The People's Court - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I got so distracted by trying to figure out the convolutions and construction of D's wig I didn't really concentrate on the case.

My jaw dropped when she said something about she was doing someone else's hair . . . WHAT??????  She would have grounds to sue someone for doing that to HER hair, and then we find out she'd have to sue herself.

[AngelaHunter]

43 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

My jaw dropped when she said something about she was doing someone else's hair . . . WHAT??????  She would have grounds to sue someone for doing that to HER hair, and then we find out she'd have to sue herself.

It was so odd, like two different wigs stitched together, with the flat smooth part on top and the big blond roll dipping down in front. She was doing hair? I missed that part.

[CrazyInAlabama]

So today's bizarre show, Case 1-Tree, on a very wooded lot, fell and crushed plaintiff's stupid shed, and she wants over $4,000 for it.   The tree had a hollow middle, but still had full branches of leaves, and arborists couldn't find anything wrong with the tree, until it fell (next to the shed, not on it).      The defendant has taken down other trees, and another neighbor's dying tree, and he offered to fix the shed, with help from a few neighbors, and plaintiff refused.     Defendant even helped clear up branches and the trees that fell too (they had high winds, and a tropical storm came through the next week).   From the overhead shot, and the arborists opinions before tree fell, the tree looked fine.     Defendant wins.     Plaintiff loses.     (The shed looked fine in the picture with the tree next to it, another try to get damages for an entire structure).

Case 2-Plaintiff says her Pomeranian was grabbed, and injured by defendant Husky, for almost $3800 for vet bills.    Defendant says her Husky was on a very short, strong leash, and says plaintiff dog was on one of those flexileads.  Defendant says the plaintiff's dog leash allowed their Pom to get in her dog's face, and that's why the fight happened. 

 Plaintiff claims Husky walked around the Pom, grabbed him, and then spit the Pom out.    It sounds like plaintiff and her daughter did nothing during the fight/attack (happened at 7 to 8 a.m.), went home, Pom seemed OK, and did not take dog to the vet.    10 hours later Pom stopped eating, and they finally took him to the vet.    Pom has pneumonia, and no fight injuries, or physical effects from the fight.  So,  I'm not blaming that on the Husky.   

I see nothing defendant should pay for.    (Did I mention that I hate flex leashes, and the people who act like their dog should be 10 feet from them.    Walter the Pom had cancer, and died from the cancer.   Pom had a history of aspiration pneumonia, and breathing issues.    Pom had no evidence of lung damage or injury.    Plaintiffs are upset they lost.   

Defendant wins.    

Case 3-Plaintiff suing defendant over non-delivery of some three wheeled electric trike from China (note from me, China had a pandemic too, so get over supply chain delays) for the plaintiff to ride.   Plaintiff can no longer ride a two wheeled bike, but physician said a three wheel trike will work.     PLaintiff was told possibly trike would arrive in October 2020, but wanted to cancel in August.    The picture doesn't show a trike, but a larger three wheeled scooter that looks more like a motorcycle.   Trike arrived in the end of October.  Defendant can't get $500 deposit back from distributor/warehouse, and plaintiff claims defendant said he would get her a refund.   Tell me there's a contract, or invoice or something?   $500 to plaintiff.

 

[Carolina Girl]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

What an irritating, nit-picking little "I...I...I" pissant the P was, with his whining that "the fence got wet!!"

I noticed that the fence was PAINTED on the Defendant's side.  If nothing else, paint repels water.  Plaintiff's side of the fence probaby didn't even weather-proof stain.  And really - $7000???  I replaced a fence three times that length in California for $1500, including materials.  Even using the steel posts rather than wooden ones wouldn't account for the extra $5500.

[AngelaHunter]

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Did I mention that I hate flex leashes, and the people who act like their dog should be 10 feet from them. 

I was at a pet adoption fair - an indoor venue that was quite crowded and chaotic as everyone thinks they should bring their own pets with them - where there were a number of ex-racing greyhounds for adoption. Some woman had her tiny, fluffy white dog on a very long flex leash, and as she stood there gabbing to someone her little dog got close to one of the greyhounds. The greyhound lunged at this tiny dog that looked like prey and luckily the person handling the greyhound yanked it back just before it grabbed the little dog. Pay attention to where your dogs are and stop blaming others for your negligence!

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So today's bizarre show, Case 1-Tree, on a very wooded lot, fell and crushed plaintiff's stupid shed, and she wants over $4,000 for it. 

All I could think of is that I feel sorry for everyone who had to become a neighbour of this unpleasant, nasty, sour woman who will never stop harassing everyone around her.  Trees break, and it's not always someone's fault. P is loaded with hearsay evidence of four arborists who informed her that D's tree was diseased. D had only hearsay to offer as well, but the pictures showed no way could he have known the tree would fall. I did believe D who says this harridan wants all trees near her property gone because she wants to put in a pool. Awful woman.

