The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

"Could that be what is confusing her?

I think you are giving her too much credit. I think she just combines ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.

[AZChristian]

23 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I think you are giving her too much credit. I think she just combines ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.

You left out "entitlement."

[Mrs Shibbles]

This tax case today... did the tax PREPARER actually use the phrase “they received a return” ? I just can’t with these people. 

[mtbingmom]

Am I really watching a case regarding a tire sale from circa 1970?

[rcc]

Today we have tax cheats and long-time friend being sued for a nominal amount. Cases have been garbage the past two days. Forgot the last case about rats. Lol

Edited May 12, 2021 by rcc
Had to add the rat case.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the ridiculous tax case, I'm guessing the deductions were for sales tax, or medical payments, or other items, but instead everything was deducted.      Barbara the tax preparer is grinning through the entire case.   Employee deductions for food or lodging, tuition for the kid, etc. were legit deductions, however, it sounds like their previous preparer (this case is over the 2017 tax form).     However, the more deductions, the greater the chance of audit.    They lost with the IRS, owe $4800, plus interest of over $600 more.   Plaintiffs needed to supply a letter from employer, and never submitted it.   Plaintiff husband never sent the paperwork to defendant to look into, and they lost the IRS appeal too.   All plaintiff had to do was get the letter from the employer, and he didn't do that, and they get nothing.

Case 2 is even more ridiculous.   Plaintiff says he purchased two tires for $25, and wants the money from defendant.   Defendant says he paid plaintiff the $25, but plaintiff wants $50.    The tire sale was 50 years ago!     Statute of limitations expired in 1976.   Case dismissed.   Defendant says "we're going to be visiting homes for Steve (plaintiff) this weekend". 

Case 3 plaintiffs are suing former landlord for their security deposit back, saying the rental was awful, unlivable, the usual stuff.  Defendants/landlord says plaintiffs were awful, trashed the rental, and deserve nothing back.  Defendants are counter claiming for more damages above the security deposit.   Plaintiffs lived there for a year, and claim there were rodents.   

There are move-in pictures by defendants, and the place is lovely, clean, and looks very nice.   Then the move-out pictures are submitted from a year later.   Damages include scratched floors.   Floors were painted concrete with garage floor paint.   Blinds were replaced by defendants, but plaintiff claims the blinds were fine.   Defendant says every blind was broken in some way.   Plaintiffs took all of the cabinet shelves down, and kick plates were broken..   Oven is disgusting with baked on crud, new refrigerator was replaced, and then the replacement one was rusty, and destroyed by the plaintiff. 

 Hallway looks like someone started to paint, but didn't finish.     Plaintiffs get $144 out of their security deposit back out of $1300.   There was never any proof of rats.    What products did the female plaintiff have in the house?   She keeps saying her products in the house were ruined.    Were they living there or using it as a production facility or store?  

Edited May 12, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Mrs Shibbles said:

This tax case today... did the tax PREPARER actually use the phrase “they received a return” ?

Yes. We had a CPA who prepares tax returns and does not know the difference between "return" and "refund." Top of her class, I'm sure.

But, damn. Is it truly possible for a mature, working, tax-paying adult to be as utterly stupid as Mr. Potato Head appeared to be? OR, did he know exactly what he was doing and just banked on JM being so dumb she wouldn't figure it out?

Next case concerning a 50-year-old tire deal: So is Levin getting even with us for mocking him? Is this show turning into a joke, an altered "Gong Show"? We have two duffers allowed to take an extended, meandering trip down Memory Lane which includes pictures of them and endless autobiographical, coma-inducing narratives from said duffers over a TIRE?

"Here's a picture of me when I was young, "Yesterday When I Was Young" by Roy Clark". Is there no one else who wants to listen to their dreary, endless stories so they decided they might get an audience here? Why was JM smiling at them so tolerantly? WTF is going on? This case actually offended and angered me. "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" I said out loud as I aggressively hit the FF button. This is bullshit.

