-employee, was online b*itching about her check being late at 645am on payday - little P says about it seems she normally has payroll done a day early and Lynn was having a fit because this time she would have to wait until payday - but wasn't listening that closely so just could be wrong)....... soooooo Lynn is posting on FB about P not making payroll and D chimes in about how P kept part (or maybe all) of his last paycheck...... ok, I guess her slander case is based on his comments on Lynn's FB group/timeline and fact that even after cousin was fired he continued to gossip with her employees about what a lousy boss P is......... not finding this all that interesting - not liking P much, not liking D who badmouths cousin after she gave him a job and place to live, really not liking Lynn........ yada yada with bunch of yakkety yak that MM gets paid to listen to but I can zip through......... I gather Lynn and D were liberal in their profanity when discussing P - 'f'ing this and that and calling her the 'c'' word, but really D was not posting so much as replying to Lynn's Lynn's posts - oh, and Lynn was doing her posting on company time on a company 'puter, and after Lynn was fired P found all these nasty posts where they had been trashing her........ over to little whiney D cousin to listen to him - but I skipped his crybaby complaints about the big bad tyrant bossy cousin who gave him a job and place to live rent free - gave him too much work and actually expected him to stay after hours to finish when he didn't finish during business hours (now sure if she was paying him to stay)........... as expected, slander case dismissed, but she may have a better case against Lynn when that case comes up as she says she can disprove Lynn's claims tenant/landlord deposit case: tenant rented vacation lakehouse and says D wrongfully kept the $900 deposit after the 1 week rental, and she wants the money back........ landlord, D, says P left trash and damages - she's actually filed a $3000+ counterclaim for damages over and above the deposit........... I confess I caught portions of this one live, and when it came time to watch the recording I just wasn't into it - first, P talking about how she knew she needed to keep place clean, then MM shows several overflowing BIG trash cans full of trash P left (she left week's worth of garbage next to house on Sunday and new tenant was due same day and no pickup til next week, so landlord filled her car with stinky trash to drive it away, says 5 hour drive, but bet she dropped it off in first dumpster she saw on way home) - tenant's excuse is no one told her where to dispose of the trash, but landlord says she was given a list of the rules (that's she said she said since P denies ever receiving it and P doesn'the get anything signed) - oh, but bad on landlord, she rented without a signed contract or even really knowing who was going to be staying there, and later we hear she kept deposit but never provided the all important itemized list of damages......... like I said, this seemed like rehash of story we hear a couple times a week, and I zipped through most of it......... after listening to the two sided gibber jabber, MM handles claim and counterclaim simultaneously since landlord would lose without the itemized list, but gets a second bite of the apple because she filed the counterclaim - tenant in trouble because she obviously left a mess, but as often happens, landlord has inflated her damages based on very iffy evidence.......... rough justice - P gets $150 of $900 deposit back, while D gets to keep $750 from deposit but none of the 3 grand additional from counterclaim Edited February 3, 2021 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 2, 2021 Share February 2, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: family feud: OMG. Plaintiff (what was with those black gloves she was sporting?) has a voice projected at a decibel level that was making my ears bleed so badly I had to turn the volume way down, and I'm someone with such hearing problems I rely on hearing aids and the CC. SRTouch outlines the details. Both litigants were highly annoying - P with her non-stop blabbering, and her "little cousin" D who is a grown man who relocates with no job, counting on others to give him a place to live where he need pay no rent, a credit card, and a job. He says the words, "honest" and "honestly" about 4 times in his first 2 minutes of testimony, so I believe little of what he says. And really, bitching and whining on frickin' FACEBOOK about the person who took care of his little weenie ass? Ooh, she was so mean to him! She's a tyrant! Solution? Go find a job and place to live all by your little self, cuz. I had no interest in what Lynne, who also gripes on FB, had to say. Big-mouthed P seems to think that calling her "the C-word", something that was repeated endlessly, entitles her to 500$. She claims one of her insurance clients stopped paying their premiums after that FB nonsense. OH, please. Seeing anyone who does pay premiums without any "lapping" is a rarity on these court shows. All these histrionics for nothing. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant/landlord deposit case: We get the punky-looking P, who is a total cleanfreak and very meticulous, according to her. "Really"? says JM. "Because you left a ton of garbage there." 🤣 Well, maybe she's Ms. Clean in her own nest, but in other peoples' property? Not so much, as usual. Def didn't bother with anything in writing for this person and her dirty horde - how the hell do you generate that much trash in such a short time? - because she was dealing with Daddy. Daddy stayed there a number of times, and I guess he wasn't as much of a pig as his darling fastidious daughter. All those disgusting, overflowing trash cans left outside to ferment and fester were really shocking. I also do not believe D put that huge, rancid pile of garbage in her car, on the front seat yet, and drove for 5 hrs with it. And then P's husb- oops! - fiance, or boyfriend, insists one of P's kids needs some service animal, or maybe they all need service animals and move in a couple of unfortunate dogs who create more damage. P whines about gnats, so many GNATS OMG THE GNATS!, and D says P put packing tape on the windows and the paint was damaged when it was ripped off. She wants the bulk of her counterclaim for these damages. Does she have pics of the ripped up paint? Well, no, but she has a bill to redo all the windows. Just take her word for all this damage. Dipshit Levin's take on this: "It's the case of "Go jump in the lake". Back at ya, Levin! Here, take this anchor with you. Edited February 2, 2021 by AngelaHunter 3 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 3, 2021 Share February 3, 2021 (edited) Chronic domestic abuser wants money from abusee: ok, I hate abusers of all kinds, whether it be abuse of women, children or animals - apparently this P spent a year in jail after knocking out D's teeth during this latest 'incident' - later I hear not his first arrest or conviction for abuse........ I say apparently because my provider is having problems airing this episode and I'm only hearing parts of this........ doesn't matter as I would probably skip it anyway....... ok, as I fast forward through recording I start getting better reception, which is why I hear D testify P has "lots of baby mommas" he has abused in padt and put one of his earlier victims in the hospital - and, yes, idiot D married this guy knowing his past history - oh, did I mention she brought her children into marriage to the abusive a$$hole......... that's enough for me, zipping to end....... with all my zipping and having trouble hearing the audio, I have no idea why the abuser was suing for $200 - doesn't matter, MM gives him nothing...... OTOH, D is awarded 6 grand for her dental work and the actual pain and suffering at the hands of this lowlife messed up wiring on jeep: P took her jeep to D's shop to have a backup camera installed and guy screwed up the wiring - she wants $1044....... D says he warned P wiring in the old jeep was marginal before starting installation and she insisted he go ahead......... heck, jeep was only 2011 - practically new on TPC - uh, and did I just hear D says he installed this camera in 2018? How long before the 'lectricity went haywire? P may have trouble proving installation was cause without expert testimony, especially if a lot of time passed before problem occurred........ Ok, P saying camera never worked correctly - says she got an appointment for show to have second try, but then things really went sideways and car was dead........ eventually she got car towed and 3 different shows tried to fix problem - eventually, someone decided her after market alarm system had shorted out, they reset the alarm and got car to started...... next day she starts driving car back to D's shop and things REALLY go sideways as all the lights/horn etc start flashing as she's driving down freeway (that after market alarm thinks car being stolen?).......... hmmmmmm, didn't she say she was on her way to D's shop. Why dies she end up back in her driveway and calling other mechanics to try to get it looked at when she now blames the mess on D's shop - and she says no other shop wanted to touch the rats nest of wiring in her car which she admits existed from before D installed the camera and we see a pic of the mess........ eventually, she gets jeep to jeep dealer and they pull the sloppily installed alarm system - oh my, she ends up taking it to several places and best she gets as evidence is 1 shop said maybe D piggybacked camera onto alarm system (later the dealer writeup really blast the amateur alarm install while barely mentioning camera installation.......... not hearing that expert testimony P needs, in fact she hurts her case when she has to admit wiring was already a mess before the camera was installed........ now MM suggests best option for P is to claim D should have refused job because of pre-existing rat's nest of wiring (or maybe just note on work order that customer was warned that wiring was a disaster waiting to happen) ............ ok, now time for MM to give D a hard time - not starting good as he starts about his employee warning customer about the wiring mess, but yet another business flapping gums with hearsay evidence instead of having employee who dealt with customer present evidence........ best D can do is remove himself and let his manager talk - but again manager didn't talk directly to P - however manager can testify to talking with the jeep dealer while dealer was had the vehicle and was trying to figure out mess......... some more gibber jabber, but, as suspected, P case based on coincidence and her theory without any proof that what she 'believes' happened actually happened, so her case fails even with the lower 'preponderance of evidence' standard.......... in fact her expert testimony, the write up from the dealer, really does make it sound like the after market installation of alarm system created a ticking time bomb with exposed wires where insulation had been stripped - yeah, I'm thinking camera installation may have moved some of those exposed wires enough so that things started shorting out......... turns out D shop is primarily a car stereo shop, and shop manager also notes customer's after market stereo was also poorly installed....... case dismissed Edited February 3, 2021 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 3, 2021 Share February 3, 2021 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Chronic domestic abuser wants money from abusee: This was so sordid in every way it was very hard to watch. Def already knew her loverboy, who starts by ass-kissing JM, was an abuser - I guess beating on women and kids makes him feel like a big tough guy - a druggie and a cheater, who has "lots of baby mammas" BEFORE she married him but it seems she thought she was special and for some reason he wouldn't hit her. Turns out she's not special and he hits her and her kids ( I don't know how many baby daddies she has) which culminates with him, after a night of drugging and whoring, punching out her front teeth. Sure, he's hit her kids and his kids "lots of times" before, but that wasn't enough of a big deal to make her leave him, oh no. She even bailed him out. If a woman chooses to be with and marry someone who is a known abuser (but he goes to church!)who she knows threw "some female" into a coffee table (he certainly knows the words "felonious assault") who ends up beating on her and knocking her teeth out, that's her choice as an adult and that's fine. But how dare she subject her kids to this? Pisses me off big time. Now he's suing her for gas bills or something. I don't know what the outcome was because this tale of savagery was making me ill and like SRTouch, I FF'd. Disgusting. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: messed up wiring on jeep: At least this was light-hearted with no felonious assaults. P woman's tale was so long, convoluted, and meandering I kept getting distracted by trying to count the elephants on her shirt and losing track of the case. She "feels" that the camera defs installed in her Jeep messed up the whole vehicle and made everything in it conk out. The fact that two garages AND Jeep say that the aftermarket alarm system she got some clown to install, that looked like a nest of snakes, with a bunch of stripped wires and incorrect connections, is the cause of the problem. It was annoying that def owner of the place that installed the camera conveniently didn't have anyone here who worked on her car, but it didn't matter, since P's "feelings" about the cause of the failure are irrelevant when the Jeep garage says that just ain't so. 5 Link to comment
rcc February 3, 2021 Share February 3, 2021 (edited) I'm a big fan of yours the abuser says. Judge MM was not impressed. If looks could kill ... Then at the end when told he had to pay her he says good luck with that. Add deadbeat to the list. Edited February 3, 2021 by rcc 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: messed up wiring on jeep: Another ignorant plaintiff who comes to court with a theory she made up out of whole cloth but has so often repeated it to herself that she has become convinced it it the only possible explanation. With not a shred of concrete technical evidence of course. She should have been tossed out on her ass much earlier in the case. 5 Link to comment
VartanFan February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: This was so sordid in every way it was very hard to watch. It really was. I know MM turned to the medical records to determine truth but that letter that she wrote was a gigantic red flag because he had just called her a narcissist and it was so obvious that he fed her the language for that letter. Just sad and awful. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 7 hours ago, SRTouch said: . OTOH, D is awarded 6 grand for her dental work and the actual pain and suffering at the hands of this lowlife I didn't see that part. Maybe she should get cheaper choppers and some of that money should be allocated for therapy for her kids she dragged into the home of this POS, to suffer abuse at his hands just because she wanted a roof over her head, or a ring on her finger, or whatever. It's not all about YOU when you have helpless kids you're supposed to protect. 2 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.