Edited April 28, 2021 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was at a pet adoption fair - an indoor venue that was quite crowded and chaotic as everyone thinks they should bring their own pets with them - where there were a number of ex-racing greyhounds for adoption. Some woman had her tiny, fluffy white dog on a very long flex leash, and as she stood there gabbing to someone her little dog got close to one of the greyhounds. The greyhound lunged at this tiny dog that looked like prey and luckily the person handling the greyhound yanked it back just before it grabbed the little dog. Pay attention to where your dogs are and stop blaming others for your negligence!

That was very ridiculous, since Greyhounds are used to chasing an automated bunny rabbit lure.   I hate the flexi leads, they're a menace. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's new one is so funny.   Case 1-Plaintiff was getting her lips tattooed, (permanent makeup), and claims the defendant screwed up the lip tattoo, and broke her $6,000 of dental bridge.   But yet plaintiff claims she was never in pain.    Plaintiff also never mentioned the bridge issue until she filed the lawsuit.       Plaintiff didn't want just her tattoo fees back ($600+), but her $6,000 bridge replaced too.    Defendant wins the case, but no money for the awful things plaintiff posted about her work.

Case 2-PLaintiff claims their neighbor's tree's encroaching roots are ruining their property, they want $3500 for an entirely new wall.  The culprit is a  Plaintiff's driveway was lifting up, she repaired that.   Her brick wall is cracking, and defendant thought about helping to repair it, until he heard the price.   Defendant says the tree is a Sycamore, and is protected in California so he can't touch the roots, without a permit from the city, and arborists.   The tree can't be removed, or the roots touched, unless the root work won't harm the tree

Defendant says the brick wall was damaged for years.     Plaintiff had the wall totally replaced, and the wall is now taller, wider, and the total was $10k.   Plaintiff did a survey, and the wall was all on her property.    Defendant says it's not the tree, it's in an area with earthquake faults, and there are worse driveways in homes without trees.     Previous wall was built without rebar.    

Judge Marilyn says since plaintiff owns the wall, that all costs for maintenance and repair are on her wallet.  ALso, she has the right to trim other species of tree hanging over the property line, but has to follow the law about the Sycamore.   Also, the tree damages aren't the defendant's problem.   Plaintiff case dismissed. 

(The look on tree plaintiff's face was so outraged, I had to laugh, because I loathed her.)

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Case 1-Plaintiff was getting her lips tattooed, (permanent makeup), and claims the defendant screwed up the lip tattoo, and broke her $6,000 of dental bridge

I haven't watched today's eps yet, but now I'm looking forward to doing so.

Yesterday's ep (I think it was yesterday?) gave us sisters - P gave all kinds of money to D sister, who is always in crisis and feels very entitled to be Everyone's Charity Case and had the saddest tale of depriviation yet: She would have to give up smoking weed for a WHOLE MONTH ("If you can afford weed, you can afford your rent," JM informs her) if her mean sister kept demanding to be repaid for all the money she kindly loaned to Def for her bills, her therapist, rent, etc, after mom got fed up and closed her ATM.  Def says they are her "support system" and claims the money was all a gift, even when P sister lost her own job due to COVID and couldn't keep subsidizing the leech.

IMO, Def needed to use some of that money to fix that atrocious mess on her head. It looked like she hacked the tail off a horse, dyed half of it, combed it with an eggbeater and stuck it on her dome.  Looking at these two, I have to think that "You can't judge a book by its cover" is not always true. JM seemed to want to counsel them, but decided to just advise P to stop giving money to her sister.

[Guest]

On 4/28/2021 at 5:36 PM, AngelaHunter said:

All I could think of is that I feel sorry for everyone who had to become a neighbour of this unpleasant, nasty, sour woman who will never stop harassing everyone around her.  

She was a nasty piece of work, am I right?  I just love that expression.  My co-worker uses that all the time and I’ve been trying to shoehorn it into a conversation but in my job I mostly listen so there isn’t much opportunity.

Anyway, the plaintiff and defendant both had, what appeared to be nice homes.  That is, no unmade beds, no drug paraphernalia, no overflowing baskets of laundry so it was a joy to wander and look at the background.

NPOW’s kitchen has one of those faucets on back of the oven wall that fills large pots so you don’t have to schlep the huge pot to the stove.  My house doesn’t have that.  I have to manually fill a pot, take it to the stove and let it boil.  My question is that if it’s to make your life convenient, what do you do when you need to empty the boiling hot water with pasta in it?  Don’t you have to schlep said large pot over to the sink but now you’re schlepping boiling hot water....