I couldn't finish the last case either, with a P who paints only as high as he can reach without a ladder. How the hell does one put a bunch of dents on a fridge anyway? My fridge is over 30 years old and has zero dings and dents in it. Oh, right. People who rent and behave like wild animals in property not their own can dent up appliances.

Even though Droopy Dawg no longer answers his "Hey Harvey" fake letters, he still gets his droopy mug on camera just as much as when he did.

Bunch of stuff and nonsense.

 

[patty1h]

The plaintiff Johnny Quaglia in the "It Wasn't a Loan, You Liar" didn't deserve a dime back after giving money to a hookup he met online. He is ridiculous for going on TV to plead his case -- the world is going to judge him for his stupidity.   He is far too old to try to play naive as he spun his story to make the defendant the bad guy, and make himself look like the generous guy just trying to help another dude out but got scammed.  Him posting nudes of the defendant and pulling some brujo witch shit was cringy.

The defendant Franklin didn't make himself look like an angel, telling a tale of woe of needing money to a stranger after knowing him an hour.  Franklin trying to look like the victim of a predator and make it seem like the nasty old man only wanted sex from him was not a good look.  Him saying that he owes the plaintiff nothing because he took away his dignity was laughable.  These two messes deserve each other, and the whole case left me wanting to take a shower.   I laughed when JM gave them both zero for them being equally trifling. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

The hookup/loan/witchcraft case was strange, even for this show.

(I really thought they scraped the bottom of the barrel with the defendant who was sleeping with a mother, daughter, and sister, apparently at the same time for part of their mutual affair)

The next case is plaintiffs bought a turnkey condo in Estero (?) Florida, but claim that seller/defendant took a lot of items with him that were supposed to be left.     The plaintiffs say contents mean dishes, etc., but defendant took things like his ladders, pizza maker, Keurig, etc.    This is a pretty standard sale in vacation areas, fully furnished, with dishware, linens, etc. included.     The only items the seller takes are their personal clothing, etc., not the appliances, etc. 

Personally, I wouldn't want someone else's used cookware, and small appliances.  However, things like the step ladder and 8-foot ladder, that's not any way 'personal items' for the defendant to take.   

I missed the plaintiffs saying if they were going to live in the condo, or rent it out, but if I was moving into that place, I would trash anyone else's dishes, small appliances, and towel/linens.    Also, even if they are renting it, or living in it, I would still replace a lot of the smaller items, and anything that's fabric.    Who knows how old the stuff was that defendant took with him.   

Edited May 14, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

53 minutes ago, patty1h said:

The plaintiff Johnny Quaglia in the "It Wasn't a Loan, You Liar"

So, all you people who are all, like,  complacent thinking you've seen the most sordid tales that can be shown on afternoon TV? Sorry to disappoint you. Good ol' Droopy Dawg found something even more slimy which somehow surprises me not at all.

Yeah, so at first I was thinking how the stammering, shameless Mr. Quaglia is just a disgusting, lecherous old chickenhawk and the def is a phony, mealy-mouthed, overly-expensive prostitute. But then I remembered how many times I was on a hookup site and had some young stuff contact me, looking for a hot time and a lot of $$$ sympathetic ear of a total stranger in the middle of the night, and how I sent an Uber to pick up this troubled young person so we could talk. I see myself as a mentor, you know. Maybe I did answer the door naked, and ran out to buy ciggies and booze for my new toyboy friend, and okay - I did send 850$ to him, but that's just because I"m a really REALLY nice person. I never expected my visitor - who "pacifically" had only the purist motives,  to do "sex stuff" (heaven forbid!) with me.

Poor sweet, innocent def. here says the last thing on his mind was sex stuff or money. He always hits up strangers at midnight to have heart-to-hearts with him, even though he sent a nude video of his 'private parts' beforehand. I guess that had something to do with his troubled mental state. I'm sure he's never done this before to eke a few dollars from old chickenhawks. He was just looking for friendship. He doesn't care about the money! It's all about principles. He's very big on principles. It was funny how both of them thought JM was too stupid or naive to know what was going on. Gee, Johnny - you revealed all this on national television for everyone who knows you and all for zero dollars. You pathetic fool. Wow, and I thought it was outrageous when FB or CL meatmarket hookups started asking for money after days or a few weeks. This one did it right off the bat.