No question she wanted a piggy bank for a pool.  And her poor neighbor seemed like a nice guy too.  Why can’t all the jerky neighbors in the world live in one subdivision?  

It’s true.  The rich do live different lives than the rest of us.  Am I right?

Edited April 30, 2021 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

NPOW’s kitchen has one of those faucets on back of the oven wall that fills large pots so you don’t have to schlep the huge pot to the stove.  

Oh. I did notice the faucet but thought it was over the sink.  So is the water boiling when it comes out? No, I do not have one of those either. I bet she has a 12K, 6-burner, restaurant-style stove and never uses it for gourmet meals at big dinner parties. Who wants to go to dinner and spend the evening with that nasty piece of work?😄

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

It’s true.  The rich do live different lives than the rest of us.  Am I right?

They do seem to have different worries, priorities, and concerns than I have. It would take more than a damaged shed to get me so bent out of shape that I'd drag my neighbour to court.

Yes, the def seemed very nice and even cleaned up the tree from her yard and offered to help fix that shed, trying to be a good neighbour, but nothing could satisfy that hag, the Tree Hater, except her neighbours clear-cutting their properties. I'm surprised she didn't call the police, which our litigants seem addicted to doing over every little annoyance.

That dragon would hate living near me. Here's an arial view of my place. Can you see me waving at you all?👋

 

[seacliffsal]

In the tattoo lips case I was shocked when the defendant told JM that there were three steps in the process, each a month apart and that the lip color would stay for a year.  Why does anyone do this?  Three months to get one year-and the cost was over $600 for the procedures.  Oh well.

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

In the tattoo lips case I was shocked when the defendant told JM that there were three steps in the process, each a month apart and that the lip color would stay for a year.  Why does anyone do this?  Three months to get one year-and the cost was over $600 for the procedures.  Oh well.

THey do touch ups after a year or so.    The permanent makeup can fade eventually.    The plaintiff did say her eye makeup only needed one touch up in 15 years, but I don't think lip makeup would last that well.     The microblade brows cost just as much, and have to be redone, or touched up a lot more than the eyeliner does also. 

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

In the tattoo lips case I was shocked when the defendant told JM that there were three steps in the process, each a month apart and that the lip color would stay for a year.  Why does anyone do this?

That's what I was trying to figure out. Why? I like to wear lipstick when going out. I upcap the tube, apply the lipstick and fini! It doesn't cost anywhere near 600$. So why the tattoo? I really don't understand. Did P feel it would so enhance her appearance she was willing to pay all that money and sit for 3 sessions?

But lips are totally different type of skin than on the forehead or arm which P didn't seem to understand. I've heard tattoo artists say they don't even like to tattoo someone's palms or inner lip because it won't last very long.

Def looked like everything on her face - eyes, brows, lips - were all just tattoos. She said her eyeliner was tattooed. How on earth can that be done without puncturing an eyeball?

Anyway, blaming the broken partial on the def was ridiculous. It broke a few days later. Tiny partials are not indestructible, but I'm sure if P really set her mind to it, she could have found something else to pin on Def and charged her for it.

This case lasted way longer than it should have, due to both litigants giving mini-autobiographies and repeating themselves numerous times.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Def looked like everything on her face - eyes, brows, lips - were all just tattoos. She said her eyeliner was tattooed. How on earth can that be done without puncturing an eyeball?

Back in my working days, I had my eyeliner tattooed twice, several years apart.  The tattoo needles aren't very deep, and the edge of the eyelid is the thickest part, so the eyeball isn't involved.  But because the needles don't go very deep, the ink doesn't last as long as tattoos on other parts of the body.

The most unpleasant part of it is that the artist has to constantly wipe your eye during the process, and it can sting a bit.  The process is:  dip needle into ink, apply ink into eyelid, wipe off excess ink, repeat.  The actual tattooing just feels like a vibration.

Edited May 1, 2021 by AZChristian

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/30/2021 at 4:57 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(The look on tree plaintiff's face was so outraged, I had to laugh, because I loathed her.)

Strangely, so did I. If your 40+ year-old concrete driveway cracks, that's life and you can't always pin it on someone else. Concrete driveways and cinderblock walls crack over time. It happens. Best was her admitting the wall was on her property, yet def should help pay for it? Fix it all yourself and STFU or set up a "GoGimme" account!

[Florinaldo]

I find the cases we have had recently to be generally uninteresting. I often wander off after the first one and do not finish the episode.

The new gimmick they are trying out this week does not help. The "human interest" segment where JM and JJ are asked questions by viewers about their personal lives, including how they met, etc., are not what I watch these shows for. They hit a new low today with the silly question about whether they ask people to take off their shoes when entering their home.