The case of the turnkey condo paled in comparison to this, but do any of you think you would want someone's old towels, sheets, gunked-up Keurigs and ancient, crumb-filled bread machines? Plaintiff wanted all that and is here suing for it. He paid an extra 4K for all the junk in the condo he bought, but def casually admits that although he agreed to leave everything except a black recliner that he absconded with all the used crap he wanted and left the stuff he didn't want. Whatever.

[Pepper the Cat]

I don’t like these 30 min cases. They just seem to be too drawn out for me. I start to lose interest because they just seem so repetitive.

The first case today just made me want to dump sanitizer on everyone. Ek

[Florinaldo]

I do not understand the attraction of going on national TV to reveal the sordid details and consequences of your stupid life choices. Is the lure of getting half of the award kitty enough or are they simply media whores? Perhaps rentboy defendant thought he could rustle up a few more customers out of the exposure, but what excuse could the plaintiff have?

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiffs say contents mean dishes, etc., but defendant took things like his ladders, pizza maker, Keurig, etc.    This is a pretty standard sale in vacation areas, fully furnished, with dishware, linens, etc. included.     The only items the seller takes are their personal clothing, etc., not the appliances, etc. 

Interesting info. But like you I would not want to keep (much less use) the old linen or cookware from a previous owner. It would be different for a step-ladder as you say.

[AngelaHunter]

50 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I do not understand the attraction of going on national TV to reveal the sordid details and consequences of your stupid life choices. Is the lure of getting half of the award kitty enough or are they simply media whores?

I don't get it either and not just on this show, but people in general appearing on all sorts of trashy talk/reality shows and telling the world the most intimate details of their dirtiest loads of laundry, stuff I wouldn't even tell my best friend.

In Johnny's case I can why he doesn't care who knows how and with whom he gets his freak on when I look at this page of his: *Pornographic images*

NSFW

And Johnny might want to try Grindr or similar. That "Jack'd" site has a lot of unsatisfied customers.

[AngelaHunter]

This was fun, and we got a practical lesson on why it might not be the best idea to move in with someone 3 months after you hook up on a dating site and these are two people WAY old enough to know better.

Def says she found out HE is a violent alcoholic who is being criminally charged for attacking and biting the face of a neighbour(!) but how would she know that? He's also been cheating on her since Day 1 (there are even more desperate women out there than I realized).

P says SHE is a morally bankrupt liar and con artist, which certainly seems to be the case. Typical of people like her, she puts all her ill-doings and criminal activities at arm's length. She says her car had a blown engine and she's been trying to get Jeep to replace the car.  The truth: She stiffed Jeep and they repossessed the car, but she won't admit that. "The payments stopped," she says instead of "I stopped paying them."

Then she embezzled money from her own son's lacrosse team, to the tune of 4K. Of course that wasn't her fault. She just happened to have the team credit card in her pocket and accidentally used it instead of her own card. It happens! She was convicted of that. She admits it was embarassing and hard on her son, but that's not her fault either.

Drunken creep P says she asked him to rent a car for her while hers was "getting repaired"(repo'd) and since he knew little about her, he did it. Two weeks turned into 2 months. She paid 400$ towards it and who gives a damn? P sasses JM - "If you let me finish!" and it's decided these fools will each pay half for the car rental.

Then we had the industrious high school student who runs his own lawncare business in the summer to earn money for college. What a change from  kids his age of the type we usually see on this show, who are crashing Mommy or Daddy's car, trashing hotel rooms, vandalizing property, sending pornographic pics of themselves, or getting knocked up. Nasty old man D stiffs him for lawncare he did on both the old guy's properties. Def counterclaims that P was harassing him because he called him twice to request payment. Shame on you, you old skinflint! Pay the kid his 500$!

[Carolina Girl]

On 5/11/2021 at 12:43 PM, seacliffsal said:

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

The minute she said "the Uniform Commercial Code" I wanted to scream "it's a PRIVATE sale, you idiot!  UCC doesn't apply."  What happened is this twit typed in some search words in Google, up popped the UCC rules and thought she's sound smarter than shit by throwing it out.  You looked stupid, sister.  