[AZChristian]

8 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

They hit a new low today with the silly question about whether they ask people to take off their shoes when entering their home.

My judgment of "new low" was when they got into a detailed discussion about leaving the toilet seat up.

[AngelaHunter]

I just have to comment on two of the most detestable defs seen here in some time.

Plaintiff is an artist who does and sells pet portraits. Def, who is utterly heartbroken over the loss of her "service dog" agrees she wants P to do the dog's portrait. The dog was never out of Def's reach or sight, well, except when it was and got run over.

P, who seems like a lovely person, agrees to do the portrait without being paid anything up front. She tells Def the shipping might be expensive and texts her at the post office to let her know it will be 45$ to which Def replies "Okay". Turns out she had no intention of paying either for the art or the postage which all told came to a measly 150-odd dollars. Def's husband texts P telling her how they LOVE the painting and it means so much to them and it's on the wall and they look at it all the time and blah blah and they will certainly pay her. They don't. Not one red cent. 

Def says she "met" P on a FB group that supports artists. JM wants to know if that "support" includes stiffing them for work they've done? OH, but Def thought it was a gift to her, from this total stranger who sells her artwork. She would rather appear here and let everyone in this support group know she's a scammer than pay the tiny price requested.  Well, she couldn't pay for it! She and her grifting hubby "had their house robbed to 35K"! JM is kind of disgusted. Pay the lady, you lowlife.

Then we had P, Mr. Perez, who rented a room or floor in def, Mr. Greene's, house where a fire broke out due to Def's faulty wiring. The place was rendered uninhabitable by the fire department, so P had to move temporarily to his mother's house as Def assured him the repairs would take place soon. Five months later it's still uninhabitable. Def says he offered P his junk/sun room to live in, but P declined and wants his security deposit and pro-rated rent he paid up until the fire. P couldn't wait forever so found another place to live.

Def is a pompous, pontificating, pony-tailed pig who had the air of a not-too-successful lawyer who decided to keep all P's money because P didn't give 30 day's notice of his intention to move. JM wants to know if Def thinks P is clairvoyant and knew a month in advance there would be a fire? Def protests he couldn't get any construction done because of COVID and JM informs him that is not true. JM is rather irate at D when the fire was his responsibility (as she says, it was just lucky P wasn't asleep when the fire happened or he might be dead) and orders him to return the 2200$ sec. deposit and would have awarded him money for his destroyed TV, laptop, etc but he had zero proof that these items were left there and damaged.

Third case was boring, concerning oil leak repairs that didn't work on a 17-year old Nissan with 183,000 miles. Def has to return the amount paid since it seems he couldn't check or figure out the problem even after having the veehickle for a total of one month.

The only part I liked was Levin announcing, "It's the case of 'I'm leaking badly!'" I'm not surprised Levin, but you need to watch late-night TV and see that you can order your bladder control products to be delivered to your door in plain wrappers so no one will know you're peeing in your panties. Oh, and fuck you.

[AngelaHunter]

22 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

segment where JM and JJ are asked questions by viewers about their personal lives, including how they met, etc., are not what I watch these shows for

I kind of like "how we met" stories and enjoyed that one, but FF through the "shoes or no shoes" thing and never heard about the toilet seats.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

My judgment of "new low" was when they got into a detailed discussion about leaving the toilet seat up.

I missed that one, probably because I had already given up on the episode or had absented myself temporarily.

The shoe segment was plain silly and irrelevant. I imagine the toilet seat one to have been tasteless and out of place.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then we had P, Mr. Perez, who rented a room or floor in def, Mr. Greene's,

We have seen landlords trying to push the envelope but that one is very close to taking the top prize. Trying to enforce the need for a notice to move when the place had become uninhabitable because of fire!

Edited May 5, 2021 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

20 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

We have seen landlords trying to push the envelope but that one is very close to taking the top prize.

He was utterly shameless about it all and acted like it was a favour that he offered to let plaintiff live in some sunroom! I guess he's desperate for money.

I liked that JM asked the artist for her website to give her a plug. I do like her cheerful paintings. If anyone wants to take a look it's here:

https://www.karensavageart.com/

[seacliffsal]

I don't care for the most recent revisions.  I preferred when Harvey answered legal questions and the judges spoke about the case.  It's probably easier/cheaper to film when the judges don't have to reference the current case and can answer multiple questions in one seating.  I didn't want to hear about pet peeves, etc. So, now it's Harvey commenting on the case and the judges answering questions.

[AngelaHunter]

My preferred format would be NO Levin. Nada. ZeeRO Levin. His silly summation of a case today said it perfectly: "It's the case of 'Unloading a Leaker'." He seems quite struck on leaky things lately.