[rcc]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

This was fun, and we got a practical lesson on why it might not be the best idea to move in with someone 3 months after you hook up on a dating site and these are two people WAY old enough to know better.

Def says she found out HE is a violent alcoholic who is being criminally charged for attacking and biting the face of a neighbour(!) but how would she know that? He's also been cheating on her since Day 1 (there are even more desperate women out there than I realized).

P says SHE is a morally bankrupt liar and con artist, which certainly seems to be the case. Typical of people like her, she puts all her ill-doings and criminal activities at arm's length. She says her car had a blown engine and she's been trying to get Jeep to replace the car.  The truth: She stiffed Jeep and they repossessed the car, but she won't admit that. "The payments stopped," she says instead of "I stopped paying them."

Then she embezzled money from her own son's lacrosse team, to the tune of 4K. Of course that wasn't her fault. She just happened to have the team credit card in her pocket and accidentally used it instead of her own card. It happens! She was convicted of that. She admits it was embarassing and hard on her son, but that's not her fault either.

Drunken creep P says she asked him to rent a car for her while hers was "getting repaired"(repo'd) and since he knew little about her, he did it. Two weeks turned into 2 months. She paid 400$ towards it and who gives a damn? P sasses JM - "If you let me finish!" and it's decided these fools will each pay half for the car rental.

Then we had the industrious high school student who runs his own lawncare business in the summer to earn money for college. What a change from  kids his age of the type we usually see on this show, who are crashing Mommy or Daddy's car, trashing hotel rooms, vandalizing property, sending pornographic pics of themselves, or getting knocked up. Nasty old man D stiffs him for lawncare he did on both the old guy's properties. Def counterclaims that P was harassing him because he called him twice to request payment. Shame on you, you old skinflint! Pay the kid his 500$!

I am so glad JM awarded the high school kid what he was due. That cheapskate should be ashamed. It was nice to see a high school kid who wants to work and go to college.

[Carolina Girl]

14 hours ago, rcc said:

I am so glad JM awarded the high school kid what he was due. That cheapskate should be ashamed. It was nice to see a high school kid who wants to work and go to college.

$10 says this skinflint has stiffed landscapers all over town.  

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, rcc said:

That cheapskate should be ashamed. It was nice to see a high school kid who wants to work and go to college.

...and spoke properly without a zillion insertions of "like", was respectful, and told a cogent story. It was very refeshing and impressive to see a kid that age who is not afraid of hard work and drummed up all those clients. Most of the people who are two or three times his age on this show do everything they can to avoid doing any work at all.

Mean old Scrooge hated the kid's work and didn't want to pay him but never bothered telling him not to come, oh, no. His email wasn't working or some shit like that and it was 40$, no, 35$, or maybe it was 40$. He doesn't remember. Either figure seems very cheap to me.

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

$10 says this skinflint has stiffed landscapers all over town.

I bet he has too, and did the same blustering nonsense with them, banking they wouldn't bother suing him.

[DoctorK]

17 hours ago, rcc said:

I am so glad JM awarded the high school kid what he was due. That cheapskate should be ashamed.

Yep. I am officially a grumpy old man (have the membership card and everything) but that guy was just a cheap chiseling flaming jerk.

[Carolina Girl]

14 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Yep. I am officially a grumpy old man (have the membership card and everything) but that guy was just a cheap chiseling flaming jerk.

And no disrespect to Judge Marilyn, but a lot of landscapers I know send quarterly bills.  

[NYGirl]

Just now, Carolina Girl said:

And no disrespect to Judge Marilyn, but a lot of landscapers I know send quarterly bills.  

Mine used to charge me at the end of the season.  Once a year.

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

And no disrespect to Judge Marilyn, but a lot of landscapers I know send quarterly bills.  

That should work perfectly well for most people, but then you get customers like the defendant who says 40$ a week sounds fine but when he gets a bill for 160$ all at once for 4 weeks of work yells "I'm not paying all that!"

It's like so many litigants who buy rent-to-own furniture or rims with payments that come with 50% interest but say, "Wow, only 10$ a week! Cheap!" and are unable to see past today.

[Florinaldo]

On 5/15/2021 at 1:11 PM, Carolina Girl said:

And no disrespect to Judge Marilyn, but a lot of landscapers I know send quarterly bills.  

The one used by most people in my neighbourhood bills at the start of each quarter (as do many others in this city). Customers do not mind that practice because he has proven his reliability and efficiency. The first year, the initial billing period was 2 months, which helped establish a relation of trust.

He also does our snow plowing.

[AngelaHunter]

23 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

He also does our snow plowing.

The guy who plows my driveway comes once a year in April for his payment but he knows I'm not going to try to stiff him or bitch about the bill.

Today's tile job case was quite something. I've done some tiling on my own - complete amateur - and it looked a million times better than the job done by drawling goofball Mr.Ed's idiotic son and idiotic son's idiotic little buddy. It was beyond outrageous - for 100$/hr none of the tiles were level, zany groutlines, nothing covered during the demolition so everything was covered in thick dust, mortar flung and left everywhere which does NOT wipe away with a damp cloth after it dries! You need a chisel to get it off.  Couldn't the idiotic boy have Googled how to tile properly?

Motor-mouthed P was annoying but she was completely right. "We don't have no unsatisfied customers", says Mr. Ed in the hall, which I guess is why he didn't want his last name revealed, in case he had a huge influx of demands for his services after people watched this case.

Then we had landlord suing his former tenant for damages above the 515$ deposit, not paying rent and not giving any notice. Def lived there for 7 years and the landlord was kind enough to lower her rent considerably when she was having difficulty paying it. She says downstairs neighbours were smoking which was not allowed and she's allergic, and also that a sex offender was allowed to move in.

She says she couldn't give him notice she was leaving because of the problems with said neighbours. She repeated this non-sequitur answer several times which made JM very frustrated. But the damages this P was suing for - a leaf on the floor of a closet, a speck of dust on another floor, a paper shopping bag left behind, and a small towel rack left in the bathroom were ridiculous. He gets 20$ credit for a towel bar removed in the bathroom. Def has to pay for 3 months of rent she didn't pay. She thinks that since she left before Dec - with zero notice -  she doesn't have to pay, and states that she was going to inform him she was leaving on the day she left when she would have returned the keys, but didn't. He gets all the money she owed for the 3 months, minus the sec. deposit.

[rcc]

I felt bad for the woman in the rental case. Same thing happened to me at a former apartment. I did have a lease which said no smoking but downstairs neighbor lied and smoked. Also added bonus she had a drinking problem and smoked and drank all night and banged furniture against the walls in a drunken stupor at 3 a.m. I now rent a small house and have peace of mind. I hope the woman has the same in her new place. Her big mistake was no notice which I did. 

[AngelaHunter]

50 minutes ago, rcc said:

Same thing happened to me at a former apartment.

When I was renting the neighbours drove me nuts. The ones above stomped around at 5 a.m. and the ones below had loud parties half the night. Someone stole my bicycle and the place hadn't been updated in forever, but I never thought that gave me an excuse to not pay rent for 3 months or to leave without notice. This woman was on a month-to-month and could have left whenever she liked. All P asked was that give notice and she didn't do even that.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the apartment case, was the other tenant smoking inside their apartment?  Or were they the people who smoke right outside the door, or on a patio or balcony, and choke everyone out with smoke?  

[AngelaHunter]

6 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the apartment case, was the other tenant smoking inside their apartment?  Or were they the people who smoke right outside the door, or on a patio or balcony, and choke everyone out with smoke?  

I believe the other tenants said they would smoke in the bathroom with the fan on but apparently the smoke went up the vent or something and into D's apartment.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Or the vent fan exhaust is right outside the apartment, and the smoke goes nowhere. 