Let's unload ol' Leaky Levin.  However, I also much prefer to hear the judges discuss the cases we just saw. I just FF'd their segments today.

[rcc]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

My preferred format would be NO Levin. Nada. ZeeRO Levin. His silly summation of a case today said it perfectly: "It's the case of 'Unloading a Leaker'." He seems quite struck on leaky things lately.

Let's unload ol' Leaky Levin.  However, I also much prefer to hear the judges discuss the cases we just saw. I just FF'd their segments today.

Yes get back to the cases!

[Florinaldo]

I think HL brings relevant legal information, even it it is often very basic. But as we know, most litigants who appear on these shows (and perhaps even a number of viewers) are blissfully unaware of even the most fundamental legal facts and principles. A number of them might also have trouble understanding HL's simple explanations and the judge's discussions, although they may be useful to at least that portion of the audience that can actually understand them. 

I hope the show quickly ditches the "you never pack underwear" segments as a temporary aberration.

[seacliffsal]

Beyond the silly questions that the judges are currently answering (instead of their perspectives on the cases), it seems like they get a bit snippy in some of their responses to the personal questions.  Stop it!  I want my fun and insightful judges segments back, not what bothers them about each other!

[CrazyInAlabama]

I did enjoy the segment where a viewer asked if the judges ever ran into anyone they sentenced in court.    Judge Marilyn had a TPC litigant who had appeared as a defendant before Judge John.       Judge Marilyn said in a dark parking lot, she ran into a former defendant she had sentenced.   She said it crossed her mind that she was in big trouble, but the man told her she had turned his life around, and he totally changed, and thanked her.   

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

She said it crossed her mind that she was in big trouble, but the man told her she had turned his life around, and he totally changed, and thanked her.   

 That was just to lure her into a false sense of security.  Lol 

 I'm currently only watching the new episodes as reruns, which seem to be 3-4 weeks behind so I haven't seen this new format.  I assume it came about because the judges (mostly John) would always come up with these crazy personal anecdotes when commenting on the cases.  I always got a chuckle out of a lot of them and I'm guessing they thought if they were fun as part of the case comments it would be even better with whole segments about them. 

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, Maverick said:

I assume it came about because the judges (mostly John) would always come up with these crazy personal anecdotes when commenting on the cases. 

I'm sure you're right! I liked his anecdotes as well as they pertained to discussion of a case. I especially found it amusing that JM seems to not have known about some of them.  I guess in a household full of outspoken women he either never got a chance to tell his tales or he did and no one listened. He seems so happy at finally having a forum in which he can do so.

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Judge Marilyn said in a dark parking lot, she ran into a former defendant she had sentenced. 

I recently started reading a true story about a prosecutor who also met a man she'd sent to prison. Her story did not turn out well and in fact was so disturbing I abandoned the book.

[Florinaldo]

I do not mind the anecdotes when they come up in the course of a legal discussion of the case we have just watched. But when they become the focus of a distinct segment, very celeb-TV style, that it where they lose me.

[aemom]

I'm a bit behind again!

 

On 4/26/2021 at 5:28 PM, AngelaHunter said:

True, but maybe that's a good thing so we didn't get one of Levin's stupid, alliterative, dumbass titles. Really boring case but I was curious as to why party-hard P got full purchase price for his beloved, overpriced sunglasses and not depreciated value? He didn't miss them for the last 3 years.

He got the full amount because he bought them just before they went on the trip, so they were brand new when they were lost.

 

On 4/26/2021 at 5:51 PM, PsychoKlown said:

Speaking of the lamp, I wonder if there’s a small door behind this art piece that opens up and several “nesting lamps” come walking out.

Also, a shout out to the defendant’s rocking aviator glasses.  I had a flashback to an Elton John concert, circa 1978.  Philadelphia PA. 

He (the defendant) must have been might proud of that lamp since it occupied a prominent place in the screen shot.

JM felt that the D had taken them from Derrick's house again and I agree with her because I saw at least EIGHT pairs of sunglasses in various designs on the shelves behind him, so the D is totally into sunglasses and probably thought that he could lift that pair and add it to his collection.

[AngelaHunter]

That hateful, hatchet-faced hag thinks she's so hot and "delicious"(the word JM used when mocking her) that a man would just gift her 5,000$ for the pleasure of her company when she needed the money to pay a lawyer. Oh, but he wanted more *wink wink* for his money. So if you take 5K knowing he wants more, doesn't that make you just a deadbeat hooker who takes money and doesn't deliver? And she thinks she's worth all that money? I guess so.