[AngelaHunter]

Today's plaintiff is suing def because def's dog got out and bit P on the calf back in 2018. P never bothered telling D she had doctor bills, but instead went to two lawyers - I guess hoping for a big payday - but the lawyers saw no money in it so told her to go to small claims court. The most amazing thing is that a visit to ER where P got a tetanus shot and a prescription for antibiotics cost 2,000$!! P never paid a dime of it, but still. She's awarded the money for that.

Then we had Mr. Lafon suing his former landlord for something or other. Mr. Lafon starts out by saying, "I don't want to go into much detail" and then proceeds to go into such excruciating detail and digressions that I had to turn this off as he was boring me into a coma.

[Chellichik]

Watching today's case with the case about the pit bull NOT being a pitbull.

Why in the hell does anyone pay $2000 for an "American Pit Bull"???  That's not even a recognized breed.  You can find pit bulls by the dozen in every animal shelter in the USA.  Whatever registration these papers are from is a load of crap.

[AZChristian]

Loved JM and her Carmen Miranda shirt. Not to mention the guy who kept his records in a vanilla envelope.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Chellichik said:

Why in the hell does anyone pay $2000 for an "American Pit Bull"???  

I’m more disturbed by the notion that people “throw away” a dog like you and I would throw away a paper towel.

What kind of person thinks this is okay?

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess the not Pit was supposed to be a Hog Dog (as shown on the video), as a way of showing his fighting ability, and probably from fighting lines.  So the registration was just a smoke screen for "the dog lost his fights", and no one wanted to pay a ton for his off spring.  

[AngelaHunter]

The sister of the late Tony, who was 73 at his time of his passing last year, is suing Tony's beloved fiance for a bunch of stuff Tony had.  We had a car and bedroom "suit" P loaned Tony when Tony's fiance's preggo daughter (SSM, naturally) went to bunk at their house and jewelry - Tony LOVED jewelry -  and all that crap. Apparently fiance pawned all this jewlery.

Tony had children and neither of these litigants seemed to understand that when someone dies without a will ("Did Tony have a will?" JM asks. Oh, please!) that sisters and girlfriends are not first on the receiving line.

Sister P was permitted to reel off reams of hearsay evidence. Of course, it was ignored so why let her ramble on this way? Whatever. She said that Tony's betrothed is a gambling and drug addict who gave Tony COVID and his last words to his sister were, "She did this to me." Seems Tony had some health issues and JM is quite adamant that it was his reponsibility to take care of himself.

JM orders P to return to def the birth certificate and social security card P left in the car that P took. Who leaves such things in a car? Oh, well. She tells P if she wants to fight about Tony's massive estate she needs to go to probate court and get herself appointed executrix. P doesn't want to do that because some lawyer told her that she will then have to pay all of Tony's equally massive debt.

However I really did believe the accusations that the bride-to-be pawned all Tony's crap and that she is an addict (even though she works at the post office!)

The fiance:

 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by AngelaHunter

[Katy M]

17 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

P doesn't want to do that because some lawyer told her that she will then have to pay all of Tony's equally massive debt.

If his debt was massively equal, it seems to me that's where his assets should go and they're literally fighting over nothing.

[AZChristian]

I follow TPC on Facebook.  Thought you all might enjoy this "behind the scenes" picture of the courtroom/discussion corner in JM's house.  You can even see the two TV screens to make sure she's looking in the right direction at the plaintiffs and defendants.

[rcc]

53 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

The sister of the late Tony, who was 73 at his time of his passing last year, is suing Tony's beloved fiance for a bunch of stuff Tony had.  We had a car and bedroom "suit" P loaned Tony when Tony's fiance's preggo daughter (SSM, naturally) went to bunk at their house and jewelry - Tony LOVED jewelry -  and all that crap. Apparently fiance pawned all this jewlery.

Tony had children and neither of these litigants seemed to understand that when someone dies without a will ("Did Tony have a will?" JM asks. Oh, please!) that sisters and girlfriends are not first on the receiving line.

Sister P was permitted to reel off reams of hearsay evidence. Of course, it was ignored so why let her ramble on this way? Whatever. She said that Tony's betrothed is a gambling and drug addict who gave Tony COVID and his last words to his sister were, "She did this to me." Seems Tony had some health issues and JM is quite adamant that it was his reponsibility to take care of himself.