Her husband probably couldn't stand his lowlife, scamming, lying wife anymore and they were getting divorced. Def never asked P for the 5K. He just offered it so it's a gift. JM confronts her with her lying in a text to P saying as soon as she gets it cleared to cash in some retirement fund she'll have a check for him. She continues to lie, first digressing into some party she had (in COVID times and to which P was not invited) and then saying that was concerning something about him helping her with her tax returns or some bullshit.

D complains that P stalked her, drove past the houses of her and her friends (maybe trying to get his money back?)P was annoying with his display of some tacky, kissy, Hallmark cup the D gave him and his "had went" and "had ate" but he deserved to be repaid by the horrid harridan. We see the usual zero shame of the grifter. P gets his 5,127$ back and D gets a very public spanking.

Next case is Def, oily, goofy, and scamming Mr. Hossain who calls himself a rental agent and takes 1K deposit from P for an apartment. Owner of the building apparently said the apartment was too small for 4 people and rejects his application. Mr. Hossain said he's entitled to keep the money since that went to the landlord and is non-refundable. JM wants to see the contract P signed. Okay, but Mr. Hossain needs to get it from his office as he doesn't have it on hand. JM gives him time and he brings back a blank contract since P never signed anything. But he has dozens of signs in his office stating that deposits are non-refundable! JM wants to see the signs, but oops, D can't show her those either.

D says "we" sent P a check for 500$. Sadly, it bounced. No, it didn't, says slimy Def. "They" just stopped payment because the landlord decided to give P his whole 1K back. JM wants to know why 'they' just didn't send another check for 500$? She wants to see something from the landlord stating that. Well, def doesn't have that in front of him. He has "millions"(!) of files and can't be expected to find just this one over which he's being sued, but trust him, the check didn't bounce. We clearly see "Insufficient funds" on P's bank statement. Def mentions his millions of files again in the hall. Imagine, this landlord has literally had millions of applicants and tenants. Wow, that must be some big office. P gets back his 1K, plus his 12$ for the rubber check plus interest from the time the greasy little scumbag failed to return the money.

[mtbingmom]

On 5/5/2021 at 5:28 PM, Florinaldo said:

The new gimmick they are trying out this week does not help. The "human interest" segment where JM and JJ are asked questions by viewers about their personal lives, including how they met, etc., are not what I watch these shows for. They hit a new low today with the silly question about whether they ask people to take off their shoes when entering their home.

I actually don't mind Harvey answering questions about points of law, or about episodes of the show (how many, weirdest), what Ed Koch was like, etc. Maybe the judges once a week.

[AngelaHunter]

Today we had the 80-year-old computer tech who was requested to work on the shop computers of the def's cleaning business. The shop computers were there when Def bought the business, 5 or 8 or maybe more years ago. P spends 19 1/2 hrs working on these dinosaurs and says he was trying to get "XP" running on them ( he mentions XP many times) doesn't know what to do, calls the company, they explain it but it still doesn't work. According to a letter from the company, P just didn't know what he was doing. He presents Def with a bill for 2,000$. Def starts yelling and cursing at him and it scared the crap out of him.

Okay, I'm a computer dummy and was trying to figure out if he was referring to WindowsXP? Is that possible? Even I know that's ancient. I do get it. I try and hang on to my outdated technology as long as possible but there comes a point when you have to move on. I guess JM let him slowly ramble on and on and on about the computers and what the problems were in minute detail because of his age. Anyway, JM awards him 350$ for his work and advises Def to maybe just bite the bullet and get a new computer. P is not happy and goes into his whole song and dance again with Doug in the Hall but mercifully is cut off.

Then we had P, who decided after looking on line to buy a 2005 Honda (Def says it's actually 2002) for 400$, doesn't bother getting it checked out in any way and just pays for it. His cousin or someone points out there is 3-inch hole in the engine, which could have been seen had P bothered to do even the most cursory check on this 400$ vehicle so says he doesn't want the car and wants his money back. Def says deal is done and the car is his.

P then goes to def's house at night,  yelling and screaming like an out-of-control lunatic in the street, "I WANT MY MONEY!!" and blasting a car horn, all of which is on video. JM doesn't even scold  him for this but once again explains the "as is" and tells him the car is his and he needs to arrange to go get it. Shouldn't a 400$ car be in A-1 shape?

I watched a bit of the judges talking. JM tells JJ that their kids "walk all over him." I found that not surprising in the least. 😄

[rcc]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Today we had the 80-year-old computer tech who was requested to work on the shop computers of the def's cleaning business. The shop computers were there when Def bought the business, 5 or 8 or maybe more years ago. P spends 19 1/2 hrs working on these dinosaurs and says he was trying to get "XP" running on them ( he mentions XP many times) doesn't know what to do, calls the company, they explain it but it still doesn't work. According to a letter from the company, P just didn't know what he was doing. He presents Def with a bill for 2,000$. Def starts yelling and cursing at him and it scared the crap out of him.

Okay, I'm a computer dummy and was trying to figure out if he was referring to WindowsXP? Is that possible? Even I know that's ancient. I do get it. I try and hang on to my outdated technology as long as possible but there comes a point when you have to move on. I guess JM let him slowly ramble on and on and on about the computers and what the problems were in minute detail because of his age. Anyway, JM awards him 350$ for his work and advises Def to maybe just bite the bullet and get a new computer. P is not happy and goes into his whole song and dance again with Doug in the Hall but mercifully is cut off.

Then we had P, who decided after looking on line to buy a 2005 Honda (Def says it's actually 2002) for 400$, doesn't bother getting it checked out in any way and just pays for it. His cousin or someone points out there is 3-inch hole in the engine, which could have been seen had P bothered to do even the most cursory check on this 400$ vehicle so says he doesn't want the car and wants his money back. Def says deal is done and the car is his.

P then goes to def's house at night,  yelling and screaming like an out-of-control lunatic in the street, "I WANT MY MONEY!!" and blasting a car horn, all of which is on video. JM doesn't even scold  him for this but once again explains the "as is" and tells him the car is his and he needs to arrange to go get it. Shouldn't a 400$ car be in A-1 shape?

I watched a bit of the judges talking. JM tells JJ that their kids "walk all over him." I found that not surprising in the least. 😄

JM set the rules and disciplined the kids. Not surprised.

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

referring to WindowsXP? Is that possible?

Yeah, XP is dated but there are still a lot of XP machines around, it was perhaps the most reliable Windows OS over an extended period. It is obsolete and no longer supported by Microsoft, no new updates or security patches. Beyond that, many apps running on it are also no longer supported when running on XP (including some browsers) so they do not get updated security patches and updates which leaves them potentially vulnerable. The flip side of that is that some apps running on XP either will not run on Win 10 or require expensive upgrades to migrate. Since the defendant was using his computers for his business, he really should have moved up to Win 10 years ago just to stay up to date on security issues. For the record, I keep one XP and one Win 10 box running, and Win 10 seems to have dropped some of XP's networking features that were easy to use, making full network integration a pain in the neck to maintain.

P.S. I had fun also running a Linux box for years but finally retired it about a decade ago.

Edited May 11, 2021 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Beyond that, many apps running on it are also no longer supported when running on XP (including some browsers) so they do not get updated security patches and updates which leaves them potentially vulnerable.

I  had no idea anyone was still using XP so thanks for the insight! I truly loved my XP until as you say it was no longer supported and not safe anymore. I moved to Win7, which I loved even more. I hung on to it even after there were no more security updates/patches (which took me 6 months to notice) since I had no intention of even trying to figure out the dread Win8.  I finally broke down and got 10 and I do like it very much.

[Florinaldo]

I think the dry cleaning shop owner was completely ignorant about computers and truly thought that patching up his old operating system could have been done with a snap pf the fingers. Another specimen of those deluded litigants we see on these shows who think the universe runs as they imagine it should, not as it really does.

[seacliffsal]

I don't like some of the tension between the judges while answering the personal questions.  Judge Marilyn was visibly agitated when Judge John started sharing things we don't know about her-she looked like she was afraid he would really spill the tea.  Let's go back to their commentary on the cases, I don't like the new twist.

Would it help if we all sent in questions for Harvey so that they might go back to 'after the verdict' instead of 'tell us all of your personal business'?  We could ask about specific cases, etc.

[seacliffsal]

Today's episode really made me miss the "After the Verdict" session as I totally wanted to hear JM talk about the plaintiff in the used dining room set who said in the halterview that JM was wrong in her interpretation of the law (regarding time to inspect a purchase).  The plaintiff (who lost) had a lot of attitude when challenging JM's verdict.  I was glad that Harvey addressed her comments (and corrected her legal understanding "private sales are not covered..."), but I would have really liked to hear Judge John and Judge Marilyn talk about that (instead we got a question about picking up new skills during the pandemic as well as who picks out Judge John's clothes...pointless, pointless questions...).

[rcc]

Today's second case. It has come down to JM having to figure what's owed in drug deals! I hope this is the last time.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

I was glad that Harvey addressed her comments (and corrected her legal understanding "private sales are not covered..."),

JM adressed the same issue but in different terms and not in as pointedly legalese language as HL when she made her decision. The upstart lawyer plaintiff has two much more seasoned attorneys contradicting her. Perhaps she should retake the bar exam (or commercial contract law is simply not her field).

Edited May 11, 2021 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, rcc said:

Today's second case. It has come down to JM having to figure what's owed in drug deals! I hope this is the last time.