JM orders P to return to def the birth certificate and social security card P left in the car that P took. Who leaves such things in a car? Oh, well. She tells P if she wants to fight about Tony's massive estate she needs to go to probate court and get herself appointed executrix. P doesn't want to do that because some lawyer told her that she will then have to pay all of Tony's equally massive debt.

However I really did believe the accusations that the bride-to-be pawned all Tony's crap and that she is an addict (even though she works at the post office!)

The fiance:

 

 

SSM? Meaning?

[AZChristian]

34 minutes ago, rcc said:

SSM? Meaning?

Sainted Single Mother 

[rcc]

11 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Sainted Single Mother 

Thanks

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I follow TPC on Facebook.  Thought you all might enjoy this "behind the scenes" picture of the courtroom/discussion corner in JM's house.  You can even see the two TV screens to make sure she's looking in the right direction at the plaintiffs and defendants.

Interesting. Thanks!

[Guest]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The sister of the late Tony, who was 73 at his time of his passing last year, is suing Tony's beloved fiance for a bunch of stuff Tony had.  We had a car and bedroom "suit" P loaned Tony when Tony's fiance's preggo daughter (SSM, naturally) went to bunk at their house and jewelry - Tony LOVED jewelry -  and all that crap. Apparently fiance pawned all this jewlery.

The fiance:

Nice.

Even though she is no longer betrothed to “jewelry-lovin’” Tony I can still envision this delicate flower bedecked in bridal wear.   My vision includes a parasol, crinoline and a picture hat.  In a blinding, virginal white tone of course.  Oh, and Compound W.  

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

30 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Nice.

Even though she is no longer betrothed to “jewelry-lovin’” Tony I can still envision this delicate flower bedecked in bridal wear.   My vision includes a parasol, crinoline and a picture hat.  In a blinding, virginal white tone of course.  Oh, and Compound W.  

 

 

Yes, of course. Pretty as a picture, as long as she doesn't open her mouth to reveal the frightening, shark-like grill within.

[Primal Slayer]

5 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I follow TPC on Facebook.  Thought you all might enjoy this "behind the scenes" picture of the courtroom/discussion corner in JM's house.  You can even see the two TV screens to make sure she's looking in the right direction at the plaintiffs and defendants.

I wonder when they'll bring her back back into the studio with everything lifting

[Carolina Girl]

26 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

I wonder when they'll bring her back back into the studio with everything lifting

I wonder if Judge John is doing crossword puzzles like Bird does.   

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I wonder if Judge John is doing crossword puzzles like Bird does.   

That was my first thought.😄

I like how they reproduced that cheesy, cheap "TPC" background so perfectly on what seems to be paper(?) held in place with clamps.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The worst part of the judges' discussion corner, and the courtroom is that it's part of the living room, and the dog had that as her domain for snoozing.   

Today's bizarre new episode, "Cranky Customer".  Case 1, Defendant buys used, 'as is'  canoe from plaintiff, then says it's not the type he wanted (metal, vs. wood), and leaks, and it's a death trap for his children.   He reversed the charges with Pay Pal, so plaintiff is out his money.    As usual, the defendant has texts, but can't find them, and plaintiff gets his $250, plus $100 more.   The unused canoe is upside down, next to the lake, and obviously ready to go.   The plaintiff says defendant is very wealthy, and pulls this stuff on people all of the time.   Then in the hall-terview with Doug, the plaintiff does a couple of minutes saying how wonderful TPC, the judge, and everything else is.  

Then, an even more bizarre case #2.   Plaintiff buys commercial space, with a lot of tenants in place, including a dog groomer.    The groomer business has been owned by the wife for over 20 years in the same location.   Even stranger, the husband is constantly blinking, and the wife never blinks.    Plaintiff wants to up the rent, but plaintiff claims his month-to-month tenants are deadbeats, and refuse to pay the increased rent plaintiff wants. 

 The defendants are month-to-month, and are whining because previous building owner only had the month-to-month, and she wants to still act as if the previous rental amount is still in effect, and defendant never paid the back rent, and now claims she moving out in March.   

Defendant doesn't give a month's notice, and her security deposit, if it was ever paid, went to three owners ago, not the current one, or the previous one.   Judge Marilyn says plaintiff didn't give defendant 30 days notice of the rent increase, but defendant never paid the rent for January anyway.   So for lack of notice, plaintiff gets the original February rent, and defendants lose.   

Edited May 25, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's bizarre new episode, "Cranky Customer".

This was quite interesting. Plaintiff, Mr. Samen, is suing for the price of an old canoe he sold Def for 250$. Def claims he wanted an aluminum canoe, P delivered it after dark so even with his flashlight Def couldn't tell it wasn't alumininum and that it had a bunch of patches on it. Def. children step into the canoe the next day and there was a sound like cracking eggshells! So of course he had the payment he made reversed. He shouldn't have to pay for this old garbage canoe for which he paid peanuts and for which he agreed was sold "As is" with "no return policy".

JM wants to see the canoe, so Def takes his laptop outside and JM sees what we all see - that def lives in a very, very nice house with a gorgeous property right on the lake (and the canoe sitting right there overturned at the water's edge) yet he's stiffing P for 250$. He insists he called and texted P many times about how unsafe this canoe is, and yes he has the phone records and texts, but not in front of him. If JM will only give him a day or two he can present them!  P was annoying in the extreme but I can see why he was so angry. You would think someone who lives in a place like this could buy a new canoe especially where the safety of the children is concerned. Yes, I'm sure def's home is worth in the millions but maybe that's how he gets money - by shafting people. He says he buys "lots" of stuff on CL. I wonder how many others he's cheated this way who just didn't feel it was worth it to sue him? Rather than pay such a tiny sum he prefers to appear here as a vile scammer.

Def is utterly and totally shameless about this mean little cheating and lying, so much so that JM awards P an extra 100$. In the hall, P goes on at length about how "Justice has been serve-ed" which is how my CC wrote it.

Edited May 25, 2021 by AngelaHunter
Plaintiff and Defendant are not the same!

[rcc]

52 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

This was quite interesting. Plaintiff, Mr. Samen, is suing for the price of an old canoe he sold Def for 250$. Def claims he wanted an aluminum canoe, P delivered it after dark so even with his flashlight Def couldn't tell it wasn't alumininum and that it had a bunch of patches on it. Def. children step into the canoe the next day and there was a sound like cracking eggshells! So of course he had the payment he made reversed. He shouldn't have to pay for this old garbage canoe for which he paid peanuts and for which he agreed was sold "As is" with "no return policy".

JM wants to see the canoe, so Def takes his laptop outside and JM sees what we all see - that def lives in a very, very nice house with a gorgeous property right on the lake (and the canoe sitting right there overturned at the water's edge) yet he's stiffing P for 250$. He insists he called and texted P many times about how unsafe this canoe is, and yes he has the phone records and texts, but not in front of him. If JM will only give him a day or two he can present them!  P was annoying in the extreme but I can see why he was so angry. You would think someone who lives in a place like this could buy a new canoe especially where the safety of the children is concerned. Yes, I'm sure def's home is worth in the millions but maybe that's how he gets money - by shafting people. He says he buys "lots" of stuff on CL. I wonder how many others he's cheated this way who just didn't feel it was worth it to sue him? Rather than pay such a tiny sum he prefers to appear here as a vile scammer.

P is utterly and totally shameless about this mean little cheating and lying, so much so that JM awards P an extra 100$. In the hall, P goes on at length about how "Justice has been serve-ed" which is how my CC wrote it.

With a house like that and the beautiful bookcases behind him he should be ashamed buying an old canoe like that for his kids. 

[Guest]

21 hours ago, rcc said:

With a house like that and the beautiful bookcases behind him he should be ashamed buying an old canoe like that for his kids. 

As my nana would probably say “how do you think he was able to afford those beautiful bookcases?  By skimping on a canoe for his kids”.

Nana was wise and didn’t miss a thing.