I couldn't go on with this. Listening to those two, who both seemed drugged or drunk, arguing over drug and booze money, was too much, as were def's cow eyes enhanced with huge fake lashes. I had to stop after P explained to JM that he couldn't show his own texts because he needed an investigator and a subpoena to access them? Piss off, both of you losers. I don't even want to know who won.

44 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

The upstart lawyer plaintiff has two much more seasoned attorneys contradicting her. Perhaps she should retake the bar exam (or commercial contract law is simply not her field).

That was hilarious and don't drink every time P says "Restoration Hardware" which to her seems to be the epitome of class. Mouthy P is yet another so-called lawyer who has no understanding of simple "as is" laws.  After she's stuck with her piece of crap "vintage" (I'm sorry, but I have actual "vintage" oak furniture and it looks nothing like this  stuff and I was glad JM corrected her on that) dining set she has the gall to tell Doug in the Hall that the judge was 'improper in her interpretation of the uniform commercial code' and truly feels she has a period of time to inspect some old used junk she bought from FB(?) and reject it if does not meet her lofty standards. I shouldn't be surprised. 95% of the lawyers we see here don't seem to know even as much as  layperson who watches this show knows. wonder how long this marriage will last. Poor little hubby seemed pretty cowed.

[mtbingmom]

6 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

 (instead we got a question about picking up new skills during the pandemic as well as who picks out Judge John's clothes...pointless, pointless questions...).

I wouldn't mind seeing Judge John in jeans and a t-shirt. (but the questions are pretty pointless )

[DoctorK]

59 minutes ago, mtbingmom said:

but the questions are pretty pointless

I agree. I would much rather listen to them discuss the cases and their (sometimes differing) perspectives from a judge's point of view. A lot of the questions are on the level of "what is your favorite color?".

[Florinaldo]

"Pointless" is the perfect characterisation for most of those segments where the two judges answer viewer questions. They are being upstaged by HL as far as providing sound legal analysis and advice; as the star of the show JM should not let that happen.

To be fair though, HL is more often to the point and specific than when they do their joint post-decision analysis, since they often resort to commenting on litigants rather than the issues involved in the case.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Florinaldo

[kacesq]

I came here just to complain about the "attorney" who was so woefully wrong on the Uniform Commercial Code and damn snippy about it too... 

I have been out of law school since 1998.  And even I remember that the UCC does not cover private sales.  I wonder if the Botoxed to hell plaintiff has ever practiced law, is barred anywhere or merely googled around and decided she was in the right about the UCC.  

And the two losers arguing over money lent to buy drugs, oy.  I love that the defendant remembered to apply those caterpillars for her big teevee moment but couldn't change out of a sweatshirt.

 

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, kacesq said:

I came here just to complain about the "attorney" who was so woefully wrong on the Uniform Commercial Code and damn snippy about it too... 

I have been out of law school since 1998.  And even I remember that the UCC does not cover private sales.

Exactly. 

It's called Uniform COMMERCIAL Code . . . because it covers COMMERCIAL contracts.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, kacesq said:

I have been out of law school since 1998.  And even I remember that the UCC does not cover private sales.

"It's not Macy's", JM informs her. Does P - a lawyer! -  really think there is a built-in return policy on used, as-is items? And why didn't SHE go along to get the furniture? And why didn't (as JM asked) husband text her with pics of the damage to see if she still wanted it? He thinks she restores furniture and she has no idea why he thinks that. Poor boy. He's cute, but not too bright.

We have many litigants to try to invoke the Lemon Law on some 1997 Pontiac Sunfire they bought and that conks out on the way home.  I guess I expect more from a lawyer and those expectations are nearly always dashed.

40 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

It's called Uniform COMMERCIAL Code . . . because it covers COMMERCIAL contracts.

I just thought of this: Maybe she's thinking of the way a person has two or three days(?)to undo a purchase they made from someone selling stuff like vacuum cleaners, etc. door-to-door for a company? Could that be what is confusing her?

[AZChristian]

12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"It's not Macy's", JM informs her. Does P - a lawyer! -  really think there is a built-in return policy on used, as-is items? And why didn't SHE go along to get the furniture? And why didn't (as JM asked) husband text her with pics of the damage to see if she still wanted it? He thinks she restores furniture and she has no idea why he thinks that. Poor boy. He's cute, but not too bright.

One thing crossed my mind:  If she tries to present the furniture restoration as a side "business" . . . maybe she thinks that would qualify her for use of the UCC.  He said that because she told him to, but his "pretty little head" has no idea why.

I always love it when aggrieved litigants start talking about the "lemon law" for a car that's old enough to vote AND drink . . . and for which they signed an "as-is" contract.